The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2019
Early Outcomes After Heart Transplantation in Recipients Bridged With a HeartMate 3 Device.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Suarez-Pierre Alejandro, Lui Cecillia, Zhou Xun, Crawford Todd C, Fraser Charles D, Giuliano Katherine, Hsu Steven, Higgins Robert S, Zehr Kenton J, Whitman Glenn J, Choi Chun W, Kilic Ahmet
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices are increasingly used as bridge-to-transplantation in eligible patients. The HeartMate 3 (HM3; Abbott Laboratories, Abbot Park, IL) is the latest device to obtain US Food and Drug Administration approval as bridge-to-transplantation. This study examines early outcomes of transplant recipients after HM3 in comparison with recipients bridged with the HeartMate 2 (HM2; Abbott Laboratories) and HeartWare Ventricular Assist System (HVAD; Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) devices.
METHODS: Using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database, we identified all adult patients who were slated for bridge-to-transplantation with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (HM2, HVAD, or HM3) between April 1, 2015 and January 31, 2018. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality 6 months after transplantation. The independent influence of the bridging device on outcomes was determined using Cox proportional hazard models.
RESULTS: Patients (N = 1,978) were successfully bridged to transplantation with the HM2 (n = 881), HVAD (n = 920), or HM3 (n = 177) device. Six-month mortality rates were similar across these devices (HM2, 5.9%; HVAD, 7.7%; HM3, 4.7%; log-rank p = 0.30). On average HM2 patients were on a left ventricular assist device for 2 months longer (p < 0.01). The HVAD had the lowest rate of device exchange before transplant (p = 0.01). The HM3 had no events of pump thrombosis (p < 0.01). HVAD patients had the lowest rate of device malfunction before to transplant (p < 0.01). Panel reactive antibodies at the time of transplantation were lower for HM3 patients (p < 0.01); however rates of graft rejection at 6 months were not different (p = 0.25).
CONCLUSIONS: The HM3 device provides excellent early outcomes as a bridge to transplantation and may be associated with a reduction in comorbidities. Longer follow-up is needed to better define differences between durable left ventricular assist devices.
METHODS: Using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database, we identified all adult patients who were slated for bridge-to-transplantation with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (HM2, HVAD, or HM3) between April 1, 2015 and January 31, 2018. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality 6 months after transplantation. The independent influence of the bridging device on outcomes was determined using Cox proportional hazard models.
RESULTS: Patients (N = 1,978) were successfully bridged to transplantation with the HM2 (n = 881), HVAD (n = 920), or HM3 (n = 177) device. Six-month mortality rates were similar across these devices (HM2, 5.9%; HVAD, 7.7%; HM3, 4.7%; log-rank p = 0.30). On average HM2 patients were on a left ventricular assist device for 2 months longer (p < 0.01). The HVAD had the lowest rate of device exchange before transplant (p = 0.01). The HM3 had no events of pump thrombosis (p < 0.01). HVAD patients had the lowest rate of device malfunction before to transplant (p < 0.01). Panel reactive antibodies at the time of transplantation were lower for HM3 patients (p < 0.01); however rates of graft rejection at 6 months were not different (p = 0.25).
CONCLUSIONS: The HM3 device provides excellent early outcomes as a bridge to transplantation and may be associated with a reduction in comorbidities. Longer follow-up is needed to better define differences between durable left ventricular assist devices.