Mechanical Circulatory Support Pathways That Maximize Post-Heart Transplant Survival

Impact of Temporary Preoperative Mechanical Support on Heart Transplant Outcomes

We sought to assess the impact of temporary preoperative mechanical circulatory support (TPMCS) on heart transplantation outcomes. A total of 4,060 adult heart transplants from June 1, 2006, to December 31, 2019, were identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database as having TPMCS. Recipients were divided into groups based on their type of TPMCS: intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), temporary ventricular assist device (VAD), biventricular assist device (BIVAD), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Perioperative outcomes and survival were compared among groups. Recipients with IABP were associated with older age, a smoking history, and a significantly shorter wait list time ( p < 0.01). Recipients with ECMO had a significantly increased in-hospital mortality as well as an increased incidence of dialysis ( p < 0.01). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed worse 1 and 5 year survival for recipients with ECMO. Cox model demonstrated a significantly increased risk of mortality with BIVAD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.12-1.57; p < 0.01) and ECMO (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.33-2.03; p < 0.01). While patients with IABP have a survival comparable to patients without TPMCS or durable left VAD, outcomes for BIVADs and ECMO are not as favorable. Transplantation centers must continue to make careful choices about the type of TPMCS utilized before heart transplant.

Prognostic implications of inactive status in highest urgency categories among heart transplantation recipients in the new donor heart allocation system

BACKGROUND

Patients on the waiting list for heart transplantation (HT) can become inactive or made status seven because of medical reasons, such adverse events, complications, or psychosocial circumstances. If the condition that caused the inactivation is resolved, patients are re- activated. Information about the prognostic implications of Status 7 in the new donor heart allocation system has not been described. To bridge this knowledge gap, we performed an analysis of the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry.

METHODS

Data on adult patients who underwent HT between October 18th, 2018 and October 2021, were queried from the UNOS registry. The main outcomes were post- transplant all-cause mortality, 1-year all-cause mortality and treated acute rejection. Since re-transplantation is a competing event for all-cause mortality, we performed competing risk survival analysis and reported sub distribution hazard ratios (SHR) from the Fine and Gray model to examine the relationship between inactive status and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 5267 adult patients underwent HT and were previously listed as Status 1 or Status 2 in the new allocation system. We identified 946 HT recipients temporarily inactivated while on HT list (18%). The number of temporarily inactive patients remained stable since the implementation of the new donor allocation system (p = .37). Approximately, two-thirds of temporarily inactive patients (65.9%) were inactivated for being too sick, whereas other frequent justifications for inactivity included left ventricular assist device implantation (7.8%) and insurance related issues (4.8%). Temporarily inactive HT recipients were more likely to be African Americans, males, have a higher body mass index (BMI) and significantly longer waiting time (391.6 ± 600 vs. 72.3 ± 223 days, p < .001) compared with never inactivated patients. In the unadjusted analyses 30-day mortality did not differ between groups, but both 1-year and overall all-cause mortality was significantly higher in temporarily inactive patients (1-year: SHR: 1.3; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.03, 1.64; p = .028, overall mortality SHR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.64; p = .014). After adjustment for donor and recipient characteristics, a trend towards higher 1-year and overall mortality remained (1-year: SHR 1.32; 95% CI .99, 1.76, p = .006, overall mortality SHR: 1.29; 95% CI: .98-1.68, p = .065). No differences in treated acute allograft rejection at 1 year were found between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporary inactive status while waiting for HT occurs in approximately one in five HT recipients listed in higher urgency categories after the implementation of the new allocation system. A signal of adverse long-term outcomes was found, and this could be explained by differences in recipient characteristics. Further research is required to elucidate pathways involved and possible implications for clinical practice.

Outcomes after heart transplantation in patients who have undergone a bridge-to-bridge strategy

Objectives

We compared posttransplant outcomes between patients bridged from temporary mechanical circulatory support to durable left ventricular assist device before transplant (bridge-to-bridge [BTB] strategy) and patients bridged from temporary mechanical circulatory support directly to transplant (bridge-to-transplant [BTT] strategy).

Methods

We identified adult heart transplant recipients in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database between 2005 and 2020 who were supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, intra-aortic balloon pump, or temporary ventricular assist device as a BTB or BTT strategy. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regressions were used to assess 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year survival. Posttransplant length of stay and complications were compared as secondary outcomes.

Results

In total, 201 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (61 BTB, 140 BTT), 1385 intra-aortic balloon pump (460 BTB, 925 BTT), and 234 temporary ventricular assist device (75 BTB, 159 BTT) patients were identified. For patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, intra-aortic balloon pump, or temporary ventricular assist device, there were no differences in survival between BTB and BTT at 1 and 5 years posttransplant, as well as 10 years posttransplant even after adjusting for baseline characteristics. The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation BTB group had greater rates of acute rejection (32.8% vs 13.6%; P = .002) and lower rates of dialysis (1.6% vs 21.4%; P < .001). For intra-aortic balloon pump and temporary ventricular assist device patients, there were no differences in posttransplant length of stay, acute rejection, airway compromise, stroke, dialysis, or pacemaker insertion between BTB and BTT recipients.

Conclusions

BTB patients have similar short- and midterm posttransplant survival as BTT patients. Future studies should continue to investigate the tradeoff between prolonged temporary mechanical circulatory support versus transitioning to durable mechanical circulatory support.

Bridge to transplantation from mechanical circulatory support: a narrative review

Objective

To highlight recent developments in the utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices as bridge-to-transplant strategies and to discuss trends in MCS use following the changes to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation system.

Background

MCS devices have played an increasingly important role in the treatment of heart failure patients. Over the past several years, technological advancements have led to new developments in MCS devices and expanding indications for MCS use. In October of 2018, the UNOS heart allocation policy was revised to prioritize higher-urgency patients, including those supported with temporary MCS devices. Since then, changes in trends of MCS utilization have been observed.

Methods

Articles from the PubMed database regarding the use of MCS devices as bridge-to-transplant strategies were reviewed.

Conclusions

Over the past decade, utilization of temporary MCS devices, which include the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), has become increasingly common. Recent advancements in MCS include the development of pVADs that can fully unload the left ventricle (LV) as well as devices designed to provide right-sided support. Technological advancements in durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have also led to improved outcomes both on the device and following heart transplantation. Following the 2018 UNOS heart allocation policy revision, the utilization of temporary MCS in advanced heart failure patients has further increased and the proportion of patients bridged directly from a temporary MCS device has exponentially risen. However, following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trends have reversed, with a decrease in the percentage of patients bridged from a temporary MCS device. As long-term data following the allocation policy revision becomes available, future studies should investigate how trends in MCS use for patients with advanced heart failure continue to evolve.

Impact of Durable Ventricular Assist Device Support on Outcomes of Patients with Congenital Heart Disease Waiting for Heart Transplant

The number of congenital heart disease (CHD) patients with heart failure is expanding. These patients have a high probability of dying while awaiting heart transplant. The potential for durable ventricular assist devices (VAD) to improve waiting list survival in CHD is unknown. We conducted an analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database for the primary outcome of death or delisting due to clinical worsening while listed for heart transplant. We compared CHD patients with non-CHD patients matched for listing status. Multivariable models were constructed to account for confounding variables. Congenital heart disease patients were less likely to have a VAD and were more likely to experience the primary outcome of death or delisting due to clinical worsening compared to non-CHD patients. Ventricular assist devices decreased the probability of experiencing the primary outcome for non-CHD but not for CHD patients with a final listing status of 1A. Ventricular assist devices increased the probability of experiencing the primary outcome among CHD patients for those with a final listing status of 1B with no impact in non-CHD patients. Among non-CHD patients who died or were delisted, the time to the primary outcome was delayed by VAD, with a similar trend in CHD. Except for patients with a final listing status of 1B, VAD does not adversely affect waiting list outcomes in CHD patients listed for heart transplant. Ventricular assist devices may prolong waiting list survival among high-risk CHD patients.

Acceptable Post-Heart Transplant Outcomes Support Temporary MCS Prioritization in the New OPTN|UNOS Heart Allocation Policy

BACKGROUND

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are generally used short term to maintain adequate organ perfusion in patients with advanced heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Unacceptably high waitlist mortality in this cohort motivated changes to heart allocation policy, which recognized the severity of illness by prioritization for temporary MCS and broader sharing in the new U.S. donor heart allocation policy. We evaluated the post-heart transplant outcomes for patients bridged with temporary MCS, a control population not bridged with MCS, and a cohort bridged with durable MCS.

METHODS

The heart transplant research database was queried to identify patients bridged with temporary MCS and bridged with durable MCS who went directly to heart transplant in our center. Temporary MCS included Impella, intra-aortic balloon pump, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Post-transplant endpoints were assessed at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2017, a total of 23 patients were bridged to heart transplant with temporary MCS and 548 were transplanted without MCS bridge. Patients bridged with temporary MCS had younger age, lower body mass index, and higher frequencies of prior blood transfusion and Status 1 (1A/1B) listing at transplant compared to patients not bridged with MCS (all P < .001). Despite the severity of illness in patients bridged with temporary MCS, post-transplant outcomes were indistinguishable from those in patients transplanted without MCS bridge, with no difference in 30-day, 6-month, or 1-year survival or 1-year freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events, any-treated rejection, acute cellular rejection, or antibody-mediated rejection (P = .23-.97). Similarly, compared to 157 patients bridged with durable MCS, no differences in post-transplant outcomes were identified for the temporary MCS cohort (P = .15-.94).

CONCLUSION

Temporary MCS as a bridge to transplant achieves similar post-transplant outcomes at 1 year compared to no MCS and durable MCS. These encouraging findings support recent changes in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network | United Network Organ Sharing (OPTN|UNOS) adult heart allocation policy.

VA-ECMO for cardiogenic shock in the contemporary era of heart transplantation: Which patients should be urgently transplanted?

With the impending United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation policy giving VA-ECMO supported heart transplant (HT) candidates highest priority status (Tier 1), identifying patients in cardiogenic shock (CS) with severe and irreversible heart failure (HF) appropriate for urgent HT is critically important. In a center where wait times currently preclude this approach, we retrospectively reviewed 119 patients (ages 18-72) with CS from 1/2014 to 12/2016 who required VA-ECMO for >24 hours. Underlying aetiologies included postcardiotomy shock (45), acute coronary syndromes (33), and acute-on-chronic HF (16). Eighty-four percent of patients (100) had ≥1 contraindication to HT with 61.3% (73) having preexisting contraindications (eg, multiorgan dysfunction and substance abuse), and 68.1% (81) experienced preclusive complications (eg, renal failure, coagulopathy, and infection). Potential HT candidates were significantly more likely to survive to discharge (potential HT candidates 84.2% vs preexisting contraindications 43.8% vs contraindications developing on VA-ECMO 33.3%, P = 0.001). Among potential HT candidates, 11 (68.8%) were discharged without advanced therapies and 4 received durable left ventricular assist device (25.0%). Importantly, 1-year survival was 100% for the 11 patients with follow-up. Thus, further work is critical to define appropriate candidates for HT from VA-ECMO while avoiding preemptive transplantation in those with otherwise favorable outcomes.

Clinical outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support as a direct bridge to heart transplantation: a nationwide Spanish registry

BACKGROUND

In Spain, listing for high-urgent heart transplantation is allowed for critically ill candidates not weanable from temporary mechanical circulatory support (T-MCS). We sought to analyse the clinical outcomes of this strategy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a case-by-case, retrospective review of clinical records of 291 adult patients listed for high-urgent heart transplantation under temporary devices from 2010 to 2015 in 16 Spanish institutions. Survival after listing and adverse clinical events were studied. At the time of listing, 169 (58%) patients were supported on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), 70 (24%) on temporary left ventricular assist devices (T-LVAD) and 52 (18%) on temporary biventricular assist devices (T-BiVAD). Seven patients transitioned from VA-ECMO to temporary ventricular assist devices while on the waiting list. Mean time on T-MCS was 13.1 ± 12.6 days. Mean time from listing to transplantation was 7.6 ± 8.5 days. Overall, 230 (79%) patients were transplanted and 54 (18.6%) died during MCS. In-hospital postoperative mortality after transplantation was 33.3%, 11.9% and 26.2% for patients bridged on VA-ECMO, T-LVAD and T-BiVAD, respectively (P = 0.008). Overall survival from listing to hospital discharge was 54.4%, 78.6% and 55.8%, respectively (P = 0.002). T-LVAD support was independently associated with a lower risk of death over the first year after listing (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.92). Patients treated with VA-ECMO showed the highest incidence rate of adverse clinical events associated with T-MCS.

CONCLUSION

Temporary devices may be used to bridge critically ill candidates directly to heart transplantation in a setting of short waiting list times, as is the case of Spain. In our series, bridging with T-LVAD was associated with more favourable outcomes than bridging with T-BiVAD or VA-ECMO.

Bridge with a left ventricular assist device to a simultaneous heart and kidney transplant: Review of the United Network for Organ Sharing database

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation as a bridge to cardiac transplantation (BTT) is an effective treatment for end-stage heart failure patients. Currently, there is an increasing number of patients with a LVAD who need a heart and kidney transplant (HKT). Little is known of the prognostic outcomes in these patients. This study was undertaken to determine whether an equivalent outcome would be present in HKTs as compared to a non-LVAD primary HKT cohort.

METHODS

We reviewed the United Network for Organ Sharing database from 2004 to 2013. Orthotropic heart transplant recipients (n = 49 799) were subcategorized as dual organ HKT (n = 1 921) and then divided into cohorts of HKT following continuous flow left ventricular assist device placement (CF-VAD-HKT, n = 113) or no LVAD placement (HKT, n = 1 808). Survival after transplantation was analyzed.

RESULTS

For CF-LVAD-HKT and HKT cohorts, preoperative characteristics were similar regarding age (50.8 ± 13.7, 50.1 ± 13.7, p = 0.75) and panel reactive antibody (12.3 ± 18.4 vs 7.1 ± 18.4, p = 0.06). Donors were similar in age, gender, creatinine, and ejection fraction. Post-transplant, there was no difference in complications. Survival for CF-LVAD-HKT and HKT were similar at 1 year (77% vs 82%) and 3 years (75% vs 77%, log rank p = 0.2814).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with advanced heart failure and persistent renal dysfunction, simultaneous HKT is a safe option. Survival after CF-LVAD-HKT is equivalent to conventional HKT.

The Use of Pediatric Ventricular Assist Devices in Children's Hospitals From 2000 to 2010: Morbidity, Mortality, and Hospital Charges

OBJECTIVE

The use of ventricular assist devices has increased dramatically in adult heart failure patients. However, the overall use, outcome, comorbidities, and resource utilization of ventricular assist devices in pediatric patients have not been well described. We sought to demonstrate that the use of ventricular assist devices in pediatric patients has increased over time and that mortality has decreased.

DESIGN

A retrospective study of the Pediatric Health Information System database was performed for patients 20 years old or younger undergoing ventricular assist device placement from 2000 to 2010.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Four hundred seventy-five pediatric patients were implanted with ventricular assist devices during the study period: 69 in 2000-2003 (era 1), 135 in 2004-2006 (era 2), and 271 in 2007-2010 (era 3). Median age at ventricular assist device implantation was 6.0 years (interquartile range, 0.5-13.8), and the proportion of children who were 1-12 years old increased from 29% in era 1 to 47% in era 3 (p = 0.002). The majority of patients had a diagnosis of cardiomyopathy; this increased from 52% in era 1 to 72% in era 3 (p = 0.003). Comorbidities included arrhythmias (48%), pulmonary hypertension (16%), acute renal failure (34%), cerebrovascular disease (28%), and sepsis/systemic inflammatory response syndrome (34%). Two hundred forty-seven patients (52%) underwent heart transplantation and 327 (69%) survived to hospital discharge. Hospital mortality decreased from 42% in era 1 to 25% in era 3 (p = 0.004). Median hospital length of stay increased (37 d [interquartile range, 12-64 d] in era 1 vs 69 d [interquartile range, 35-130] in era 3; p < 0.001) and median adjusted hospital charges increased ($630,630 [interquartile range, $227,052-$853,318] in era 1 vs $1,577,983 [interquartile range, $874,463-$2,280,435] in era 3; p < 0.001). Factors associated with increased mortality include age less than 1 year (odds ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.01-3.83), acute renal failure (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.26-3.65), cerebrovascular disease (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.25-3.62), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (odds ratio, 3.16; 95% CI, 1.79-5.60). Ventricular assist device placement in era 3 (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.15-0.57) and a diagnosis of cardiomyopathy (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84), were associated with decreased mortality. Large-volume centers had lower mortality (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.88), lower use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and higher charges.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ventricular assist devices and survival after ventricular assist device placement in pediatric patients have increased over time, with a concomitant increase in resource utilization. Age under 1 year, certain noncardiac morbidities, and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation are associated with worse outcomes. Lower mortality was seen at larger volume ventricular assist device centers.

Ventricular assist devices in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ventricular assist devices (VADs) have revolutionized heart failure management in adults. Recently, VADs have similarly taken a prominent role in the management of end-stage heart failure in children. The purpose of this review is to describe the indications for VADs in children, types of devices available, current outcomes, and future directions of VAD therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been a dramatic increase in VAD utilization in children over the last decade. For small children, paracorporeal pneumatic pulsatile pumps (e.g., Berlin Heart EXCOR VAD, Berlin Heart GmbH, Berlin, Germany) are most commonly utilized for long-term support. In older children, intracorporeal continuous flow devices (e.g., HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist System, Thoratec Corporation, Pleasanton, California, USA and HeartWare Ventricular Assist System, HeartWare Incorporated, Framingham, Massachusetts, USA) have been used and allow the possibility of destination therapy. Other devices, such as the total artificial heart, can be utilized for selected patients. Although overall outcomes of pediatric VADs are favorable, complication rates remain high. The utilization of VADs in complex circulations, such as single ventricle patients, remains infrequent and is associated with a high rate of adverse outcomes.

SUMMARY

VADs are well-established treatment for end-stage heart failure in children. Further investigation is needed to refine patient selection criteria, minimize complications, and develop additional pediatric-specific devices.

Ventricular assist devices or inotropic agents in status 1A patients? Survival analysis of the United Network of Organ Sharing database

BACKGROUND

Improved outcomes as well as lack of donor hearts have increased the use of ventricular assist devices (VADs), rather than inotropic support, for bridging to transplantation. Recognizing that organ allocation in the highest status patients remains controversial, we sought to compare outcomes of patients with VADs and those receiving advanced medical therapy.

METHODS

The United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was used to compare survival on the waiting list and posttransplantation survival in status 1A heart transplantation patients receiving VADs or high-dose/dual inotropic therapy or an intraaortic balloon pump( IABP), or both. Adjusted survival was calculated using Cox's proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

Adjusted 1-year posttransplantation mortality was higher among patients with VADs compared with patients receiving inotropic agents alone (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; p<0.05). Survival remained better for patients receiving inotropic agents alone in the post-2008 era (HR, 1.36; p=0.03) and among those with isolated left-sided support (HR, 1.33; p=0.008). When patients who received IABPs were added and analyzed after 2008, the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) group had similar survival (HR, 1.2; p=0.3). Survival on the waiting list, however, was superior among patients with LVADs (HR, 0.56; p<0.05). In a therapy transition analysis, failure of inotropic agents and the need for LVAD support was a consistent marker for significantly worse mortality (HR, 1.7; p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although posttransplantation survival is better for patients who are bridged to transplantation with inotropic treatment only, the cost of failure of inotropic agents is significant, with a nearly doubled mortality for those who later require VAD support. Survival on the waiting list appears to be improved among patients receiving VAD support. Careful selection of the appropriate bridging strategy continues to be a significant clinical challenge.

Discharge outcomes in patients with paracorporeal biventricular assist devices

BACKGROUND

As waiting time for heart transplantation has increased, ventricular assist devices have become critical for "bridging" patients with end-stage heart failure. Because most reported post-discharge experience is with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD), we sought to evaluate the safety and feasibility of home discharge on paracorporeal biventricular assist devices (BIVAD).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the hospital course and post-discharge outcomes of 46 consecutive patients who received paracorporeal VADs as bridge to transplant. The success of home discharge was assessed by frequency and reasons for hospital readmission and survival to transplant.

RESULTS

Thirty patients (65%) were successfully transferred from the intensive care unit and considered candidates for discharge. Of the 26 patients discharged home, 11 were supported with an LVAD and 15 with BIVADs. Median duration of support until transplant, explant, or death did not differ significantly between LVAD or BIVAD patients (91 days vs 158 days; p = 0.09). There were 26 readmissions for medical or device-related complications; 10 in 7 LVAD patients and 16 in 10 BIVAD patients, with no difference in median length of stay (17 days vs 25 days; p = 0.67). Out of hospital duration of support was similar between LVAD and BIVAD patients (61 days vs 66 days; p = 0.87) as were 6-month and 1-year event-free survival rates (p = 0.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes were similar in patients bridged to transplant on home paracorporeal BIVAD versus LVAD support. We recommend discharge for stable patients demonstrating device competency and adequate home care regardless of the need for univentricular or biventricular paracorporeal support.

Post-transplant outcomes of children bridged to transplant with the Berlin Heart EXCOR Pediatric ventricular assist device

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest that Berlin Heart EXCOR Pediatric (EXCOR) ventricular assist device improves waiting list survival for pediatric heart transplant candidates. Little is known about their post-transplant outcomes. The aim of this analysis was to determine whether there was a difference in early survival for children bridged to transplant with EXCOR versus status 1A pediatric heart transplant patients not transplanted with ventricular assist device support.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Pediatric heart transplant patients (n=106) bridged to transplantation with EXCOR were compared with a similarly aged cohort (n=1021) within the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) database (both cohorts from May 2007 to December 2010). In the EXCOR group, 12-month post-transplant survival (88.7%) was similar to OPTN patients listed status 1A who were not on ventricular assist device support at transplant (89.3%; P=0.85) and significantly better than 12-month survival in OPTN patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at transplant (60.3%; P<0.001). Rejection (50%) was a significantly (P=0.005) higher cause of 12-month post-transplant mortality in the EXCOR compared with the OPTN group. Death after transplant was also higher in EXCOR patients with congenital heart disease compared with those with cardiomyopathy (26.1% versus 7.2%; P=0.02). Post-transplant survival was similar in EXCOR patients with ≥1 serious adverse event during ventricular assist device support as those without an event during support.

CONCLUSIONS

The 12-month post-transplant survival with EXCOR is comparable with overall pediatric heart transplant survival and superior to survival after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Neither adverse events during support nor factors associated with mortality during support influence post-transplant survival. Rejection was a significantly greater cause of post-transplant mortality in EXCOR than in OPTN patients.

Heart transplantation with or without prior mechanical circulatory support in adults with congenital heart disease

OBJECTIVES

Recent analyses establish that heart transplantation is increasing among adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD), but the effects of pretransplant mechanical circulatory support (MCS) on perioperative and post-transplant outcomes have not been examined in the ACHD population.

METHODS

Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data on all adult heart transplants from September 1987 to September 2012 (n = 47 160) were classified based on primary diagnosis codes as CHD or non-CHD and MCS or non-MCS. Demographic, procedural, outcome and survival variables were compared between MCS and non-MCS ACHD patient groups.

RESULTS

MCS was used in 83 (6.8%) ACHD patients compared with 8625 (18.8%) patients without CHD (P < 0.001). MCS as a fraction of ACHD transplants increased over time (P = 0.002). MCS patients spent more time on the wait list, had a higher baseline serum creatinine and were more likely to be male, status 1A, hospitalized, in the ICU and/or on a ventilator prior to transplant. However, MCS patients experienced equivalent short-term survival (30-day mortality = 10.8% in MCS vs 13.5% in non-MCS, P = 0.62) and overall survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = 0.57). MCS patients had a longer post-transplant length of stay and were more likely to be transfused, but otherwise had no significant differences in adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

MCS is less commonly used in adult CHD patients compared with all patients undergoing heart transplant, but has been increasing over time. Within the ACHD population, patients with MCS have a higher risk profile, but except for increased transfusion rate and longer length of stay, do not experience less favourable post-transplant outcomes.