Changes in Use of Left Ventricular Assist Devices as Bridge to Transplantation With New Heart Allocation Policy

被引:86
|
作者
Mullan, Clancy W. [1 ]
Chouairi, Fouad [2 ]
Sen, Sounok [3 ]
Mori, Makoto [1 ]
Clark, Katherine A. A. [3 ]
Reinhardt, Samuel W. [3 ]
Miller, P. Elliott [3 ]
Fuery, Michael A. [2 ]
Jacoby, Daniel [3 ]
Maulion, Christopher [3 ]
Anwer, Muhammad [1 ]
Geirsson, Arnar [1 ]
Mulligan, David [4 ]
Formica, Richard [4 ,5 ]
Rogers, Joseph G. [6 ]
Desai, Nihar R. [3 ]
Ahmad, Tariq [3 ]
机构
[1] Yale Sch Med, Div Cardiac Surg, 330 Cedar St,BB 204,POB 208039, New Haven, CT 06510 USA
[2] Yale Sch Med, Dept Internal Med, New Haven, CT USA
[3] Yale Sch Med, Sect Cardiovasc Med, New Haven, CT USA
[4] Yale Sch Med, Div Transplantat, New Haven, CT USA
[5] Yale Sch Med, Sect Nephrol, New Haven, CT USA
[6] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Div Cardiol, Durham, NC 27710 USA
关键词
bridge to transplantation; health policy; heart transplantation; left ventricular assist device; MEDICAL-MANAGEMENT; FAILURE PATIENTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jchf.2021.01.010
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to describe outcomes of patients with bridge to heart transplantation (BTT) after changes were made to the donor heart allocation system. BACKGROUND Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been used as a BTT. On October 18, 2018, the donor heart allocation system in the United States was updated. METHODS This study identified adults in the United Network for Organ Sharing database with durable, continuous-flow LVAD at listing or implanted while listed between April 2017 and April 2020. Baseline recipient and donor characteristics, waitlist survival, and post-transplantation outcomes were compared pre- and post-allocation system change. RESULTS A total of 1,794 patients met inclusion criteria: 983 in the pre-change period and 814 afterward. The number of patients listed with LVAD decreased nationally over time from 102 in April 2017 to 12 in April 2020 (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with LVAD at time of transplant decreased from 47% to 14%. Before the change, the majority were Status 1A (75.8%) at transplantation; afterward, most were Status 2/3 (67.8%). Transplantation rates were not different (85.4% vs. 83.6%; p = 0.225), but waitlist time decreased in the post period (82 vs. 65 days; p = 0.004). Donors were more likely to be high risk (39.0% vs. 32.2%; p = 0.005), and both ischemic times and distance traveled increased (3.4 h vs. 3.1 h; p < 0.001; 199 miles vs. 82 miles; p < 0.001). Waitlist survival did not change, but post-transplantation survival was worse in patients with BTT post-change (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The number of patients with BTT on the transplant list decreased steadily and dramatically after the allocation system change. Although time to transplant decreased, there was an increase in post-transplant mortality. These data suggest that the risks and benefits of LVAD implantation as a BTT have changed under the new allocation system and that the appropriate indication for this treatment strategy warrants a re-evaluation. (C) 2021 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
引用
收藏
页码:420 / 429
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Results of the use of short-medium duration ventricular assist devices as a bridge to heart transplantation
    Dominguez-Massa, Carlos
    Perez-Guillen, Manuel
    Sirgo-Gonzalez, Javier
    Briz-Echeverria, Paulina M.
    Rincon-Almanza, Jose A.
    Aguirre-Ramon, Claudia M.
    Heredia-Cambra, Tomas
    Dalmau-Sorli, Maria J.
    Torregrosa-Puerta, Salvador
    Martin-Gonzalez, Ivan
    Tebar-Boti, Eduardo
    Valera-Martinez, Francisco J.
    Martinez-Leon, Juan B.
    CIRUGIA CARDIOVASCULAR, 2022, 29 (06): : 319 - 322
  • [22] Long-term results with left ventricular assist devices as bridge to heart transplantation: the Niguarda experience
    Lanfranconi, M
    Bruschi, G
    Ribera, E
    Russo, C
    Colombo, T
    Oliva, F
    Frigerio, M
    Vitali, E
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2002, 23 : 619 - 619
  • [23] Bridge to heart transplantation with second and third generation continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices
    Jurmann, M. J.
    Weng, Y.
    Drews, T.
    Pasic, M.
    Hennig, E.
    Kaufmann, F.
    Potapov, E.
    Hetzer, R.
    JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION, 2007, 26 (02): : S253 - S253
  • [24] The Swedish experience of left ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplantation
    Cabreira, A.
    Bergh, C. -H.
    Kornhall, B.
    Wiklund, L.
    Granfeldt, H.
    Dahlstrom, U. G.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2005, 26 : 513 - 513
  • [25] Use of Ventricular Assist Devices and Heart Transplantation for Advanced Heart Failure
    Miller, Leslie
    Birks, Emma
    Guglin, Maya
    Lamba, Harveen
    Frazier, O. H.
    CIRCULATION RESEARCH, 2019, 124 (11) : 1658 - 1678
  • [26] Long Term Left Ventricular Assist Device as Bridge to Heart Transplantation - is it Really a Bridge?
    Uriel, Nir
    Pak, Sang-Woo
    Biscotti, Mauer
    Kachniarz, Bartlomiej
    Sims, Daniel
    Takayama, Hiroo
    Naka, Yoshifumi
    Mancini, Donna
    Jorde, Ulrich P.
    CIRCULATION, 2010, 122 (21)
  • [27] Biventricular Assist Devices as a Bridge to Heart Transplantation Under the New Donor Heart Allocation System in the United States
    Prasad, Mark
    Mishaev, Raffael
    Bhamidipati, Castigliano
    Aldweib, Nael
    Colaco, Nalini
    Masha, Luke
    ASAIO JOURNAL, 2023, 69 (10) : 902 - 906
  • [28] Indications for Heart Transplantation in Current Era of Left Ventricular Assist Devices
    Milla, Federico
    Pinney, Sean P.
    Anyanwu, Anelechi C.
    MOUNT SINAI JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2012, 79 (03): : 305 - 316
  • [29] Bridging the Disparities Gap to Heart Transplantation With Left Ventricular Assist Devices
    Okoh, Alexis K.
    Singh, Supreet
    Hirji, Sameer
    ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2020, 110 (02): : 754 - 756
  • [30] Left ventricular assist devices and the failing heart - A bridge to recovery, a permanent assist device, or a bridge too far?
    Mann, DL
    Willerson, JT
    CIRCULATION, 1998, 98 (22) : 2367 - 2369