Advertisement
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation.

Left ventricular assist device bridging to heart transplantation: Comparison of temporary versus durable support

Published:September 08, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2022.08.020

      Background

      Since the revision of the United States heart allocation system, increasing use of mechanical circulatory support has been observed as a means to support acutely ill patients. We sought to compare outcomes between patients bridged to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) with either temporary (t-LVAD) or durable left ventricular assist devises (d-LVAD) under the revised system.

      Methods

      The United States Organ Network database was queried to identify all adult OHT recipients who were bridged to transplant with either an isolated t-LVAD or d-LVAD from 10/18/2018 to 9/30/2020. The primary outcome was 1-year post-transplant survival. Predictors of mortality were also modeled, and national trends of LVAD bridging were examined across the study period.

      Results

      About 1,734 OHT recipients were analyzed, 1,580 (91.1%) bridged with d-LVAD and 154 (8.9%) bridged with t-LVAD. At transplant, the t-LVAD cohort had higher total bilirubin levels and greater prevalence of pre-transplant intravenous inotrope usage and mechanical ventilation. Median waitlist time was also shorter for t-LVAD. At 1 year, there was a non-significant trend of increased survival in the t-LVAD cohort (94.8% vs 90.1%; p = 0.06). After risk adjustment, d-LVAD was associated with a 4-fold hazards for 1-year mortality (hazard ratio 3.96, 95% confidence interval 1.42-11.03; p = 0.009). From 2018 to 2021, t-LVAD bridging increased, though d-LVAD remained a more common bridging strategy.

      Conclusions

      Since the 2018 allocation change, there has been a steady increase in t-LVAD usage as a bridge to OHT. Overall, patients bridged with these devices appear to have least equivalent 1-year survival compared to those bridged with d-LVAD.

      KEYWORDS

      Abbreviations:

      d-LVAD (durable left ventricular assist device), t-LVAD (temporary left ventricular assist device), OHT (orthotopic heart transplantation), OPO (organ procurement organization.)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Khush KK
        • Potena L
        • Cherikh WS
        • et al.
        The International Thoracic Organ Transplant Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: 37th adult heart transplantation report—2020; focus on deceased donor characteristics.
        J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020; 39: 1003https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HEALUN.2020.07.010
        • Khush KK
        • Cherikh WS
        • Chambers DC
        • et al.
        The International Thoracic Organ Transplant Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty-sixth adult heart transplantation report—2019; focus theme: donor and recipient size match.
        J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019; 38: 1056-1066https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HEALUN.2019.08.004
        • Kilic A
        • Hickey G
        • Mathier MA
        • et al.
        Outcomes of the first 1300 adult heart transplants in the United States after the allocation policy change.
        Circulation. 2020; 141: 1662-1664https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.045354
        • Shore S
        • Golbus JR
        • Aaronson KD
        • Nallamothu BK.
        Changes in the United States adult heart allocation policy: challenges and opportunities.
        Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020; 13: e005795https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005795
        • Glazier JJ
        • Kaki A.
        The Impella device: historical background, clinical applications and future directions.
        Int J Angiol. 2019; 28: 118https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0038-1676369
        • O'Neill WW
        • Kleiman NS
        • Moses J
        • et al.
        A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study.
        Circulation. 2012; 126: 1717-1727https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.098194
        • Schrage B
        • Ibrahim K
        • Loehn T
        • et al.
        Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: matched-pair IABP-shock II trial 30-day mortality analysis.
        Circulation. 2019; 139: 1249-1258https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.036614
        • Chung JS
        • Emerson D
        • Ramzy D
        • et al.
        A new paradigm in mechanical circulatory support: 100-patient experience.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2020; 109: 1370-1377https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATHORACSUR.2019.08.041
        • Seese L
        • Hickey G
        • Keebler ME
        • et al.
        Direct bridging to cardiac transplantation with the surgically implanted Impella 5.0 device.
        Clin Transplant. 2020; 34: e13818https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.13818
        • Seese L
        • Hickey G
        • Keebler ME
        • et al.
        Temporary left ventricular assist devices as a bridge to heart transplantation.
        J Card Surg. 2020; 35: 810-817https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.14466
        • Marbach JA
        • Chweich H
        • Miyashita S
        • Kapur NK.
        Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices: updates from recent studies.
        Curr Opin Cardiol. 2021; 36: 375-383https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000000880
        • Lazenby KA
        • Narang N
        • Pelzer KM
        • Ran G
        • Parker WF.
        An updated estimate of posttransplant survival after implementation of the new donor heart allocation policy.
        Am J Transplant. 2022; 22: 1683-1690https://doi.org/10.1111/AJT.16931
        • Motter JD
        • Segev DL
        • Massie AB.
        Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow: ascertainment bias in pre-post design transplant registry studies.
        Am J Transplant. 2022; 22: 1513-1514https://doi.org/10.1111/AJT.16984
        • Weiss ES
        • Allen JG
        • Arnaoutakis GJ
        • et al.
        Creation of a quantitative recipient risk index for mortality prediction after cardiac transplantation (IMPACT).
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2011; 92: 914-922https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.04.030
        • Weiss ES
        • Allen JG
        • Kilic A
        • et al.
        Development of a quantitative donor risk index to predict short-term mortality in orthotopic heart transplantation.
        J Hear Lung Transplant. 2012; 31: 266-273https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2011.10.004
        • Hess NR
        • Hickey GW
        • Sultan I
        • Kilic A.
        Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation bridge to heart transplant: trends following the allocation change.
        J Card Surg. 2020; 36: 40-47https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.15118
        • Huckaby LV
        • Seese LM
        • Mathier MA
        • Hickey GW
        • Kilic A.
        Intra-aortic balloon pump bridging to heart transplantation: impact of the 2018 allocation change.
        Circ Heart Fail. 2020; 13: 206-213https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.120.006971
        • Kilic A
        • Mathier MA
        • Hickey GW
        • et al.
        Evolving trends in adult heart transplant with the 2018 heart allocation policy change.
        JAMA Cardiol. 2021; 6: 159-167https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMACARDIO.2020.4909
        • Axtell AL
        • Fiedler AG
        • Lewis G
        • et al.
        Reoperative sternotomy is associated with increased early mortality after cardiac transplantation.
        Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019; 55: 1136-1143https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezy443
        • Kansara P
        • Czer L
        • Awad M
        • et al.
        Heart transplantation with and without prior sternotomy: analysis of the united network for organ sharing database.
        Transplant Proc. 2014; 46: 249-255https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2013.09.027
        • George TJ
        • Beaty CA
        • Ewald GA
        • et al.
        Reoperative sternotomy is associated with increased mortality after heart transplantation.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2012; 94: 2025-2032https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.07.039
        • Asleh R
        • Alnsasra H
        • Daly RC
        • et al.
        Predictors and clinical outcomes of vasoplegia in patients bridged to heart transplantation with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.
        J Am Heart Assoc. 2019; 8: e013108https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.013108
        • Batchelor RJ
        • WONG N
        • LIU DH
        • et al.
        Vasoplegia following orthotopic heart transplantation: prevalence, predictors and clinical outcomes.
        J Card Fail. 2022; 28: 617-626https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2021.11.020
        • Rabin J
        • Ziegler LA
        • Cipriano S
        • et al.
        Minimally invasive left ventricular assist device insertion facilitates subsequent heart transplant.
        Innovations (Phila). 2021; 16: 157-162https://doi.org/10.1177/1556984520980409
        • Ran G
        • Chung K
        • Anderson AS
        • et al.
        Between-center variation in high-priority listing status under the new heart allocation policy.
        Am J Transplant. 2021; 21: 3684-3693https://doi.org/10.1111/AJT.16614
        • Tran Z
        • Hernandez R
        • Madrigal J
        • et al.
        Center-level variation in transplant rates following the heart allocation policy change.
        JAMA Cardiol. 2022; 7: 277-285https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMACARDIO.2021.5370