Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 63(08): 647-652
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1556816
Original Cardiovascular
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

One-Year Clinical Outcome in End-Stage Heart Failure: Comparison of “High Urgent” Listing for Heart Transplantation with Mechanical Circulatory Support Implantation

Jakub Sunavsky
1   Department for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany
,
Armin Zittermann
1   Department for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany
,
Cenk Oezpeker
1   Department for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany
,
Buntaro Fujita
1   Department for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany
,
Uwe Fuchs
1   Department for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany
,
Jan F. Gummert
1   Department for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany
,
Uwe Schulz
1   Department for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

05 March 2015

13 May 2015

Publication Date:
15 July 2015 (online)

Abstract

Background Heart transplantation (HTx) is still considered the therapeutic gold standard in end-stage heart failure.

Methods In “high urgent” (HU)-listed patients for HTx (n = 274) and patients receiving left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implants (n = 332), we compared 1-year overall survival (primary endpoint) and 1-year probability of HTx and therapy failure (the need for LVAD implantation in HU-listed patients or the need for HU listing in LVAD patients) (secondary endpoints).

Results In the HU and LVAD group, 1-year survival was 86.8 and 64.7%, respectively (p < 0.001). The propensity score (PS)-adjusted hazard ratio of mortality did not differ between the groups and for the LVAD group (reference = HU group) was = 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85–2.19; p = 0.198). The PS-adjusted hazard ratio for the failure to receive HTx for the LVAD group (reference = HU group) was = 9.77 (95% CI: 6.00–15.89; p < 0.001). The corresponding hazard ratio for therapy failure for the LVAD group was = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10–0.27; p < 0.001).

Conclusion Despite considerable differences in the probability of HTx and therapy failure, 1-year overall survival was similar in HU and LVAD patients.

 
  • References

  • 1 Bernhardt AM, Rahmel A, Reichenspurner H. The unsolved problem of organ allocation in times of organ shortage: the German solution?. J Heart Lung Transplant 2013; 32 (11) 1049-1051
  • 2 Ketchum ES, Moorman AJ, Fishbein DP , et al. Predictive value of the Seattle Heart Failure Model in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device placement. J Heart Lung Transplant 2010; 29 (9) 1021-1025
  • 3 Smits JM. Actual situation in Eurotransplant regarding high urgent heart transplantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 42 (4) 609-611
  • 4 Smits JM, de Vries E, De Pauw M , et al. Is it time for a cardiac allocation score? First results from the Eurotransplant pilot study on a survival benefit-based heart allocation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2013; 32 (9) 873-880
  • 5 Frazier OH, Rose EA, Oz MC , et al. HeartMate LVAS Investigators. Multicenter clinical evaluation of the HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist system in patients awaiting heart transplantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 122: 186-195
  • 6 Anonymous. Eurotransplant: donation, waiting lists, and transplants. In: Oosterlee A, Rahmel A, eds. Annual Report 2013 of the Eurotransplant International Foundation. Leiden, the Netherlands: Eurotransplant International Foundation; 2013. . Available at: www.eurotransplant.org/cms/index.php?page=annual_reports . Accessed November 5, 2014
  • 7 Uriel N, Jorde UP, Woo Pak S , et al. Impact of long term left ventricular assist device therapy on donor allocation in cardiac transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2013; 32 (2) 188-195
  • 8 Nativi JN, Drakos SG, Kucheryavaya AY , et al. Changing outcomes in patients bridged to heart transplantation with continuous- versus pulsatile-flow ventricular assist devices: an analysis of the registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2011; 30 (8) 854-861
  • 9 Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Pagani FD , et al. Sixth INTERMACS annual report: a 10,000-patient database. J Heart Lung Transplant 2014; 33 (6) 555-564
  • 10 Anonymus. ET Thoracic Allocation System (EThAS). Chapter 6. Eurotransplant Manual - version 3.3; July 10, 2014-subject to change. Available at: http://www.eurotransplant.org/cms/mediaobject.php?file=Chapter6_Thoracic22.pdf Accessed November 15, 2014
  • 11 Peura JL, Colvin-Adams M, Francis GS , et al; American Heart Association Heart Failure and Transplantation Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation; Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia. Recommendations for the use of mechanical circulatory support: device strategies and patient selection: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2012; 126 (22) 2648-2667
  • 12 Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ , et al; Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure (REMATCH) Study Group. Long-term use of a left ventricular assist device for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med 2001; 345 (20) 1435-1443
  • 13 Attisani M, Centofanti P, La Torre M , et al. Advanced heart failure in critical patients (INTERMACS 1 and 2 levels): ventricular assist devices or emergency transplantation?. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2012; 15 (4) 678-684
  • 14 Lund LH, Edwards LB, Kucheryavaya AY , et al. The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: thirtieth official adult heart transplant report–2013; focus theme: age. J Heart Lung Transplant 2013; 32 (10) 951-964
  • 15 Anonymous: Donation, waiting lists, and transplants. In: Oosterlee A, Rahmel A, , eds. Annual Report 2010 of the Eurotransplant International Foundation. Leiden, The Netherlands: Eurotransplant International Foundation; 2010: 34-47
  • 16 Strüber M, Sander K, Lahpor J , et al. HeartMate II left ventricular assist device; early European experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008; 34 (2) 289-294
  • 17 Kamiya H, Koch A, Sack FU , et al. Who needs ‘bridge’ to transplantation in the presence of the Eurotransplant high-urgency heart transplantation program?. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008; 34 (6) 1129-1133 , discussion 1134–1135
  • 18 Gimbel RW, Strosberg MA, Lehrman SE, Gefenas E, Taft F. Presumed consent and other predictors of cadaveric organ donation in Europe. Prog Transplant 2003; 13 (1) 17-23
  • 19 Gevers S, Janssen A, Friele R. Consent systems for post mortem organ donation in Europe. Eur J Health Law 2004; 11 (2) 175-186
  • 20 Roels L, Spaight C, Smits J, Cohen B. Donation patterns in four European countries: data from the donor action database. Transplantation 2008; 86 (12) 1738-1743