Comparison of waitlist and post-transplant outcomes in patients supported with total artificial heart versus continuous biventricular assist devices.
UNOS
biventricular assist device (BiVAD)
heart transplantation
total artificial heart (TAH)
Journal
Artificial organs
ISSN: 1525-1594
Titre abrégé: Artif Organs
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7802778
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Oct 2024
09 Oct 2024
Historique:
revised:
31
08
2024
received:
20
06
2024
accepted:
23
09
2024
medline:
9
10
2024
pubmed:
9
10
2024
entrez:
9
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Durable biventricular support may be necessary to bridge patients with end-stage biventricular failure to heart transplantation. This study compares waitlist and post-transplant outcomes between patients supported with continuous flow, durable biventricular assist devices (BiVAD), and total artificial heart (TAH). Using the UNOS registry, we analyzed adult (≥18 years old), first-time transplant candidates with TAH or BiVAD at the time of listing or transplantation from 10/1/2010-10/31/2020, with follow-up through 3/31/2022. Multivariable proportional subdistribution hazards models and cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare death/deterioration or heart transplantation on the waitlist between cohorts. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards model were used to evaluate one-year post-transplant survival and evaluate difference in outcomes based on annual transplant center volume. The waitlist cohort included a total of 228 patients (25% BiVAD). Waitlist outcomes between device types were similar. The transplanted cohort included a total of 352 patients (25% BiVAD). There was a trend towards worse one-year post-transplant survival in patients bridged with TAH versus BiVAD (log-rank p-value = 0.072) that persisted after adjusting for age, gender, policy, and removing dual-organ recipients (HR 1.94 (0.94, 3.98) p-value = 0.07). There was a difference in one-year post-transplant survival amongst TAH-bridged patients when stratified by annual transplant center volume (log-rank p-value = 0.013). One-year post-transplant survival between TAH-supported patients from high annual transplant volume centers and BiVAD-supported patients was similar (p-value = 0.815). BiVAD and TAH are reasonable support strategies with TAH implantation at high-volume transplant centers (51+ transplants/year) having similar 1-year post-transplant survival to BiVAD-supported patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Durable biventricular support may be necessary to bridge patients with end-stage biventricular failure to heart transplantation. This study compares waitlist and post-transplant outcomes between patients supported with continuous flow, durable biventricular assist devices (BiVAD), and total artificial heart (TAH).
METHODS
METHODS
Using the UNOS registry, we analyzed adult (≥18 years old), first-time transplant candidates with TAH or BiVAD at the time of listing or transplantation from 10/1/2010-10/31/2020, with follow-up through 3/31/2022. Multivariable proportional subdistribution hazards models and cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare death/deterioration or heart transplantation on the waitlist between cohorts. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards model were used to evaluate one-year post-transplant survival and evaluate difference in outcomes based on annual transplant center volume.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The waitlist cohort included a total of 228 patients (25% BiVAD). Waitlist outcomes between device types were similar. The transplanted cohort included a total of 352 patients (25% BiVAD). There was a trend towards worse one-year post-transplant survival in patients bridged with TAH versus BiVAD (log-rank p-value = 0.072) that persisted after adjusting for age, gender, policy, and removing dual-organ recipients (HR 1.94 (0.94, 3.98) p-value = 0.07). There was a difference in one-year post-transplant survival amongst TAH-bridged patients when stratified by annual transplant center volume (log-rank p-value = 0.013). One-year post-transplant survival between TAH-supported patients from high annual transplant volume centers and BiVAD-supported patients was similar (p-value = 0.815).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
BiVAD and TAH are reasonable support strategies with TAH implantation at high-volume transplant centers (51+ transplants/year) having similar 1-year post-transplant survival to BiVAD-supported patients.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 International Center for Artificial Organ and Transplantation (ICAOT) and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Arabía FA, Cantor RS, Koehl DA, Kasirajan V, Gregoric I, Moriguchi JD, et al. Interagency registry for mechanically assisted circulatory support report on the total artificial heart. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2018;37(11):1304–1312.
Arabía FA, Milano CA, Mahr C, McGee EC Jr, Mokadam NA, Rame JE, et al. Biventricular support with intracorporeal, continuous flow, centrifugal ventricular assist devices. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105(2):548–555.
Yuzefpolskaya M, Schroeder SE, Houston BA, Robinson MR, Gosev I, Reyentovich A, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs 2022 annual report: focus on the 2018 heart transplant allocation system. Ann Thorac Surg. 2023;115(2):311–327.
Arabía FA, Murray CF, Cantor R, Deng L, Gopalan R, Amabile O, et al. Heart transplant outcomes after total artificial heart. Transplant Proc. 2023;55(7):1664–1673.
Coyan GN, Huckaby LV, Diaz‐Castrillon CE, Miguelino AM, Kilic A. Trends and outcomes following total artificial heart as bridge to transplant from the UNOS database. J Card Surg. 2022;37(5):1215–1221.
Maynes EJ, O'Malley TJ, Luc JGY, Weber MP, Horan DP, Choi JH, et al. Comparison of SynCardia total artificial heart and HeartWare HVAD biventricular support for management of biventricular heart failure: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;9(2):69–80.
Satish M, Anyanwu A, Moss N, Lala A, Itagaki S, Roldan J, et al. HeartMate‐3 ventricular assist devices versus the Total artificial heart for biventricular support: a single‐center series. ASAIO J. 2023;69(6):544–551.
Cheng A, Trivedi JR, Van Berkel VH, Massey HT, Slaughter MS. Comparison of total artificial heart and biventricular assist device support as bridge‐to‐transplantation. J Card Surg. 2016;31(10):648–653.
Gray RJ. A class of $K$‐ sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16(3):1141–1154.
Fine J, Gray R. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94:496–509.
Hong KN, Iribarne A, Worku B, Takayama H, Gelijns AC, Naka Y, et al. Who is the high‐risk recipient? Predicting mortality after heart transplant using pretransplant donor and recipient risk factors. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92(2):520–527. discussion 527.
Hsich EM, Thuita L, McNamara DM, Rogers JG, Valapour M, Goldberg LR, et al. Transplantation of HEarts to MaxImize survival (THEMIS) investigators. Variables of importance in the scientific registry of transplant recipients database predictive of heart transplant waitlist mortality. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(7):2067–2076.
Malas J, Chen Q, Akhmerov A, Tremblay LP, Egorova N, Krishnan A, et al. Experience with SynCardia total artificial heart as a bridge to transplantation in 100 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2023;115(3):725–732.
Delgado R 3rd, Wadia Y, Kar B, Ethridge W, Zewail A, Pool T, et al. Role of B‐type natriuretic peptide and effect of nesiritide after total cardiac replacement with the AbioCor total artificial heart. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005;24(8):1166–1170.
Arnaoutakis GJ, George TJ, Allen JG, Russell SD, Shah AS, Conte JV, et al. Institutional volume and the effect of recipient risk on short‐term mortality after orthotopic heart transplant. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143(1):157–167.e1.
Critsinelis A, Karamchandani MM, Hironaka CE, Nordan T, Chen FY, Couper GS, et al. Heart transplant waitlist outcomes and wait time by center volume in the pre‐2018 allocation change era. ASAIO J. 2023;69(9):863–870.
Meece LE, Yu J, Jeng EI, Ahmed MM. Contemporary mechanical circulatory support with continuous‐flow biventricular assist devices: a systematic review. Cardiol Rev. 2022;30(4):197–205.
Li W, Xue X, Long Y. An additive subdistribution hazard model for competing risks data. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 2017;46(23):11667–11687.
Lin DY, Ying Z. Semiparametric analysis of the additive risk model. Biometrika. 1994;81(1):61–71.