30 Years of Heart Transplant: Outcomes after Mechanical Circulatory Support from a Single Center.

Abstract

BACKGROUND\nSurvival after bridge to transplant with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has yielded varying outcomes based on device type and baseline characteristics Continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) have significantly improved waitlist mortality, but recent changes to the transplant listing criteria have dramatically altered the use of MCS for bridge to transplant.\n\n\nMETHODS\nOrthotopic heart transplants from 1988-2019 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed and stratified by pre-transplant MCS status into CF-LVAD (n=224), Pulsatile LVAD (n=49), temporary MCS (n=71), and primary transplant (n=463) groups. Patients transplanted after the approval of CF-LVAD for bridge to transplant and before the 2018 allocation policy changes underwent subgroup analysis to evaluate predictors of survival and complications in a contemporary cohort.\n\n\nRESULTS\nRates of primary transplant declined from 88% to 14% over the course of the study. No significant difference in survival was detected in the cohort stratified by MCS status (P=0.18). In the modern era, survival for CF-LVAD and temporary MCS patients was non-inferior to primary transplant (P=0.22). Notable predictors of long-term mortality included lower body mass index, peripheral vascular disease, prior coronary artery bypass graft, ABO non-identical transplant, and increased donor age (all P<0.02). There were no differences in major postoperative complications.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nCF-LVAD has grown to account for the majority of transplants at our center in the last decade with no adverse effect on survival or postoperative complications. Temporary MCS has increased following the 2018 listing criteria change with acceptable early outcomes.