Impact of duration of mechanical support on heart transplantation: Hasty transplantation may not have a good long-term outcome.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been widely utilized in critically ill cardiac transplant candidates. Few studies have investigated the impact of duration of MCS before heart transplantation (HTx) on long-term patient survival. METHODS: A retrospective HTx database was reviewed between 2009 and 2019. Patients who did not or did undergo MCS before HTx were categorized into two groups: (1) A (did not) and (2) B (did), respectively. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to assess the cutoff level of MCS duration before HTx in evaluating 5-year survival. RESULT: A total of 270 HTx patients (group A: 120, group B: 150) were analyzed. Group B patients had a higher percentage of blood type O, a higher incidence of resuscitation, a shorter listing duration, and a higher likelihood of having United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) 1A status than group A. The ROC curve revealed 24 days as a good cut-off level for determining the best MCS before HTx timing. Group B was categorized into two subgroups: (1) B1 (MCS < 24 days, n = 65) and (2) B2 (MCS > 24 days, n = 85). B2 had a higher incidence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), hemodialysis, longer waiting time after MCS, and better ventricular assist device implantation than B1. However, the survival curves showed that B1 outcomes were significantly worse than in groups A and B2. Groups A and B2 had similar survival curves without an increased incidence of infection. CONCLUSION: The preliminary data demonstrated that a longer duration of MCS may be associated with better outcomes than urgent HTx.

Impact of the Pre-Transplant Circulatory Supportive Strategy on Post-Transplant Outcome: Double Bridge May Work.

BACKGROUND: The number of waitlisted patients requiring mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to heart transplantation is increasing. The data concerning the results of the double-bridge strategy are limited. We sought to investigate the post-transplant outcomes across the different bridge strategies. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a heart transplantation database from Jan 2009 to Jan 2019. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and ventricular assist devices (VAD) were the MCS that we investigated. The pre- and post-transplant characteristics and variables of patients bridged with the different types of MCS were collected. The post-transplant survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: A total of 251 heart transplants were reviewed; 115 without MCS and 136 with MCS. The patients were divided to five groups: Group 1 (no MCS): n = 115; Group 2 (IABP): n = 15; Group 3 (ECMO): n = 33; Group 4 (ECMO-VAD): double-bridge (n = 59); Group 5 (VAD): n = 29. Survival analysis demonstrated that the 3-year post-transplant survival rates were significantly different among the groups (Log-rank p < 0.001). There was no difference in survival between group 4(ECMO-VAD) and group 1(no MCS)1 (p = 0.136), or between group 4(ECMO-VAD) and group 5(VAD) (p = 0.994). Group 3(ECMO) had significantly inferior 3-year survival than group 4(ECMO-VAD) and group 5(VAD). CONCLUSION: Double bridge may not lead to worse mid-term results in patients who could receive a transplantation. Initial stabilization with ECMO for critical patients before implantation of VAD might be considered as a strategy for obtaining an optimal post-transplant outcome.