Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Apr;97(4):1364-71; discussion 1371-2.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.10.077. Epub 2014 Jan 11.

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

Curtis J Wozniak  1 , Josef Stehlik  2 , Bradley C Baird  3 , Stephen H McKellar  3 , Howard K Song  4 , Stavros G Drakos  2 , Craig H Selzman  5
Affiliations

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

Curtis J Wozniak et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014 Apr.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Posttransplantation survival at (A) 1 and (B) 10 years for United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status IA patients between 1998 and 2012. IA Inotropic Agent = status IA, subgroup d; IA VAD = status IA, subgroup a(i).
Fig 2
Fig 2
One-year posttransplantation survival (A) before and (B) after 2008 for United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 1A patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) versus patients receiving continuous inotropic agents or intraaortic balloon pumps (IABPs), or both.
Fig 3
Fig 3
Waiting list survival at 1 year for United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 1A patients stratified by left ventricular assist device (LVAD) versus continuous inotropic agents ± intraaortic balloon pump (IABP).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lund LH, Edwards LB, Kucheryavaya AY, et al. The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: thirtieth official adult heart transplant report-2013; focus theme: Age. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:951–64. - PubMed
    1. Bull DA, Reid BB, Selzman CH, et al. The impact of bridge-to-transplant ventricular assist device support on survival after cardiac transplantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140:169–73. - PubMed
    1. Nativi JN, Drakos SG, Kucheryavaya AY, et al. Changing outcomes in patients bridged to heart transplantation with continuous- versus pulsatile-flow ventricular assist devices: an analysis of the registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30:854–61. - PubMed
    1. Stehlik J, Edwards LB, Kucheryavaya AY, et al. The registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: 29th official adult heart transplant report—2012. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:1052–64. - PubMed
    1. Starling RC, Naka Y, Boyle AJ, et al. Results of the post-U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approval study with a continuous flow left ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplantation: a prospective study using the INTER-MACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:1890–8. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources