Changes in Donor Utilization and Outcomes for Patients Bridged With Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL ASAIO Journal Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-10 DOI:10.1097/MAT.0000000000002228
Armaan F Akbar, Dianela Perdomo, Benjamin L Shou, Alice L Zhou, Jessica M Ruck, Ahmet Kilic
{"title":"Changes in Donor Utilization and Outcomes for Patients Bridged With Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device.","authors":"Armaan F Akbar, Dianela Perdomo, Benjamin L Shou, Alice L Zhou, Jessica M Ruck, Ahmet Kilic","doi":"10.1097/MAT.0000000000002228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We studied the impact of the 2018 heart allocation policy change on donor characteristics and posttransplant outcomes of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-bridged heart transplant (HT) recipients. Left ventricular assist device-bridged adult HT recipients from October 2014 to October 2022 in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were categorized into old allocation policy (OAP) and new allocation policy (NAP) cohorts. Baseline characteristics, posttransplant outcomes, and subgroup analyses of unstable and stable LVAD-bridged recipients were assessed. The study included 7,384 HT recipients; 4,345 (58.8%) were transplanted in the OAP era and 3,039 (41.2%) in the NAP era. Old allocation policy recipients were most frequently status 1A at transplantation (71.1%), whereas NAP recipients were most frequently status 3 (40.0%), and status 4 (31.9%). Median donor sequence number (DSN) was higher in the NAP versus OAP era (9 vs. 3, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, NAP recipients had 20% higher 1 year mortality compared to OAP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.20 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.04-1.40], p = 0.01). Status 1 or 2 recipients had 28% higher 1 year mortality compared to status 1A (aHR = 1.28 [95% CI: 1.01-1.63], p = 0.04). Status 1 and 2 LVAD-supported recipients had higher mortality following the 2018 allocation change, indicating the need for closer surveillance of LVAD-bridged patients who may decompensate on the waitlist.</p>","PeriodicalId":8844,"journal":{"name":"ASAIO Journal","volume":" ","pages":"964-970"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ASAIO Journal","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAT.0000000000002228","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We studied the impact of the 2018 heart allocation policy change on donor characteristics and posttransplant outcomes of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-bridged heart transplant (HT) recipients. Left ventricular assist device-bridged adult HT recipients from October 2014 to October 2022 in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were categorized into old allocation policy (OAP) and new allocation policy (NAP) cohorts. Baseline characteristics, posttransplant outcomes, and subgroup analyses of unstable and stable LVAD-bridged recipients were assessed. The study included 7,384 HT recipients; 4,345 (58.8%) were transplanted in the OAP era and 3,039 (41.2%) in the NAP era. Old allocation policy recipients were most frequently status 1A at transplantation (71.1%), whereas NAP recipients were most frequently status 3 (40.0%), and status 4 (31.9%). Median donor sequence number (DSN) was higher in the NAP versus OAP era (9 vs. 3, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, NAP recipients had 20% higher 1 year mortality compared to OAP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.20 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.04-1.40], p = 0.01). Status 1 or 2 recipients had 28% higher 1 year mortality compared to status 1A (aHR = 1.28 [95% CI: 1.01-1.63], p = 0.04). Status 1 and 2 LVAD-supported recipients had higher mortality following the 2018 allocation change, indicating the need for closer surveillance of LVAD-bridged patients who may decompensate on the waitlist.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用耐用左心室辅助装置进行桥接的患者使用捐赠者和治疗效果的变化。
我们研究了 2018 年心脏分配政策变化对左心室辅助装置(LVAD)桥接心脏移植(HT)受者的供体特征和移植后预后的影响。将器官共享联合网络数据库中2014年10月至2022年10月的左室辅助装置桥接式成人心脏移植受者分为旧分配政策(OAP)队列和新分配政策(NAP)队列。对不稳定和稳定的 LVAD 搭桥受者的基线特征、移植后结果和亚组分析进行了评估。该研究共纳入了7384例HT受者,其中4345例(58.8%)是在OAP时代移植的,3039例(41.2%)是在NAP时代移植的。旧分配政策受者在移植时最常处于 1A 状态(71.1%),而 NAP 受者最常处于 3 状态(40.0%)和 4 状态(31.9%)。在 NAP 时代,中位供体序列号(DSN)高于 OAP 时代(9 对 3,P < 0.001)。经多变量分析,NAP受者的1年死亡率比OAP高20%(调整后危险比[aHR] = 1.20 [95%置信区间{CI}:1.04-1.40],P = 0.01)。与 1A 状态相比,1 或 2 状态受者的 1 年死亡率高出 28%(aHR = 1.28 [95% CI:1.01-1.63],p = 0.04)。2018年分配改变后,状态1和2的LVAD支持受者死亡率较高,这表明有必要对等待名单上可能失代偿的LVAD桥接患者进行更密切的监测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ASAIO Journal
ASAIO Journal 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
651
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ASAIO Journal is in the forefront of artificial organ research and development. On the cutting edge of innovative technology, it features peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality that describe research, development, the most recent advances in the design of artificial organ devices and findings from initial testing. Bimonthly, the ASAIO Journal features state-of-the-art investigations, laboratory and clinical trials, and discussions and opinions from experts around the world. The official publication of the American Society for Artificial Internal Organs.
期刊最新文献
Prosthetic Valve Fate in Patients With Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices. Heart Transplantation Outcomes in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy in the Era of Mechanical Circulatory Support. Predictive Accuracy of HeartMate 3 Risk Score After the Heart Transplant Allocation Change. Reply Letter to Editor to Daniel Schneditz. Impella as Bridge to Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock Patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1