Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Clin Transplant ; 36(5): e14598, 2022 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35048435

RESUMEN

STUDY: There is no widely accepted donor to recipient size-match metric to predict outcomes in cardiac transplant. The predictive ability of size-match metrics has not been studied when recipients are stratified by heart failure etiology. We sought to assess the performance of commonly used size metrics to predict survival after heart transplant, accounting for restrictive versus non-restrictive pathology. METHODS: The UNOS registry was queried from 2000 to 2017 for all primary isolated heart transplants. Donor-recipient ratios were calculated for commonly used size metrics and their association with survival was assessed using continuous, nonlinear analysis. RESULTS: 29 817 patients were identified. Height (P < .001), predicted heart mass (PHM) (P = .003), ideal body weight (IBW) (P < .001) and body mass index (BMI) (P = .003) ratios were significantly associated with survival, while weight and body surface area (BSA) ratios were not. When stratified, only BMI ratio retained significance for both restrictive (P = .051) and non-restrictive (P = .003) subsets. Recipients with restrictive etiology had increased risk of mortality with both a lower and higher BMI ratio. CONCLUSIONS: While many metrics show association with survival in the non-restrictive subset, BMI is the only metric that retains significance in the restrictive subset. Recipients with restrictive and non-restrictive etiologies of heart failure tolerate size mismatch differently.


Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Trasplante de Corazón , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos , Benchmarking , Supervivencia de Injerto , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/cirugía , Trasplante de Corazón/efectos adversos , Humanos , Tamaño de los Órganos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Donantes de Tejidos
2.
Artif Organs ; 45(7): 696-705, 2021 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33350485

RESUMEN

Despite improved outcomes of modern continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs), device exchange is still needed for various indications. While the majority of CF-LVADs are exchanged to the same model, exchange to a different pump model is occasionally warranted. In this meta-analysis, we sought to consolidate the existing evidence to better elucidate the indications and outcomes in these cases. A comprehensive systematic search of adult patient cohorts who underwent CF-LVAD exchange to a different CF-LVAD model was performed. Study-level data from 10 studies comprising 98 patients were extracted and pooled for analysis. Mean patient age was 58 (95% CI: 48-65) and 81% were male. Indication for initial CF-LVAD was ischemic cardiomyopathy in 45% (34-57). Initial device was HeartMate II LVAD (HMII) in 93 (94.9%) and HeartWare HVAD (HW) in 5 (5.1%) patients. After mean CF-LVAD support time of 18.8 (15.2-22.4) months, exchange indications included thrombosis in 71% (43-89), infection in 21% (8-47) and device malfunction in 12% (7-21). HMII to HW exchange occurred in 53 (54.1%) patients, HMII to HeartMate III (HM3) in 32 (32.7%), and HM II to either HW or HM3 in 13 (13.2%) patients. Postoperatively, right ventricular assist device was required in 16% (8-32). Overall, 20% (8-40) of patients experienced a stroke, while HW patients had a significantly higher stroke incidence than HM3 patients (HW: 21% (8-47) vs. HM3: 5% (1-24), P < .01). Overall 30-day mortality was 10% (6-17), while HW had a significantly worse 30-day mortality than HM3 (HW: 13% (7-24) vs. HM3: 5% (1-24), P = .03). Following device exchange from a different CF-LVAD model, HM3 is associated with lower stroke and higher survival when compared to HW.


Asunto(s)
Remoción de Dispositivos , Corazón Auxiliar/efectos adversos , Falla de Equipo , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Humanos , Infecciones/complicaciones , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Trombosis/complicaciones
3.
J Clin Med ; 9(12)2020 Dec 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33271929

RESUMEN

Treatment of giant cell myocarditis (GCM) can require bridging to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) or recovery with mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Since the roles of MCS and immunotherapy are not well-defined in GCM, we sought to analyze outcomes of patients with GCM who required MCS. A systematic search was performed in June 2019 to identify all studies of biopsy-proven GCM requiring MCS after 2009. We identified 27 studies with 43 patients. Patient-level data were extracted for analysis. Median patient age was 45 (interquartile range (IQR): 32-57) years. 42.1% (16/38) were female. 34.9% (15/43) presented in acute heart failure. 20.9% (9/43) presented in cardiogenic shock. Biventricular (BiVAD) MCS was required in 76.7% (33/43) of cases. Of the 62.8% (27/43) of patients who received immunotherapy, 81.5% (22/27) used steroids combined with at least one other immunosuppressant. Cyclosporine was the most common non-steroidal agent, used in 40.7% (11/27) of regimens. Immunosuppression was initiated before MCS in 59.3% (16/27) of cases, after MCS in 29.6% (8/27), and not specified in 11.1% (3/27). Immunosuppression started prior to MCS was associated with significantly better survival than MCS alone (p = 0.006); 60.5% (26/43) of patients received bridge-to-transplant MCS; 39.5% (17/43) received bridge-to-recovery MCS; 58.5% (24/41) underwent OHT a median of 104 (58-255) days from diagnosis. GCM recurrence after OHT was reported in 8.3% (2/24) of transplanted cases. BiVAD predominates in mechanically supported patients with GCM. Survival and bridge to recovery appear better in patients on immunosuppression, especially if initiated before MCS.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA