• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

采用持续血流左心室辅助装置支持的患者是否有足够的死亡风险来证明优先分配是合理的?在 UNOS 状态 2 中列出的患者中进行倾向评分匹配分析。

Do Patients Supported With Continuous-flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Have a Sufficient Risk of Death to Justify a Priority Allocation? A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of Patients Listed in UNOS Status 2.

机构信息

Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery Department, St. Luc's Hospital, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.

Cardiac Surgery Department, University Hospital Munster, Munster, Germany.

出版信息

Transplantation. 2018 Jun;102(6):e288-e294. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002105.

DOI:10.1097/TP.0000000000002105
PMID:29346259
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) as bridge to transplant have significantly improved. The question has arisen whether patients on CF-LVADs have an increased risk of death on the waiting list as to justify a priority allocation (status 1). The aim of this study was to compare the survival after implantation of CF-LVADs with the survival on the waiting list for patients initially listed in United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 2.

METHODS

All patients 18 years or older listed for heart transplantation (HT) in the United States between 2011 and 2013 in UNOS status 2 with no mechanical circulatory support at time of listing were analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups, depending on whether they received a new CF-LVAD while listed (CF-LVAD group) or not (NO-LVAD) and were further matched on their propensity score (PS) in a 1:2 ratio.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty-seven CF-LVAD patients were matched to 574 NO-LVAD patients. Survival after CF-LVAD was significantly lower at 24 months compared with waiting list (75.4 ± 4.4% vs 91.2 ± 8.9%, P < 0.0001). Further, survival was not significantly different between the 2 groups at 24 months after transplantation (81.3 ± 5.9% vs 86.7 ± 3.3%, P = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Survival of patients listed in UNOS status 2 who receive a CF-LVAD while listed is significantly lower compared to patients who do not receive mechanical support on the waiting list. The current priority in the allocation system given to patients on CF-LVAD seems justified. Further posttransplant survival is not negatively influenced by previous CF-LVAD implantation.

摘要

背景

连续流动左心室辅助装置(CF-LVAD)作为移植桥的结果显著改善。因此,出现了一个问题,即接受 CF-LVAD 治疗的患者在等待名单上的死亡风险是否增加,以至于需要优先分配(状态 1)。本研究旨在比较 CF-LVAD 植入后患者的存活率与最初在联合器官共享网络(UNOS)状态 2 中列出的患者在等待名单上的存活率。

方法

分析了 2011 年至 2013 年期间在美国 UNOS 状态 2 中列出的年龄在 18 岁或以上的所有接受心脏移植(HT)的患者,这些患者在列入名单时没有机械循环支持。患者分为 2 组,一组是在列入名单时接受新的 CF-LVAD(CF-LVAD 组),另一组没有接受(NO-LVAD),并根据倾向评分(PS)以 1:2 的比例进行进一步匹配。

结果

287 例 CF-LVAD 患者与 574 例 NO-LVAD 患者相匹配。与等待名单相比,CF-LVAD 治疗后 24 个月的生存率明显较低(75.4 ± 4.4%比 91.2 ± 8.9%,P < 0.0001)。此外,移植后 24 个月时,两组之间的生存率无显著差异(81.3 ± 5.9%比 86.7 ± 3.3%,P = 0.3)。

结论

在 UNOS 状态 2 中列出的患者中,接受 CF-LVAD 的患者的生存率明显低于未在等待名单上接受机械支持的患者。目前,在分配系统中给予 CF-LVAD 患者的优先权似乎是合理的。进一步的移植后生存并未因先前的 CF-LVAD 植入而受到负面影响。

相似文献

1
Do Patients Supported With Continuous-flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Have a Sufficient Risk of Death to Justify a Priority Allocation? A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of Patients Listed in UNOS Status 2.采用持续血流左心室辅助装置支持的患者是否有足够的死亡风险来证明优先分配是合理的?在 UNOS 状态 2 中列出的患者中进行倾向评分匹配分析。
Transplantation. 2018 Jun;102(6):e288-e294. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002105.
2
Morbidity and mortality in heart transplant candidates supported with mechanical circulatory support: is reappraisal of the current United network for organ sharing thoracic organ allocation policy justified?机械循环支持支持的心脏移植候选者的发病率和死亡率:有理由重新评估当前美国器官共享网络的胸部器官分配政策吗?
Circulation. 2013 Jan 29;127(4):452-62. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.100123. Epub 2012 Dec 27.
3
Survival on the heart transplant waiting list: impact of continuous flow left ventricular assist device as bridge to transplant.心脏移植等待名单上的存活率:连续流动左心室辅助装置作为移植桥的影响。
Ann Thorac Surg. 2014 Sep;98(3):830-4. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.05.019. Epub 2014 Jul 31.
4
Temporary left ventricular assist devices as a bridge to heart transplantation.作为心脏移植过渡手段的临时左心室辅助装置
J Card Surg. 2020 Apr;35(4):810-817. doi: 10.1111/jocs.14466. Epub 2020 Feb 24.
5
Strategies of Wait-listing for Heart Transplant vs Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support Alone for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure.晚期心力衰竭患者心脏移植与单纯耐用机械循环支持候补策略。
JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jun 1;5(6):652-659. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0631.
6
Post-cardiac transplant survival after support with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: impact of duration of left ventricular assist device support and other variables.心脏移植后使用持续血流左心室辅助装置的生存情况:左心室辅助装置支持时间和其他变量的影响。
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010 Jul;140(1):174-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.03.037. Epub 2010 May 5.
7
Ventricular Assist Device Utilization in Heart Transplant Candidates: Nationwide Variability and Impact on Waitlist Outcomes.心室辅助装置在心脏移植候选者中的应用:全国范围内的差异及其对等待名单结果的影响。
Circ Heart Fail. 2018 Apr;11(4):e004586. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.117.004586.
8
Continuous flow left ventricular assist device technology has influenced wait times and affected donor allocation in cardiac transplantation.连续流动左心室辅助装置技术已经影响了心脏移植的等待时间和供体分配。
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Jun;147(6):1966-71, 1971.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.02.001. Epub 2014 Feb 12.
9
Sex-Related Differences in Use and Outcomes of Left Ventricular Assist Devices as Bridge to Transplantation.性别差异对左心室辅助装置作为移植桥的使用和结局的影响。
JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Mar;7(3):250-257. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.01.008.
10
Heart transplantation outcomes in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device-related complications.连续血流左心室辅助装置相关并发症患者的心脏移植结局。
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015 Jan;34(1):75-81. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2014.07.015. Epub 2014 Jul 22.

引用本文的文献

1
Differences in wait-list mortality: Temporary vs durable circulatory support devices.等待名单上的死亡率差异:临时与持久循环支持设备
JHLT Open. 2025 Jun 2;9:100312. doi: 10.1016/j.jhlto.2025.100312. eCollection 2025 Aug.