Mechanical Circulatory Support as a Bridge-to-Transplant Candidacy: When Does It Work?

Durable mechanical circulatory support (dMCS) devices can be offered as a bridge-to-transplant (BTT) or as a bridge-to-candidacy (BTC) strategy for candidates with contraindications to transplant listing, including pulmonary hypertension (BTC-PH), morbid obesity (BTC-Obes), social issues (BTC-Soc), or chronic illness (BTC-Illness). An understanding of the trajectory of BTC patients could guide future triage of advanced heart failure patients who are not candidates for transplantation. We performed a retrospective review all patients who underwent dMCS implantation as either BTT (206 patients) or BTC (114 patients) at our center from January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2020. There was no significant difference in mortality between BTC patients and BTT patients. Compared with the BTT group, significantly more patients in the BTC-PH group were transplanted (81% vs. 63%; p < 0.05) and significantly fewer patients in the BTC-Obes group (44%; p < 0.05) and BTC-Soc group (39%; p < 0.05) were transplanted. Additionally, the readmission rate was higher for those in the BTC-Obes (6.2 vs. 2.1; p < 0.05) and BTC-Soc (3.9 vs. 2.1; p < 0.05) groups. Bridge-to-candidacy patients generally had poorer post-dMCS trajectories than BTT patients. Centers should not be dissuaded from pursuing a BTC strategy for qualified patients; however, careful consideration of potential adverse outcomes is necessary.

The Impact of a High-risk Psychosocial Assessment on Outcomes After Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Patient adherence is vital to the success of durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS), and the pre-MCS assessment of adherence by the multidisciplinary advanced heart failure team is a critical component of the evaluation. We assessed the impact of a high-risk psychosocial assessment before durable MCS implantations on post-MCS outcomes. Between January 2010 and April 2018, 319 patients underwent durable MCS at our center. We excluded those who died or were transplanted before discharge. The remaining 203 patients were grouped by pre-MCS psychosocial assessment: high-risk (26; 12.8%) versus acceptable risk (177; 87.2%). We compared clinical characteristics, nonadherence, and outcomes between groups. High-risk patients were younger (48 vs. 56; p = 0.006) and more often on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at durable MCS placement (26.9% vs. 9.0%; p = 0.007). These patients had a higher incidence of post-MCS nonadherence including missed clinic appointments, incorrect medication administration, and use of alcohol and illicit drugs. After a mean follow-up of 15.3 months, 100% of high-risk patients had unplanned hospitalizations compared with 76.8% of acceptable-risk patients. Per year, high-risk patients had a median of 2.9 hospitalizations per year vs. 1.2 hospitalizations per year in acceptable-risk patients. While not significant, there were more driveline infections over the follow-up period in high-risk patients (27% vs. 14.7%), deaths (27% vs. 18%), and fewer heart transplants (53.8% vs. 63.8%).The pre-MCS psychosocial assessment is associated with post-MCS evidence of nonadherence and unplanned hospitalizations. Attention to pre-MCS assessment of psychosocial risk factors is essential to optimize durable MCS outcomes.