Abstract 18639: Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Use is Associated With Improved Survival on the Waitlist for Heart Transplantation: A UNOS/ OPTN Registry Analysis of 36,397 Patients

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kairav Vakil ◽  
Rebecca Cogswell ◽  
Sue Duval ◽  
Wayne Levy ◽  
Peter Eckman ◽  
...  

Background: Current guidelines do not support routine use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients (pts) with end-stage heart failure (HF), unless these pts are awaiting advanced HF therapies such as left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) or a heart transplantation (HT). Whether ICDs improve survival in end-stage HF pts awaiting HT has not been previously examined in a large, multicenter cohort. Hypothesis: Presence of ICDs at time of listing for HT is associated with lower waitlist mortality. Methods: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was used to identify adults (≥18 years) listed for HT between January 4, 1999 & September 30, 2014. Pts with congenital heart disease, total artificial heart, restrictive cardiomyopathy, prior HT, or missing covariates were excluded. Cox regression analysis was used to assess the impact of an ICD at the time of listing on waitlist mortality. Results: The analysis included 36,397 pts (mean age 53±12; 77% males) listed for HT. The prevalence of ICDs at listing has steadily increased over time before reaching a plateau in 2006 (27% in 1999, and range 76-82% between 2006-2014). In the unadjusted model, ICD use was associated with a 36% reduction in waitlist mortality (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.60-0.68, p<0.001). After adjustment for covariates such as age, sex, race, creatinine, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and listing status, this association was nearly unchanged (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.62-0.72, p<0.001). Test for interaction by listing era (pre- and post-2006) was non-significant (p=0.28). In the final adjusted model, that included listing era and LVAD status in addition to the above listed covariates, ICD use continued to remain associated with a mortality benefit on the waitlist for HT (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78-0.91, p<0.001). Conclusion: ICDs are increasingly prevalent in pts listed for HT; however many pts are still listed for HT without these devices. The presence of an ICD at the time of listing is associated with lower mortality on the waitlist. Although the magnitude of ICD efficacy diminishes slightly, its benefit continues to remain significant even after adjustment for listing era and LVAD use. Further analyses are required to identify specific sub-groups of pts where ICD use is most beneficial and appropriate.

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (23) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fouad Chouairi ◽  
Aidan Milner ◽  
Sounok Sen ◽  
Avirup Guha ◽  
James Stewart ◽  
...  

Background Patients with obesity and advanced heart failure face unique challenges on the path to heart transplantation. There are limited data on waitlist and transplantation outcomes in this population. We aimed to evaluate the impact of obesity on heart transplantation outcomes, and to investigate the effects of the new organ procurement and transplantation network allocation system in this population. Methods and Results This cohort study of adult patients listed for heart transplant used the United Network for Organ Sharing database from January 2006 to June 2020. Patients were stratified by body mass index (BMI) (18.5–24.9, 25–29.9, 30–34.9, 35–39.9, and 40–55 kg/m 2 ). Recipient characteristics and donor characteristics were analyzed. Outcomes analyzed included transplantation, waitlist death, and posttransplant death. BMI 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m 2 was used as the reference compared with progressive BMI categories. There were 46 645 patients listed for transplantation. Patients in higher BMI categories were less likely to be transplanted. The lowest likelihood of transplantation was in the highest BMI category, 40 to 55 kg/m 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.19 [0.05–0.76]; P =0.02). Patients within the 2 highest BMI categories had higher risk of posttransplantation death (HR, 1.29; P <0.001 and HR, 1.65; P <0.001, respectively). Left ventricular assist devices among patients in obese BMI categories decreased after the allocation system change ( P <0.001, all). After the change, patients with obesity were more likely to undergo transplantation (BMI 30–35 kg/m 2 : HR, 1.31 [1.18–1.46], P <0.001; BMI 35–55 kg/m 2 : HR, 1.29 [1.06–1.58]; P =0.01). Conclusions There was an inverse relationship between BMI and likelihood of heart transplantation. Higher BMI was associated with increased risk of posttransplant mortality. Patients with obesity were more likely to undergo transplantation under the revised allocation system.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N Jakus ◽  
J J Brugts ◽  
P Timmermans ◽  
A C Pouleur ◽  
P Rubis ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Developments in mechanical circulatory support have established left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) as a mainstay of therapy of advanced heart failure, resulting in improved outcomes in those implanted more recently - described as an “era effect” in the latest INTERMACS registry report. We aimed to study and describe the relevance of the era of device implant on outcomes in a European cohort of LVAD carriers. Methods 448 patients with continuous flow LVADs have been included in the multicentre PCHF-VAD registry formed by 12 European centres (mean age 52±13 years, 82% male). Patient data were divided to quartiles according to date of LVAD implantation. Results Baseline data of patients stratified by implant date quartiles are shown in Table 1. By Cox regression analysis, only the latest quartile was associated with significantly better one year survival, compared to the earliest quartile (Q4 vs. Q1: HR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.22–0.88, p=0.02) (Figure 1). Using a forward stepwise selection process, age and INTERMACS class at implant were the only other significant predictors of outcome; the reduction in all-cause mortality for the patients implanted in the latest quartile remained significant when adjusting for these variables (HR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.23–0.95, p=0.035). Table 1 Q1 (n=112) Q2 (n=112) Q3 (n=113) Q4 (n=111) p-value 6 Dec 2006–2 Jan 2012 3 Jan 2012–8 Dec 2014 9 Dec 2014–20 Jul 2016 21 Jul 2016–4 Apr 2018 CIED-D before VAD implant, n (%) 40 (35.7%) 50 (44.6%) 65 (57.5%) 85 (76.6%) <0.001 Age 47.8±13.8 53.4±11.9 54.0±12.5 54.3±12.9 <0.001 Female gender, n (%) 25 (22.3%) 22 (19.6%) 14 (12.4%) 20 (18.0%) 0.26 Arterial hypertension, n (%) 15 (13.4%) 34 (30.4%) 33 (29.2%) 20 (18.0%) 0.004 Diabetes mellitus, n (%) 13 (11.6%) 20 (17.9%) 26 (23.0%) 31 (27.9%) 0.017 Chronic kidney disease, n (%) 13 (11.6%) 20 (17.9%) 30 (26.5%) 39 (35.1%) <0.001 Coronary artery disease, n (%) 17 (15.2%) 23 (20.5%) 34 (30.1%) 37 (33.3%) 0.005 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, n (%) 1 (0.9%) 10 (8.9%) 14 (12.4%) 17 (15.3%) 0.002 Atrial fibrillation, n (%) 17 (15.2%) 33 (29.5%) 35 (31.0%) 43 (38.7%) 0.001 VAD type, HM2, n (%) 105 (93.8%) 90 (80.4%) 49 (43.4%) 2 (1.8%) <0.001 VAD type, HW, n (%) 0 (0.0%) 18 (16.1%) 42 (37.2%) 34 (30.6%) VAD type, HM3, n (%) 1 (0.9%) 0 (0.0%) 16 (14.2%) 70 (63.1%) VAD type, Other, n (%) 6 (5.4%) 4 (3.6%) 6 (5.3%) 5 (4.5%) VAD intention, BTT, n (%) 91 (86.7%) 88 (80.0%) 61 (58.1%) 65 (59.6%) <0.001 VAD intention, BTD, n (%) 8 (7.6%) 12 (10.9%) 28 (26.7%) 20 (18.3%) VAD intention, DT, n (%) 6 (5.7%) 10 (9.1%) 16 (15.2%) 24 (22.0%) INTERMACS class 1 27 (25.0%) 13 (11.7%) 23 (20.9%) 10 (9.3%) <0.001 INTERMACS class 2 41 (38.0%) 37 (33.3%) 19 (17.3%) 24 (22.2%) INTERMACS class 3 24 (22.2%) 27 (24.3%) 40 (36.4%) 48 (44.4%) INTERMACS class 4–7 16 (14.8%) 34 (30.6%) 28 (25.5%) 26 (24.1%) HM2, Heart Mate II; HW, HeartWare; HM3, HeartMate3; BTT, bridge to transplantation; BTD, bridge to decision; DT, destination therapy. Figure 1 Conclusion Despite a larger comorbidity burden, patients implanted most recently have better overall survival than those implanted in the earlier eras. This may be attributed to the increasing expertise of the implanting centres providing care for LVAD patients.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Javorski ◽  
Anthony Zaki ◽  
Motaz Abas ◽  
Haytham Elgharably ◽  
Tamer S Attia

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have changed the landscape of treatment options for patients with end stage heart failure. Due to the limited availability of donor hearts for transplantation, LVADs have become an important option for many of these patients. Much progress has been made in the device industry since then, and newer devices continue to improve patient outcomes. In this review, we will discuss some of the key transitions in LVADs over the years, the current LVADs used in practice today, implantation techniques, the impact of the new heart allocation system on LVAD use and future prospective LVADs.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 770-779
Author(s):  
Jadry Gruen ◽  
Cesar Caraballo ◽  
P. Elliott Miller ◽  
Megan McCullough ◽  
Catherine Mezzacappa ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document