An Analysis of Waitlist Inactivity Among Patients With Ventricular Assist Devices.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular assist devices (VADs) are commonly used mechanical circulatory support for bridge to transplant therapy in end-stage heart failure; however, it is not understood how VADs influence incidence of waitlist inactive status. We sought to characterize and compare waitlist inactivity among patients with and without VADs. METHODS: Using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database, we investigated the VAD's impact on incidence and length of inactive periods for heart transplant candidates from 2005 through 2018. We compared median length of inactivity between patients with and without VADs and investigated inactivity risk with time-to-event regression models. RESULTS: Among 46,441 heart transplant candidates, 32% (n = 14,636) had a VAD. Thirty-eight percent (n = 17,873) of all patients experienced inactivity, of which 42% (7538/17,873) had a VAD. Median inactivity length was 31 d for patients without VADs and 62 d for VAD patients (P < 0.0005). Multivariable analysis showed no significant difference in risk of inactivity for deteriorating conditions between patients with and without VADs after controlling for demographic and baseline clinical variables. A larger proportion of patients without VADs were inactive for deteriorating conditions than VAD patients (54%, n = 8242/15,221 versus 32%, n = 3583/11,086, P < 0.001). Ten percent (1155/11,086) of VAD patients' inactive periods were for VAD-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Although VAD patients were inactive longer and had an overall increased risk of any-cause inactivity, their risk of inactivity for deteriorating condition was not significantly different from patients without VADs. Furthermore, VAD patients had a smaller proportion of inactivity periods due to deteriorating conditions. Thus, VADs are protective from morbidity for waitlist patients.

Ventricular assist devices and middle age reduce heart transplantation rates for waitlist candidates.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular assist devices (VADs) are commonly employed as a bridge to transplantation for heart failure. The full effects of VADs on transplantation rates are not fully understood. We sought to compare transplantation rates stratified by age and VAD status. METHODS: Using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database, we investigated the impact of age and VAD status on heart allocation rates among all transplant-eligible patients from January 2005 to September 2018. Patients were grouped based on the presence (+) or absence (-) of a VAD as well as age (<45, 45-65, and >65 years). Demographics were compared with a multivariate competing risk analysis that yielded risk-adjusted subdistribution hazard ratios (SHR). RESULTS: Among the 50 602 total waitlist candidates, 18 271 patients with a VAD had higher rates of diabetes and cerebrovascular disease at waitlist entry. Multivariate analysis found statistically significant lower rates of transplantation for all (+)VAD groups compared with age-matched (-)VAD counterparts, with the 45- to 65-year-old (+)VAD group having the lowest transplantation rate (SHR = 0.62; P < .0005). Among (-)VAD patients, transplantation rates increased with increase in age. CONCLUSIONS: There is a statistically significant reduced rate of transplantation for patients with a VAD compared with those without a VAD, with the lowest rate among those of ages 45 to 65 years with a VAD. The increasing prevalence of this demographic and the deprioritization of VADs in the new heart allocation criteria have the potential to further exacerbate this difference.

Outcomes after heart transplantation in patients who have undergone a bridge-to-bridge strategy.

Objectives: We compared posttransplant outcomes between patients bridged from temporary mechanical circulatory support to durable left ventricular assist device before transplant (bridge-to-bridge [BTB] strategy) and patients bridged from temporary mechanical circulatory support directly to transplant (bridge-to-transplant [BTT] strategy). Methods: We identified adult heart transplant recipients in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database between 2005 and 2020 who were supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, intra-aortic balloon pump, or temporary ventricular assist device as a BTB or BTT strategy. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regressions were used to assess 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year survival. Posttransplant length of stay and complications were compared as secondary outcomes. Results: In total, 201 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (61 BTB, 140 BTT), 1385 intra-aortic balloon pump (460 BTB, 925 BTT), and 234 temporary ventricular assist device (75 BTB, 159 BTT) patients were identified. For patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, intra-aortic balloon pump, or temporary ventricular assist device, there were no differences in survival between BTB and BTT at 1 and 5 years posttransplant, as well as 10 years posttransplant even after adjusting for baseline characteristics. The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation BTB group had greater rates of acute rejection (32.8% vs 13.6%; P = .002) and lower rates of dialysis (1.6% vs 21.4%; P < .001). For intra-aortic balloon pump and temporary ventricular assist device patients, there were no differences in posttransplant length of stay, acute rejection, airway compromise, stroke, dialysis, or pacemaker insertion between BTB and BTT recipients. Conclusions: BTB patients have similar short- and midterm posttransplant survival as BTT patients. Future studies should continue to investigate the tradeoff between prolonged temporary mechanical circulatory support versus transitioning to durable mechanical circulatory support.

Posttransplant Long-Term Outcomes for Patients with Ventricular Assist Devices on the Heart Transplant Waitlist.

Ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are commonly used in end-stage heart failure for mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to heart transplantation. However, LVADs' long-term effects on posttransplant survival are unknown. We sought to compare long-term mortality after transplantation for patients with and without LVADs. Using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database, we investigated LVADs' impact on long-term (3 month, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, and 8 years) posttransplant mortality risk for all heart transplant recipients between 2010 and 2019. Time-to-event regression analysis quantified mortality risk by LVAD status in both unconditional and conditional survival analyses. Of 20,113 transplant recipients, 8,999 (45%) had a LVAD while on the waitlist. Among those who died after transplantation, patients with LVADs on average died sooner (1.8 years) than patients without LVADs (3.0 years; p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, patients with LVADs had a 44% higher mortality risk within the first 3 months posttransplant (HR = 1.44, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in mortality risk between patients who did and did not have pretransplant LVADs after 1, 2, and 5 years of posttransplant conditional survival. While LVAD patients have a survival disadvantage in the first year posttransplant, conditional survival analysis demonstrated no difference in mortality risk between patients with and without LVADs beyond 1 year of follow up. Of the patients who died posttransplant, patients with LVADs on average died sooner than patients without LVADs.