{"title":"Mechanical circulatory support device selection for bridging to cardiac transplantation: a clinical guide.","authors":"Tamari Miller, Veli K Topkara","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2023.2206562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Many patients listed for transplant require temporary or durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for bridging to cardiac transplantation. The choice of device for bridging to heart depends on a number of factors including level of support desired and patient-device hemocompatibility.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>The authors summarize the current heart transplant landscape including the new UNOS listing criteria as well as indications for bridging to transplant with MCS devices. The authors also review the characteristics of commonly used MCS devices and discuss the limited evidence supporting their use in cardiogenic shock and specifically as a bridge to heart transplant.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>The new UNOS heart organ allocation policy has resulted in a growth in the use of temporary MCS devices as bridge to transplantation for patients with cardiogenic shock, while bridging with durable MCS devices has become more challenging. Patients supported on temporary MCS devices should be routinely assessed for potential of myocardial recovery prior to urgent transplantation. Emerging machine learning algorithms may help better identify individuals who are likely to recover on temporary or durable MCS therapy. Modifications to the current heart allocation policy may facilitate bridging of patients with durable left ventricular assist devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":12330,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","volume":"20 6","pages":"449-457"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Medical Devices","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2023.2206562","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Many patients listed for transplant require temporary or durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for bridging to cardiac transplantation. The choice of device for bridging to heart depends on a number of factors including level of support desired and patient-device hemocompatibility.
Areas covered: The authors summarize the current heart transplant landscape including the new UNOS listing criteria as well as indications for bridging to transplant with MCS devices. The authors also review the characteristics of commonly used MCS devices and discuss the limited evidence supporting their use in cardiogenic shock and specifically as a bridge to heart transplant.
Expert opinion: The new UNOS heart organ allocation policy has resulted in a growth in the use of temporary MCS devices as bridge to transplantation for patients with cardiogenic shock, while bridging with durable MCS devices has become more challenging. Patients supported on temporary MCS devices should be routinely assessed for potential of myocardial recovery prior to urgent transplantation. Emerging machine learning algorithms may help better identify individuals who are likely to recover on temporary or durable MCS therapy. Modifications to the current heart allocation policy may facilitate bridging of patients with durable left ventricular assist devices.
期刊介绍:
The journal serves the device research community by providing a comprehensive body of high-quality information from leading experts, all subject to rigorous peer review. The Expert Review format is specially structured to optimize the value of the information to reader. Comprehensive coverage by each author in a key area of research or clinical practice is augmented by the following sections:
Expert commentary - a personal view on the most effective or promising strategies
Five-year view - a clear perspective of future prospects within a realistic timescale
Key issues - an executive summary cutting to the author''s most critical points
In addition to the Review program, each issue also features Medical Device Profiles - objective assessments of specific devices in development or clinical use to help inform clinical practice. There are also Perspectives - overviews highlighting areas of current debate and controversy, together with reports from the conference scene and invited Editorials.