Pediatric Heart Transplant Candidates With Failed Donor Heart Allocation After Eurotransplant Urgency Listing Profit From Pretransplant Mechanical Circulatory Support Bridging

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 346-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeshi Komoda ◽  
Hans B. Lehmkuhl ◽  
Brigitte Stiller ◽  
Felix Berger ◽  
Roland Hetzer
Circulation ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 127 (4) ◽  
pp. 452-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omar Wever-Pinzon ◽  
Stavros G. Drakos ◽  
Abdallah G. Kfoury ◽  
Jose N. Nativi ◽  
Edward M. Gilbert ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Miguel Solla-Buceta ◽  
Francisco González-Vílchez ◽  
Luis Almenar-Bonet ◽  
José Luis Lambert-Rodríguez ◽  
Javier Segovia-Cubero ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
V. N. Poptsov ◽  
E. A. Spirina ◽  
S. G. Ukhrenkov ◽  
D. M. Bondarenko ◽  
A. A. Dogonasheva ◽  
...  

Implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have become the leading method of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in heart transplant candidates. But the temporary MCS as a mechanical bridge to heart transplantation (HT) continues to use. The temporary MCS remains an effi ciency method of treatment of life-threatening heart failure (HF), when implantation of permanent LVAD or BiVAD is associated with high risk. The temporary MCS creates clinical and organizational conditions for the urgent HT. This approach allows not only to save life of heart transplant candidates, but also to improve the availability of the HT. The choice of the temporary MCS is determined by the type and severity of HF and the expected duration of its application. The review presents a characteristic, and discusses the effectiveness of various methods of temporary MCS at heart transplant candidates needed in urgent HT.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (21) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Conway ◽  
Ryan Cantor ◽  
Devin Koehl ◽  
Robert Spicer ◽  
Dipankar Gupta ◽  
...  

Background Infants with heart failure remain at significant risk for wait list mortality, despite mechanical circulatory support (MCS). It is unclear if the outcomes are influenced by modality of support or underlying diagnosis. We sought to compare the outcomes of infants <10 kg, focusing on modality of support and underlying diagnosis. Methods and Results Using the Pediatric Heart Transplant Society database, we evaluated survival following first MCS device in children <10 kg who were listed for heart transplant between 2010 and 2018. There were 2049 children <10 kg, with the predominant diagnosis being congenital heart disease (CHD) (59.8% [n=1226]) and 28.1% (n=577) requiring MCS. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was the most common form of MCS at listing, with ventricular assist device (VAD) more common after listing. There was no difference in the use of ECMO at or after listing for cardiomyopathy versus CHD (8.9% versus 7.2%; P =0.2; 5.4% versus 6.4%; P =0.4). However, there was a significant difference in the use of VAD both at listing (8% versus 2.4%; P <0.001) and after (22.8% versus 5.1%; P <0.001) between the 2 groups. When comparing these groups, patients with CHD were smaller and younger and had a higher proportion with previous cardiac surgery. Survival at 3 months demonstrated better survival for VAD therapy compared with ECMO (74.3% versus 48.6%; P <0.001). In patients <5 kg, survival did not differ between ECMO and VAD ( P =0.01) for the CHD or the cardiomyopathy group ( P =0.38), but patients with cardiomyopathy demonstrated better survival on both forms of support. Conclusions Survival for patients <10 kg on ECMO is inferior compared with VAD. Patients with cardiomyopathy <5 kg had better survival with both modes of MCS compared with those with CHD. These findings support the need for small, durable devices for neonates and infants, with particular focus in patients with CHD.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Li ◽  
Justin Godown ◽  
carolyn taylor ◽  
Anne I Dipchand ◽  
Brian Feingold

Introduction: Barth Syndrome (BTHS) is a rare (~1/350,000), X-linked mitochondrial disease characterized by cardioskeletal myopathy and neutropenia. Reported outcomes after heart transplant (HT) are limited to case reports. We sought to identify a large cohort of BTHS HT recipients to describe clinical outcomes. Hypothesis: HT in BTHS is associated with non-inferior survival, acute rejection (AR), infection, and vasculopathy (CAV) relative to non-BTHS dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Methods: We analyzed data from the Barth Syndrome Registry and Repository (BRR), Pediatric Heart Transplant Society (PHTS), and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). To avoid recounting patients occurring in >1 source, we used years of birth, listing, and HT and listing/HT city to link records across registries. BTHS HT recipients were matched 1:4 on age, era, urgency status, and use of ECMO/VAD to male, non-BHTS, DCM HT recipients in PHTS. Survival was analyzed for all BTHS HT recipients. Because BRR and SRTR morbidity data are limited, AR, infection, malignancy, and CAV were analyzed only for those with PHTS data. Results: Forty-seven BTHS patients with 51 listings and 43 HTs (including 2 re-transplants) were identified; 29 BTHS HTs (1 re-transplant) had data in PHTS. Median age at HT was 1.9 yrs (IQR: 0.6-5.8) with 35% <1 years-old at HT. Median follow up was 4.2 yrs (2.1-9.1). Mechanical circulatory support at HT was common (VAD 29%, ECMO 5%). We found no difference in survival between BTHS and non-BTHS HT recipients (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.40-2.14). Freedom from infection (HR 0.63, 0.33-1.20), bacterial infection (HR 0.76, 0.29-1.99), malignancy (HR 0.22, 0.02-2.02), and CAV (HR 0.55, 0.15-1.97) were also similar between the groups. BTHS HT recipients had greater freedom from AR (HR 0.39, 0.17-0.87). Use of induction therapy (62 vs 74%, p=0.21), steroids at 30 days (76 vs 62%, p=0.17), and dual or triple immunosuppression at 1 year (80 vs 84%, p=0.58) were similar for BTHS and non-BTHS recipients. Conclusions: In this largest cohort yet reported, BTHS HT recipients show equivalent survival and freedom from infection, malignancy, and CAV, with a lower risk of acute rejection. Thus, individuals with BTHS should not be excluded from HT solely based on the diagnosis of BTHS.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document