Donation after Circulatory Death Does Not Worsen Survival after Heart Transplant for Patients with a Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Cardiac Surgery Pub Date : 2024-07-03 DOI:10.1155/2024/5578819
Erin M. Schumer, Kukbin Choi, Doug A. Gouchoe, Divyaam Satija, Andrew N. Rosenbaum, Sudhir Kushwaha, Atta Behfar, Mauricio A. Villavicencio, Philip J. Spencer
{"title":"Donation after Circulatory Death Does Not Worsen Survival after Heart Transplant for Patients with a Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device","authors":"Erin M. Schumer,&nbsp;Kukbin Choi,&nbsp;Doug A. Gouchoe,&nbsp;Divyaam Satija,&nbsp;Andrew N. Rosenbaum,&nbsp;Sudhir Kushwaha,&nbsp;Atta Behfar,&nbsp;Mauricio A. Villavicencio,&nbsp;Philip J. Spencer","doi":"10.1155/2024/5578819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p>Heart transplantation from donors after circulatory death (DCD) has demonstrated increased primary graft dysfunction. Durable mechanical circulatory (MCS) recipients have slightly higher perioperative risk but excellent long-term survival. We sought to determine if the use of DCD donors impacted outcomes for patients with MCS. The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried from 2019 to 2023 for all adult recipients who underwent heart transplant with a durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Outcomes were compared for recipients of DBD and DCD donors. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to compare survival. A total of 3449 recipients underwent heart transplant who met the study criteria. The number of DCD and DBD donors was 288 (8.4%) and 3161 (92.6%). There was no difference in the length of stay, postoperative dialysis, pacemaker, stroke rate, or in-hospital mortality. Recipients with durable LVADs of DCD donors had a higher rate of treatment for rejection within the first year. Overall survival was not different between DBD and DCD donors (<i>p</i> = 0.153). Postoperative and survival outcomes for DCD donation remain similar between patients with and without MCS. These findings may help decrease waitlist time for patients with durable MCS.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15367,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiac Surgery","volume":"2024 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/5578819","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiac Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/5578819","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Heart transplantation from donors after circulatory death (DCD) has demonstrated increased primary graft dysfunction. Durable mechanical circulatory (MCS) recipients have slightly higher perioperative risk but excellent long-term survival. We sought to determine if the use of DCD donors impacted outcomes for patients with MCS. The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried from 2019 to 2023 for all adult recipients who underwent heart transplant with a durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Outcomes were compared for recipients of DBD and DCD donors. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to compare survival. A total of 3449 recipients underwent heart transplant who met the study criteria. The number of DCD and DBD donors was 288 (8.4%) and 3161 (92.6%). There was no difference in the length of stay, postoperative dialysis, pacemaker, stroke rate, or in-hospital mortality. Recipients with durable LVADs of DCD donors had a higher rate of treatment for rejection within the first year. Overall survival was not different between DBD and DCD donors (p = 0.153). Postoperative and survival outcomes for DCD donation remain similar between patients with and without MCS. These findings may help decrease waitlist time for patients with durable MCS.

Abstract Image

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
循环性死亡后捐献不会恶化装有耐用左心室辅助装置的患者心脏移植后的存活率
循环死亡(DCD)后捐献者的心脏移植显示原发性移植物功能障碍增加。持久机械循环(MCS)受者的围手术期风险稍高,但长期存活率极佳。我们试图确定使用 DCD 供体是否会影响 MCS 患者的预后。我们查询了器官共享联合网络(United Network for Organ Sharing)数据库2019年至2023年期间所有使用耐用左心室辅助装置(LVAD)进行心脏移植的成年受者。对DBD和DCD供体的受者的结果进行了比较。采用 Kaplan-Meier 分析比较存活率。共有 3449 名符合研究标准的受者接受了心脏移植手术。DCD和DBD供体的数量分别为288例(8.4%)和3161例(92.6%)。在住院时间、术后透析、起搏器、中风率和院内死亡率方面没有差异。DCD捐献者的耐用LVAD受者在第一年内接受排斥治疗的比例较高。DBD 和 DCD 供体的总体存活率没有差异(p = 0.153)。DCD捐献的术后和存活结果在患有和不患有MCS的患者之间仍然相似。这些发现可能有助于减少耐久性 MCS 患者的等待时间。
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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
976
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiac Surgery (JCS) is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to contemporary surgical treatment of cardiac disease. Renown for its detailed "how to" methods, JCS''s well-illustrated, concise technical articles, critical reviews and commentaries are highly valued by dedicated readers worldwide. With Editor-in-Chief Harold Lazar, MD and an internationally prominent editorial board, JCS continues its 20-year history as an important professional resource. Editorial coverage includes biologic support, mechanical cardiac assist and/or replacement and surgical techniques, and features current material on topics such as OPCAB surgery, stented and stentless valves, endovascular stent placement, atrial fibrillation, transplantation, percutaneous valve repair/replacement, left ventricular restoration surgery, immunobiology, and bridges to transplant and recovery. In addition, special sections (Images in Cardiac Surgery, Cardiac Regeneration) and historical reviews stimulate reader interest. The journal also routinely publishes proceedings of important international symposia in a timely manner.
期刊最新文献
Successful Resection of a Big Hemolymphangioma of the Left Atrial Appendage With 8 Years of Follow-Up Chest Tube Clearance Strategies Versus Conventional Chest Tubes After Cardiac Surgery Long-Term Survival of Mitroflow and Perimount Aortic Valve Replacements Contemporary Surgical Approaches in Pediatric Aortic Valve Surgery: A Retrospective Comparison of Three Techniques Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Closure for Postinfarct Ventricular Septal Defect
×
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