Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients awaiting heart transplant in the continuous-flow left ventricular assist device era.
Trivedi, Jaimin R; Slaughter, Mark S; Pan, Queeny; Vijaykrishnan, Raj; Gopinathannair, Rakesh.
Afiliación
  • Trivedi JR; Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
  • Slaughter MS; Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
  • Pan Q; Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
  • Vijaykrishnan R; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
  • Gopinathannair R; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
Artif Organs ; 45(8): 845-851, 2021 Aug.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33529349
ABSTRACT
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have been shown to have survival advantage in advanced heart failure patients. Few studies have evaluated the role of ICDs in patients supported with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CFVADs). We aimed to evaluate the impact of ICD and CFVAD on heart transplant (HTx) waiting list survival. We queried the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) thoracic transplant database between years 2007 and 2016 for patients aged ≥ 18 years listed for HTx. Patients receiving devices other than CFVAD were excluded. Patients were divided into groups-with and without CFVAD and further subdivided into groups-with and without ICD use. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate the survival outcomes. There were 34 860 patients listed for HTx during study period of which 11 481 (32%) had a CFVAD and 26 139 (75%) had an ICD. Within CFVAD group, patients with ICD were older, more likely male, with higher creatinine and listed as UNOS status 1A. In the No-CFVAD group, 1-year waitlist survival was significantly better with ICD use (81% vs. 73%, P < .0001); however, in CFVAD patients, 1-year survival with ICD use was comparable to No-ICD use (95% vs. 94%, P = .1). Use of ICD is associated with significantly better heart transplant waitlist survival in patients not supported by CFVAD. In patients supported with CFVAD, the ICD does not offer additional survival benefit.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Desfibriladores Implantables / Insuficiencia Cardíaca Tipo de estudio: Etiology_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Artif Organs Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Desfibriladores Implantables / Insuficiencia Cardíaca Tipo de estudio: Etiology_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Artif Organs Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos