(1) Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the prolonged use of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) on heart transplant (HTx) candidates. (2) Methods: Between January 2012 and December 2019, we included all consecutive patients diag-nosed with end-stage heart failure considered for HTx at our institution, who were also eligible for LVAD therapy as a bridge to transplant (BTT). Patients were divided into two groups: those who received an LVAD as BTT (LVAD group) and those who were listed without durable support (No-LVAD group). (3) Results: A total of 250 patients were analyzed. Of these, 70 patients (28%) were directly implanted with an LVAD as BTT, 11 (4.4%) received delayed LVAD implantation, and 169 (67%) were never assisted with an implantable device. The mean follow-up time was 36 ± 29 months. In the multivariate analysis of survival before HTx, LVAD implantation showed a protective effect: LVAD vs. No-LVAD HR 0.01 (p < 0.01) and LVAD vs. LVAD delayed HR 0.13 (p = 0.02). Mortality and adverse events after HTx were similar between LVAD and No-LVAD (p = 0.65 and p = 0.39, respectively). The multi-state survival analysis showed a significantly higher probability of death for No-LVAD vs. LVAD patients with (p = 0.03) or without (p = 0.04) HTx. (4) Conclusions: The use of LVAD as a bridge to transplant was associated with an overall survival benefit, compared to patients listed without LVAD support.
Impact of Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device on Heart Transplant Candidates: A Multi-State Survival Analysis
Guariento A.;Azzolina D.;
2022
Abstract
(1) Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the prolonged use of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) on heart transplant (HTx) candidates. (2) Methods: Between January 2012 and December 2019, we included all consecutive patients diag-nosed with end-stage heart failure considered for HTx at our institution, who were also eligible for LVAD therapy as a bridge to transplant (BTT). Patients were divided into two groups: those who received an LVAD as BTT (LVAD group) and those who were listed without durable support (No-LVAD group). (3) Results: A total of 250 patients were analyzed. Of these, 70 patients (28%) were directly implanted with an LVAD as BTT, 11 (4.4%) received delayed LVAD implantation, and 169 (67%) were never assisted with an implantable device. The mean follow-up time was 36 ± 29 months. In the multivariate analysis of survival before HTx, LVAD implantation showed a protective effect: LVAD vs. No-LVAD HR 0.01 (p < 0.01) and LVAD vs. LVAD delayed HR 0.13 (p = 0.02). Mortality and adverse events after HTx were similar between LVAD and No-LVAD (p = 0.65 and p = 0.39, respectively). The multi-state survival analysis showed a significantly higher probability of death for No-LVAD vs. LVAD patients with (p = 0.03) or without (p = 0.04) HTx. (4) Conclusions: The use of LVAD as a bridge to transplant was associated with an overall survival benefit, compared to patients listed without LVAD support.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
