Mid-term survival after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device versus heart transplantation.

There is a paucity of data about mid-term outcome of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) treated with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in Europe, where donor shortage and their aging limit the availability and the probability of success of heart transplantation (HTx). The aim of this study is to compare Italian single-centre mid-term outcome in prospective patients treated with LVAD vs. HTx. We evaluated 213 consecutive patients with advanced HF who underwent continuous-flow LVAD implant or HTx from 1/2006 to 2/2012, with complete follow-up at 1 year (3/2013). We compared outcome in patients who received a LVAD (n = 49) with those who underwent HTx (n = 164) and in matched groups of 39 LVAD and 39 HTx patients. Patients that were treated with LVAD had a worse risk profile in comparison with HTx patients. Kaplan-Meier survival curves estimated a one-year survival of 75.5 % in LVAD vs. 82.3 % in HTx patients, a difference that was non-statistically significant [hazard ratio (HR) 1.46; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.74-2.86; p = 0.27 for LVAD vs. HTx]. After group matching 1-year survival was similar between LVAD (76.9 %) and HTx (79.5 %; HR 1.15; 95 % CI 0.44-2.98; p = 0.78). Concordant data was observed at 2-year follow-up. Patients treated with LVAD as bridge-to-transplant indication (n = 22) showed a non significant better outcome compared with HTx with a 95.5 and 90.9 % survival, at 1- and 2-year follow-up, respectively. Despite worse preoperative conditions, survival is not significantly lower after LVAD than after HTx at 2-year follow-up. Given the scarce number of donors for HTx, LVAD therapy represents a valid option, potentially affecting the current allocation strategy of heart donors also in Europe.

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in chronic kidney disease: prognostic implication of an early invasive strategy.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of PCI for NSTE-ACS with CKD is unclear. The aim of our study was to assess whether early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (within 24 hours from admission) is associated with improved in-hospital (mortality or acute kidney injury) and long-term events (composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and bleeding events) in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) with chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: We retrospectively studied NSTE-ACS patients who underwent PCI in large tertiary centers. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)<60 mL/min/1.73 m2. A propensity score for the likelihood of an early invasive strategy was calculated. Relative risks (RR) and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were estimated for in-hospital and follow-up events. RESULTS: We included 821 patients, mean age was 69±12 years; 492 (60%) received an early PCI, and 273 (33%) had an eGFR <60. Median follow-up was 391 days. At univariate analysis, early treatment was associated with significantly lower in-hospital and follow-up events. However, after adjustment for major prognostic factors, there was no significant association with both in-hospital (RR=1.06; 95% CI 0.83-1.36) and follow-up events (RR=1.07; 95% CI 0.83-1.37). When the association was assessed in strata of CKD, lack of statistically significant association was confirmed, even if a trend emerged in patients with preserved renal function both on primary outcome (RR=0.47, 95% 0.18-1.22) and time to secondary outcome (HR=0.62, 95% CI 0.36-1.08). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion in a cohort of NSTE-ACS patients, an early invasive strategy does not independently affect prognosis.