RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients requiring biventricular support (BIVAD) face higher morbidity than those undergoing durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation alone. The goal of the current study was to evaluate quality of life (QOL) of patients with LVAD therapy in the modern era, stratified by use of biventricular support. METHODS: All patients undergoing LVAD at our center were reviewed between October 2017 and September 2021. Patients were stratified by perioperative use of BIVAD. Patients were administered a telephone survey consisting of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12) as well as free-responses regarding satisfaction surrounding their operation. Outcomes included survival, KCCQ-12 metrics, and thematic analysis of free response questions. RESULTS: 92 patients were identified, of whom 26 (28%) received BIVAD support. BIVAD patients had more preoperative ECMO use (54% vs. 12%, p < 0.001) and lower INTERMACS scores (Category 1: 46% vs. 14%, p = 0.001). Three-year survival was 73.8% among LVAD-alone patients and 50.1% among BIVAD patients (log-rank p = 0.022). Median composite KCCQ-12 score was 78 (57-88). No differences in composite or any component scores were noted between groups. 76% of patients report they would be moderately or extremely like to go through surgery again if given repeat choice. The most common themes expressed were overall gratitude (24%) and disappointment with device-related restrictions (20%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients requiring BIVAD therapy have more advanced shock, longer associated hospital courses, and lower long-term survival. However, those that survive enjoy similar overall quality of life, and many endorse positive outlooks on their surgical course. Continued assessments of quality of life are important in providing patient-centered LVAD care.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing allocation policy change has led to a significant increase in the use of mechanical circulatory support devices in patients listed for orthotopic heart transplantation. However, there has been a paucity of data regarding the newest generation Impella 5.5, which received FDA approval in 2019. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried for all adults awaiting orthotopic heart transplantation who received Impella 5.5 support during their listing period. Waitlist, device, and early post-transplant outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 464 patients received Impella 5.5 support during their listing period with a median waitlist time of 19 days. Among them, 402 (87%) patients were ultimately transplanted, with 378 (81%) being directly bridged to transplant with the device. Waitlist death (7%) and clinical deterioration (5%) were the most common reasons for waitlist removal. Device complications and failure were uncommon (<5%). The most common post-transplant complication was acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (16%). Survival at 1-year post-transplant survival was 89.5%. CONCLUSION: Since its approval, the Impella 5.5 has been increasingly used as a bridge to transplant. This analysis demonstrates robust waitlist and post-transplant outcomes with minimal device-related and postoperative complications.
Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Transplante de Coração , Coração Auxiliar , Adulto , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Insuficiência Cardíaca/cirurgia , Listas de Espera , Complicações Pós-Operatórias , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess societal preferences regarding allocation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a rescue option for select patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of a nationally representative sample. SETTING: Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. PARTICIPANTS: In total, responses from 1,041 members of Amazon Mechanical Turk crowd-sourcing platform were included. Participants were 37.9 ± 12.6 years old, generally white (65%), and college-educated (66.1%). Many reported working in a healthcare setting (22.5%) and having a friend or family member who was admitted to the hospital (43.8%) or died from COVID-19 (29.9%). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Although most reported an unwillingness to stay on ECMO for >one week without signs of recovery, participants were highly supportive of ECMO utilization as a life-preserving technique on a policy level. The majority (96.7%) advocated for continued use of ECMO to treat COVID patients during periods of resource scarcity but would prioritize those with highest likelihood of recovery (50%) followed by those who were sickest regardless of survival chances (31.7%). Patients >40 years old were more likely to prefer distributing ECMO on a first-come first-served basis (21.5% v 13.3%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Even though participants expressed hesitation regarding ECMO in personal circumstances, they were uniformly in support of using ECMO to treat COVID patients at a policy level for others who might need it, even in the setting of severe scarcity.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Oxigenação por Membrana Extracorpórea , Adulto , COVID-19/terapia , Estudos Transversais , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Opinião Pública , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. As the 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation policy change elevated waitlist status for patients receiving mechanical circulatory support (MCS), we aimed to determine if a center's annual heart transplant volume was associated with ECMO-support duration and posttransplant outcomes. METHODS: Adults heart transplant candidates between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2021, were isolated in the UNOS database. VA-ECMO use was identified at the time of listing for transplant. Average annual transplant volume was calculated by the center, with stratification as high (≥20 cardiac transplants, high volume center [HVC]) or low (<20 cardiac transplants, low volume center [LVC]) volume centers. Results are reported as mean (interquartile range) or n (%). RESULTS: In total, 543 patients at HVCs and 275 at LVCs were listed for transplant supported with VA-ECMO. Those listed at HVCs were more likely to be supported by intra-aortic balloon pump (103 [19%] vs. 32 [11.6%], p = .008) and inotropes (267 [49.2%] vs. 106 [38.5%], p = .004) at time of listing. Patients at HVCs received ECMO support for 6 [4-9] days, compared to 8 [4-15] days at low-volume centers (p = .030), and but were cannulated a similar time before listing (2 [1-5] vs. 3 [1-7] days, p = .517). There were no differences in rates of transplant (p = .2126), waitlist mortality (p = .8645), delisting due to clinical deterioration (p = .8419), or recovery (p = .1773) between groups. Among transplanted patients, there were no differences in support duration (6 [4-8] vs. 6 [4-10], p = .187), or time from registration to transplant (5 [2-20] vs. 7 [3-22] days, p = .560). Posttransplant survival did not vary (p = .293). CONCLUSIONS: LVCs can successfully bridge patients to transplant with VA-ECMO and achieve comparable outcomes to HVCs.
Assuntos
Oxigenação por Membrana Extracorpórea , Transplante de Coração , Adulto , Humanos , Oxigenação por Membrana Extracorpórea/métodos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Tempo , Balão Intra-AórticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Anatomy education in US medical schools has seen numerous changes since the call for medical education reform in 2010. The purpose of this study was to survey US medical schools to assess recent trends in anatomy education, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on anatomy teaching, and future directions of medical school anatomy curricula. METHODS: We sent a 29-item survey to anatomy course directors of 145 AAMC-associated allopathic medical schools inquiring about their schools' anatomy curricula. The survey contained objective discrete questions concerning the curricula changes preceding COVID-19 and those directly related to COVID-19. We also asked subjective and open-ended questions about the impact of COVID-19 and future directions of anatomy education. RESULTS: A total of 117/143 course directors (82%) completed the survey. Most schools (60%) reported a major change to their anatomy course within the past five years, including a decrease in total course time (20%), integration of anatomy into other courses (19%), and implementation of a "flipped classroom" (15%) teaching style. Due to COVID-19, there was a decrease in the fraction of course time dedicated to "hands-on" learning (p < 0.01) and teaching of clinical correlates (p = 0.02) and radiology (p < 0.01). Most course directors (79%) reported that COVID-19 had a negative impact on quality of learning due to decreased interactive or in-person (62%) learning and lack of dissection (44%). Incorporation of virtual-reality applications or 3D anatomy software (23%) and a decrease in cadaver dissection (13%) were the most common future anticipated changes. CONCLUSION: The constraints conferred by COVID-19 highlight the importance of maximizing interactive learning in the discipline of anatomy. In an era of social distancing and decreased emphasis on conventional anatomy dissection, adaptations of new technologies and teaching modalities may allow for traditional educational rigor to be sustained.
Assuntos
Anatomia , COVID-19 , Educação de Graduação em Medicina , Educação Médica , Anatomia/educação , Currículo , Humanos , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2 , Faculdades de MedicinaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Perform a systematic review assessing the efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for cleft palate repair. Primary outcomes included hospital length of stay, readmission rates, and postoperative narcotic use. Secondary outcomes included complications, time to initial postoperative oral intake, and pain scores. DATA SOURCES: Cohort and randomized studies of ERAS protocols pertaining to cleft palate repair were identified by systematic review of Medline, Scopus, Embase, and grey literature. REVIEW METHODS: Data extracted included patient demographics, clinical care protocols, complication rates, postoperative narcotic use, time to initial postoperative oral intake, hospital length of stay, family satisfaction, and 30-day readmission. Meta-analysis was used to compare outcomes between patients enrolled in ERAS protocols versus those in conventional care pathways. RESULTS: Eight hundred sixty-five articles were screened, and 5 studies met full inclusion criteria. A total of 425 patients were included. Patients in ERAS protocols saw a mean reduction of - 23.96 hours in length of stay compared to controls (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 26.4, - 20.6). Patients in ERAS protocols also had decreased total morphine consumption (mean difference [MD]: - 3.88 mg; CI: - 4.31, - 3.45), and decreased time to first initial feed compared to controls (MD: - 3.88 hours; CI: - 4.3, - 3.5). There was no difference in readmission rates or complication rates between ERAS and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS protocols have seen limited use in pediatric patients. The present study sought to assess the impact of ERAS protocols following primary palatoplasty. Our results indicate decreased hospital length of stay, postoperative opioid consumption, and time to feeding, without increasing readmission rates or complication rates.
Assuntos
Fissura Palatina , Recuperação Pós-Cirúrgica Melhorada , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Criança , Fissura Palatina/cirurgia , Humanos , Tempo de Internação , Readmissão do Paciente , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Período Pós-OperatórioRESUMO
AIM: The purpose of this systematic review was to use the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool to assess the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the workup and management of paediatric neck masses. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and grey literature were searched to identify CPG incorporating paediatric neck masses. Four authors with previous training of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool evaluated the included studies. RESULTS: Nine studies met inclusion criteria. The highest scoring domains were 'Scope and Purpose' (74.0 ± 4.5) and 'Clarity of Presentation' (72.9 ± 6.3). The lowest scoring domains were 'Rigour and Development' (18.8 ± 7.5) and 'Applicability' (23.7 ± 6.1). One study was 'High' quality, three received scores of 'Average' and five were found to be 'Low' quality. CONCLUSION: The majority of paediatric neck mass CPGs were low to average quality. The domains in need of greatest improvement were 'Rigour and Development' and 'Applicability', suggesting significant concerns in current CPGs focused on paediatric neck masses.
Assuntos
Pescoço , Criança , Humanos , Pescoço/patologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Given that patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to inform clinical decision-making, it is vital that they are validated, reliable, responsive, and appropriate for the population under study. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the rate of PROM use in the pediatric orthopaedic literature, characterize whether each use was in the PROM-validated demographic, and analyze the association between bibliometric factors and the use of PROMs with incomplete validation. METHODS: The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science database was queried for all clinical pediatric orthopaedic studies from 2014 to 2017. All PROMs were recorded for each study independently by 2 reviewers and cross-referenced with the published orthopaedic literature as of 2017 to determine if the PROM had been validated for the study population. PROMs that had not been validated, had been shown to be invalid, or had conflicting validity studies for use in the population of interest were designated as incompletely validated or used without complete validation. The following covariates were recorded for each study: subspecialty, inclusion of a statistician coauthor, sample size, journal, and the journal impact factor. χ analysis was used to evaluate the association between categorical variables and the use of at least 1 incompletely validated PROM. RESULTS: In total, 1000 articles were screened, yielding 653 studies that met our inclusion criteria. A total of 104/653 (16%) publications-reported PROMs. PROMs were used without complete validation 120/165 (73%) times, and 77/104 (74%) studies used at least 1 PROM without complete validation. The most frequent reasons for incomplete validation were (1) using PROMs that had been validated in adults, but not pediatrics (n=47; 28.5%), and (2) using PROMs that had been designated in the literature as invalid for pediatrics (n=27; 16.4%). The incomplete validation of at least 1 PROM was associated with smaller sample size (P=0.01) and subspecialty (P<0.01). Overall rates of PROM use and the proportion of PROMs used without complete validation were both found to be higher than those previously reported. CONCLUSION: The majority of pediatric orthopaedic studies reporting PROMs used at least 1 PROM without complete validation for their study population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-systematic review of level I, II, III, and IV studies.
Assuntos
Ortopedia , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Pediatria , Tomada de Decisão Clínica/métodos , Humanos , Ortopedia/métodos , Ortopedia/normas , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/normas , Pediatria/métodos , Pediatria/normas , Reprodutibilidade dos TestesRESUMO
Objectives: We sought to characterize the demographics, outcomes, and quality of life of asymptomatic patients undergoing mitral valve surgery at our center over a 10-year period. Methods: Adults undergoing mitral surgery were retrospectively reviewed between 2010 and 2019. Patients were included if deemed asymptomatic by review of referring cardiologist and surgeon consultation. Patients were administered a telephone survey consisting of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire as well as free-response regarding satisfaction surrounding their operation. Outcomes included survival, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire metrics, and thematic analysis of free response questions. Results: A total of 145 patients were identified who were deemed asymptomatic. Their average age was 60.3 ± 12.1 years, and 71% were male. No patients had endocarditis, and 34% had decreased ejection fraction (<60%). Repair was achieved in 95% of patients. Median length of stay was 6 (5-8) days. Ten-year survival was 91%, with no differences noted by ejection fraction. Composite Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score was 100 (96-100). The lowest component score was "Quality of Life," with 22% of patients reporting being "mostly satisfied" with present cardiac status. Most common themes expressed were gratitude with surgery results (58%), satisfaction with being able to stay active (23%), and happiness with early disease treatment (21%). Only 1 patient (0.7%) expressed regret with surgery choice. Conclusions: Mitral surgery for asymptomatic disease can be performed with good long-term outcomes in select patients, and the majority experience excellent quality of life and satisfaction with current health. Continued assessments of quality of life are important in evaluating outcomes of mitral surgery as indications grow.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Recent work has suggested that outcomes among heart transplant patients listed at the lower-urgency (United Network for Organ Sharing Status 4 or 6) status may not be significantly impacted by donor comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to investigate outcomes of extended criteria donors (ECD) in lower versus higher urgency patients undergoing heart transplantation. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was queried for all adult patients undergoing heart transplantation from October 18, 2018 through December 31, 2021. Patients were stratified by degree of urgency (higher urgency: UNOS 1 or 2 vs lower urgency: UNOS 4 or 6) and receipt of ECD hearts, as defined by donor hearts failing to meet established acceptable use criteria. Outcomes were compared using propensity score matched cohorts. RESULTS: Among 9,160 patients included, 2,320 (25.4%) were low urgency. ECD hearts were used in 35.5% of higher urgency (HU) patients and 39.2% of lower urgency (LU) patients. While ECD hearts had an impact on survival among high-urgency patients (p < 0.01), there was no difference in 1- and 2-year survival (p > 0.05) found among low urgency patients receiving ECD versus standard hearts. Neither ECDs nor individual ECD criteria were independently associated with mortality in low urgency patients (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Post-transplant outcomes among low urgency patients are not adversely affected by receipt of ECD vs. standard hearts. Expanding the available donor pool by optimizing use of ECDs in this population may increase transplant frequency, decrease waitlist morbidity, and improve postoperative outcomes for the transplant community at large.
Assuntos
Transplante de Coração , Doadores de Tecidos , Adulto , Humanos , Transplante de Coração/efeitos adversos , Fatores de Tempo , Listas de Espera , Bases de Dados Factuais , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to characterize the impact of the 2018 adult heart allocation policy change on waiting list and posttransplant outcomes of heart retransplantation in the United States. METHODS: All adults listed for heart retransplantation from May 2015 to June 2022 were identified using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Patients were stratified into eras (era 1 and era 2) based on the heart allocation change on October 18, 2018. Competing risks regressions and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess differences across eras in waiting list outcomes and 1-year posttransplant survival, respectively. RESULTS: The analysis included 356 repeat heart transplant recipients, with 207 (58%) receiving retransplantation during era 2. Patients who received a retransplant in era 2 were more commonly bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (21% vs 8%, P < .01) and intra-aortic balloon pump (29% vs 13%, P < .001) and had a lower likelihood of death/deterioration on the waiting list (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.82) compared with those in era 1. Rates of 30-day mortality (7% vs 7%, P = .99) and 1-year survival (82% vs 87%, P = .27) were not significantly different among retransplantation recipients across eras. After adjustment, retransplantation in era 2 was not associated with an increased hazard of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.55-2.30). The gap in 1-year mortality between primary transplant and retransplant recipients increased from era 1 to 2. CONCLUSIONS: Heart retransplantation candidates have experienced improved waiting list outcomes after the 2018 adult heart allocation policy, without significant changes to posttransplant survival.
Assuntos
Transplante de Coração , Adulto , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Reoperação , Estudos Retrospectivos , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Fatores de Tempo , Listas de EsperaRESUMO
Introduction: sub-Saharan Africa experiences a significant musculoskeletal trauma burden. Among patients who receive surgical treatment, there have been no reports as to how often surgical care is determined to be "adequate" or, if "inadequate", then what hospital and orthopaedic specialty-specific systems limitations might be prohibitive. Methods: data from patients presenting to the orthopaedic trauma service at a tertiary care center in sub-Saharan Africa were prospectively collected over a 6-week period and then retrospectively reviewed to determine whether the surgical treatment was "adequate" (or otherwise, "inadequate") according to the principle of restoring length, alignment, and rotation. Exclusion criteria included insufficient clinical information; isolated spinal injury; infection; cases involving only removal of hardware; soft-tissue procedures; tumor cases; and medical (non-surgical) conditions. Results: 112 cases were included for analysis. Surgery was indicated in 106 of 112 cases (94.6%), and of those, surgery was performed in 62 cases (58.4%). Among patients who underwent surgery with available post-operative imaging (n=56), surgical treatment was "inadequate" in 24 cases (42.9%). The most common reasons treatment was deemed "inadequate" included unavailability of appropriate implants (n=16), unavailability of intraoperative fluoroscopy (n=10) and incomplete intraoperative evaluation of injury (n=5). Conclusion: several systems limitations prevent the delivery of adequate surgical treatment in patients with acute orthopaedic traumatic injuries, including lack of intraoperative fluoroscopy and lack of implant availability. This study will serve as a useful baseline for ongoing efforts seeking to improve orthopaedic specialty resource availability and facilitate more effective fracture care in this region.
Assuntos
Fraturas Ósseas , Centros de Atenção Terciária , Humanos , Tanzânia , Feminino , Masculino , Adulto , Fraturas Ósseas/cirurgia , Fraturas Ósseas/terapia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto Jovem , Adolescente , Atenção à Saúde/organização & administração , Criança , Idoso , Estudos Prospectivos , Procedimentos Ortopédicos/estatística & dados numéricos , Procedimentos Ortopédicos/métodos , Pré-Escolar , Idoso de 80 Anos ou maisRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Short stature is associated with mortality after cardiac surgery and may increase size mismatch risk among transplant recipients. Yet, stature's impact on heart transplant outcomes is not well-characterized. METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was queried for data on all adult heart transplants in the United States from 2000 to 2022. Recipients were stratified into five cohorts by sex-corrected stature. Morbidity was assessed with Kruskal-Wallis and chi-squared tests. Mortality was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimation. Risk factors for mortality were assessed with multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Among 43,420 transplant recipients, 5321 (12.2%) had short stature (females >4'11â³ & ≤5'1â³; males >5'4â³ & ≤5'7â³) and 765 (1.8%) had very short stature (females ≤4'11â³; males ≤5'4â³). Very short stature patients had higher waitlist status (1A and 1), more congenital heart disease, and received more oversized donor hearts than other cohorts (all p < 0.05). Very short stature patients had decreased 30-day, 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival (94.6%, 84.3%, 69.3% and 52.5%, respectively, all p < 0.001), but less acute rejection (p = 0.005) and comparable stroke rates (p = 0.107). On multivariable regression adjusting for congenital heart disease and oversized donor hearts, very short and short stature were associated with 10-year mortality (hazard ratios: 1.40 and 1.12, respectively, both p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Short stature confers increased mortality risk for heart transplant recipients and merits inclusion in prognostic models.
Assuntos
Cardiopatias Congênitas , Transplante de Coração , Adulto , Masculino , Feminino , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Transplante de Coração/efeitos adversos , Doadores de Tecidos , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Fatores de Risco , Estudos Retrospectivos , Sistema de RegistrosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In 2018, a United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) policy change increased prioritization of patients bridged with temporary mechanical circulatory support devices, such as venoarterial ECMO, for cardiac transplantation. Considering increased waitlist acuity, we sought to characterize whether this was associated with an increased risk for development of postoperative acute renal failure requiring dialysis (AKI-D) and risk of death after transplantation. METHODS: Dialysis-naive adults receiving single-organ heart transplant between November 2009 and February 2020 were stratified by receipt of AKI-D. Era 1 and era 2 were defined by the periods of UNOS allocation before and after policy change, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine risk factors for AKI-D. Rates of AKI-D were compared by propensity score-matched cohorts. Survival was compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A total of 20 698 patients were included. Venoarterial ECMO use significantly increased in era 2 (5.6% vs 0.58%; P < .01). Overall prevalence of AKI-D was greater in era 2 (13.5% vs 10.2%; P < .01). Use of preoperative ECMO, intra-aortic balloon pump, and ventilators and longer ischemia times were identified as independent risk factors for development of AKI-D. Five- and 10-year survival rates were significantly decreased for patients with AKI-D. There was no short-term survival difference of patients with AKI-D between era 2 and the more contemporary era 1. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in whom AKI-D develops after transplantation have significantly worse short- and long-term outcomes. Preoperative use of ECMO, preoperative ventilator support, and longer ischemia times are risk factors for development of AKI-D, and their prevalence has increased since the allocation policy change.
Assuntos
Injúria Renal Aguda , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Transplante de Coração , Adulto , Humanos , Diálise Renal , Estudos Retrospectivos , Transplante de Coração/efeitos adversos , Injúria Renal Aguda/epidemiologia , Injúria Renal Aguda/etiologia , Injúria Renal Aguda/terapia , Isquemia/etiologia , Insuficiência Cardíaca/cirurgiaRESUMO
Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) is increasingly used for patients awaiting heart transplantation. Although examples of systemic inequity in cardiac care have been described, biases in tMCS use are not well characterized. This study explores the racial disparities in tMCS use and waitlist outcomes. The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify adults listed for first-time heart transplantation from 2015 to 2021. White and non-White patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, intra-aortic balloon pump, or temporary left ventricular assist device were identified. Waitlist outcomes of mortality, transplantation, and delisting were analyzed by race using competing risks regression. The effect of the new heart allocation system was also assessed. A total of 16,811 patients were included in this study, with 10,377 self-identifying as White and 6,434 as non-White. White patients were more often male, privately ensured, and had less co-morbidities (p <0.05). tMCS use was found to be significantly higher in non-White patients (p <0.001). Among those on tMCS, non-White patients were more likely to be delisted because of illness (subhazard ratio 1.34 [1.09 to 1.63]) and less likely to die while on the waitlist (subhazard ratio 0.76 [0.61 to 0.93]). This disparity was not present before the implementation of the new heart allocation system. tMCS use was proportional to the risk factors identified in the non-White cohort. After the implementation of the new heart allocation system, White patients were more likely to die, whereas non-White patients were more likely to be delisted. Further work is needed to determine the causes of and potential solutions for disparities in the waitlist outcomes.
Assuntos
Oxigenação por Membrana Extracorpórea , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Transplante de Coração , Coração Auxiliar , Adulto , Humanos , Masculino , Fatores Raciais , Resultado do Tratamento , Fatores de Risco , Listas de Espera , Insuficiência Cardíaca/cirurgia , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
Background Little is known regarding the impact of donor COVID-19 status on recipient outcomes after heart transplantation. In this study, we characterize outcomes of the first 110 heart transplants from organ donors positive for COVID-19 (COVID-19+) in the United States. Methods and Results Retrospective analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database was performed for single-organ adult heart transplants from January 2020 to March 2022. Donor COVID-19+ status was defined as a positive nucleic acid amplification, antigen, or other COVID-19 test within 7 days of transplant. Nearest-neighbor propensity score matching used to adjust for differences between recipients of COVID-19+ and nonpositive donor hearts. Overall, 7251 heart transplants were included in analysis, with 110 using COVID-19+ donor hearts. Recipients of COVID-19+ allografts were younger (54 [interquartile range, 41-61]) versus 57 [46-64] years; P=0.02) but had similar rates of female sex and non-White race compared with those receiving allografts from negative donors. Nearest-neighbor propensity score matching resulted in 100 well-matched pairs of recipients of COVID-19+ versus nonpositive donor organs. The 2 matched groups had similar median lengths of stay (15 [11-23] days versus 15 [13-23] days; P=0.40), rates of graft failure (1% versus 0%; P=0.99), 30-day death (3% versus 3%; P=0.99), and 3-month survival (88% versus 94%; P=0.23) compared with recipients of nonpositive donors. No deaths occurred due to COVID-19 infection among the 8 (7%) total deceased recipients of COVID-19+ allografts to date. Conclusions Short-term outcomes of heart transplant recipients receiving COVID-19+ donor organs are reassuring. However, continued monitoring for long-term survival and potential complications are warranted.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Transplante de Coração , Obtenção de Tecidos e Órgãos , Adulto , Humanos , Feminino , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Doadores de Tecidos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Transplante Homólogo , Sobrevivência de EnxertoRESUMO
We report midterm results of Impella 5.5 use with focus placed on bridge-outcomes, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) transition, complications, and risk factors for mortality. A retrospective review of patients implanted with the Impella 5.5 at our medical center was conducted. Forty patients were included with varying bridge strategies. Sixteen (40%) patients were supported for <14 days, 13 (32.5%) for 14-30 days, and 11 (27.5%) for >30 days. Thirty day mortality was 22.5% (9/40). Twenty-five (62.5%) were successfully bridged to transplant or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), while four (10.0%) recovered without the need for any further cardiac support. Five of 11 (60%) patients initially supported with VA-ECMO were either transitioned to durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD; n = 3, 27.3%), transplanted (n = 1, 9.1%), or recovered (n = 1, 9.1%). Of nine patients with >moderate right ventricle (RV) dysfunction, five (55.6%) were successfully bridged to transplant or LVAD. Five (12.5%) patients required interval cannulation to VA-ECMO, often in the setting of RV dysfunction, and all (100%) were successfully transplanted. Lower pulmonary artery (PA) systolic pressure ( P = 0.029), among other factors, was associated with mortality. In summary, the Impella 5.5 may be able to effectively stabilize patients in refractory left ventricular predominant cardiogenic shock for extended durations, allowing time for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and transplant evaluations.
Assuntos
Cardiomiopatias , Oxigenação por Membrana Extracorpórea , Transplante de Coração , Coração Auxiliar , Humanos , Oxigenação por Membrana Extracorpórea/métodos , Choque Cardiogênico/cirurgia , Choque Cardiogênico/etiologia , Coração Auxiliar/efeitos adversos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Transplante de Coração/efeitos adversosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In 2018, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) modified their heart allocation policy to reduce waitlist mortality. The rates of simultaneous heart-kidney transplant (SHKT) have dramatically increased in recent years, despite increased rates of posttransplant renal failure in the new policy era. This study sought to investigate the impact of the new allocation system on waitlist and posttransplant outcomes of simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation. METHODS: Adult patients listed for SHKT between 2012 and 2021 were included. Patients were cross-validated across both Thoracic and Kidney UNOS databases to confirm accurate listing and transplant data. Patients were stratified according to listing era. The Fine and Gray model was used to assess waitlist outcomes and posttransplant renal graft function. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used to compare posttransplant survival. RESULTS: A total of 2,588 patients were included, of whom 1,406 (54.1%) were listed between 2012 and 2018 (era 1) and 1,182 (45.9%) between 2019 and 2021 (era 2). Era 2 was associated with increased likelihood of transplant (adjusted Sub-hazard ratios (aSHR): 1.52; p < 0.01) and decreased waitlist mortality (aSHR: 0.63; p < 0.01). Posttransplant survival at 2 years was decreased in era 2 (78.8% vs 86.9%; p < 0.01). Undersized hearts (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.02; p < 0.01), use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (HR: 2.67; p < 0.1), and transplants performed following the policy change (HR: 1.45; p = 0.03) were associated with increased mortality. Actuarial survival (combined waitlist and posttransplant) was significantly lower in the modern era (71.6% vs 62.2%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The allocation policy change has improved waitlist outcomes in patients listed for SHKT but potentially at the cost of worsened posttransplant outcomes.
Assuntos
Transplante de Coração , Transplante de Rim , Adulto , Humanos , Transplante de Coração/efeitos adversos , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Taxa de Sobrevida , Listas de Espera , Rim , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Temporary mechanical circulatory support is increasingly utilized as a bridge to heart transplantation. The Impella 5.5 (Abiomed) has achieved anecdotal success as a bridge since receiving US Food and Drug Administration approval. The purpose of the current study was to compare waitlist and posttransplant outcomes of patients bridged with intraaortic balloon pumps (IABPs) to those receiving Impella 5.5 therapy. METHODS: Patients listed for heart transplantation between October 2018 and December 2021 who received IABP or Impella 5.5 at any time during waitlist course were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Propensity-matched groups of recipients with each device were created. Competing-risks regression for mortality, transplantation, and removal from waitlist for illness was performed according to the method of Fine and Gray. Posttransplant survival was censored at 2 years. RESULTS: Overall, 2936 patients were identified, of whom 2484 (85%) were supported with IABP and 452 (15%) received Impella 5.5. Patients with Impella 5.5 support had more functional impairment, higher wedge pressures, higher rates of preoperative diabetes and dialysis, and more ventilator support (all P < .05). Waitlist mortality was significantly worsened in the Impella group and transplantation was less frequent (P < .001). However, survival at 2 years after transplant was similar in both complete (90% vs 90%, P = .693) and propensity-matched cohorts (88% vs 83%, P = .874). CONCLUSIONS: Patients bridged with Impella 5.5 were sicker than IABP-bridged patients and less frequently transplanted; however, posttransplant outcomes were similar in propensity-matched cohorts. The role of these bridging strategies in patients listed for heart transplantation should be continually assessed with future allocation system changes.