Optimal timing of cardiac transplantation after ventricular assist device implantation

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the influence of the interval from ventricular assist device implantation to cardiac transplantation on end-organ function and posttransplantation survival. METHODS: United Network for Organ Sharing data on 2692 heart transplantations performed in adult patients in the United States between October 1999 and March 2001 were reviewed. RESULTS: Seventeen percent (466) of adult heart transplant recipients were bridged to transplantation with a ventricular assist device. Almost half of patients with ventricular assist devices undergoing transplantation were upgraded to status 1A as a result of ventricular assist device-related complications occurring more than 30 days after ventricular assist device implantation. Creatinine and total bilirubin levels were less in patients undergoing transplantation after 2 to 4 weeks of mechanical support. One-year survival was higher in the nonventricular assist device than in the ventricular assist device group (85.7% vs 79.7%, P =.0004). Within the ventricular assist device group, survival was lower for patients undergoing transplantation within 2 weeks of ventricular assist device implantation compared with those undergoing transplantation later (74.2% vs 84.2 %, P =.03). One-year survival among patients supported with a ventricular assist device for more than 30 days without complications was 91.4%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated a significant independent effect of the time interval from ventricular assist device implantation to transplantation on posttransplantation mortality and suggested that a period of lowest risk might exist between 1 and 3 months after implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Survival after cardiac transplantation is influenced by the time interval from ventricular assist device insertion to transplantation. Survival is significantly lower when performed within 2 to 4 weeks of ventricular assist device implantation.     

BVS5000 support after cardiac transplantation

OBJECTIVE: This study examines short-term mechanical assist device support for cardiac transplant patients and compares their outcomes with nontransplant patients requiring similar support. METHODS: Of 350 cardiac transplant patients at our institution, 7 patients required mechanical ventricular assistance with the Abiomed BVS5000 assist device (Abiomed, Inc, Danvers, Mass) after transplant secondary to severe acute rejection with cardiogenic shock (n = 4) or primary graft failure (n = 3). Recovery of ventricular function, survival to discharge, and complications were determined for the transplant group and compared with a second group comprising all other patients supported with the BVS5000 at our institution (n = 15). Additionally, the results of prior series reporting mechanical ventricular support of the failing transplant heart are reviewed. RESULTS: Demographics and duration of support were similar between the groups. The transplant group had a higher wean rate from device relative to the nontransplant group (100% versus 13%; P < 0.01). Five of 7 in the transplant group achieved survival to discharge (71%), relative to 5 of 15 in the nontransplant group (33%). Complications between the two groups were similar, although the transplant group experienced a higher rate of renal insufficiency (57% versus 13%, P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Severe acute rejection with cardiogenic shock and primary graft failure are two conditions that may warrant mechanical ventricular support in the cardiac transplant patient. Transplant patients with these conditions have a high rate of ventricular functional recovery, greater than nontransplant patients supported with the same device and for a similar period of time. Although the incidence of renal insufficiency was higher, the majority of transplant patients who were supported with the BVS5000 achieved survival to discharge.     

Left ventricular assist device bridge-to-transplant network improves survival after failed cardiotomy.

BACKGROUND: Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock has been reported to occur following 2% to 6% of cardiac surgical procedures. Both the mandatory New York state cardiac surgery database and a voluntary ventricular assist device registry have reported hospital discharge rates of only 25% in postcardiotomy patients supported with ventricular assist devices. Although many centers have access to short-term mechanical cardiac assist devices, most lack a dedicated team which can resuscitate these critically ill patients. Equally important, these centers do not have easy access to effective cardiac replacement options, including implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplantation. METHODS: A referral network based upon the use of implantable LVADs as a bridge to transplantation in patients with postcardiotomy heart failure was established in the New York City region. Cardiac surgery centers were encouraged to contact our center early following any failed cardiotomy. RESULTS: Forty-four patients entered our postcardiotomy network: 12 recovered without an implantable LVAD, 23 received implantable LVADs, and six expired without long-term LVAD support. Of the 44 referrals, 29 (66%) survived to hospital discharge. Of the 23 patients receiving implantable LVADs, two recovered myocardial function and underwent LVAD explant, 14 were bridged to heart transplant, one underwent an emergent heart transplant, and six expired. Of the 23 implantable LVAD patients, 17 (74%) survived to hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Regional networks centered around bridge-to-transplant facilities that have an aggressive approach to implantable LVAD placement may substantially improve the survival rate of patients with postcardiotomy heart failure.