A Device Strategy-Matched Comparison Analysis among Different Intermacs Profiles: A Single Center Experience.

Background

The present study evaluates outcomes of LVAD patients, taking into account the device strategy and the INTERMACS profile.

Methods

We included 192 LVAD-patients implanted between January 2012 and May 2021. The primary and secondary end-points were survival and major adverse events between Profiles 1-3 vs. Profile 4, depending on implantation strategies (Bridge-to-transplant-BTT; Bridge-to-candidacy-BTC; Destination-Therapy-DT).

Results

The overall survival was 67% (61-75) at 12 months and 61% (54-70) at 24 months. Profile 4 patients showed significantly higher survival (p = 0.018). Incidences of acute right-ventricular-failure (RVF) (p = 0.046), right-ventricular-assist-device (RVAD) implantation (p = 0.015), and continuous-venovenous-hemofiltration (CVVH) (p = 0.006) were higher in Profile 1-3 patients, as well as a longer intensive care unit stays (p = 0.050) and in-hospital-mortality (p = 0.012). Twelve-month and 24-month survival rates were higher in the BTT rather than in BTC (log-rank = 0.410; log-rank = 0.120) and in DT groups (log-rank = 0.046). In the BTT group, Profile 1-3 patients had a higher need for RVAD support (p = 0.042).

Conclusions

LVAD implantation in elective patients was associated with better survival and lower complications incidence. LVAD implantation in BTC patients has to be considered before their conditions deteriorate. DT should be addressed to elective patients in order to guarantee acceptable results.