Milstein Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, New York Presbyterian - Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
JACC Heart Fail. 2021 Apr;9(4):281-289. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2020.12.012. Epub 2021 Mar 10.
The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) bridged to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) versus heart transplantation (HT) using registry data.
Patients with heart failure supported with ECMO represent the highest priority in the new HT allocation system. For patients on ECMO, bridging to LVAD may be non-inferior compared with bridging to HT.
Adult patients in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) from 2006 to 2017 and United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database from 2006 to June 2019 requiring ECMO were included. Cause-specific hazard models were created and cumulative incidence functions were calculated with mortality, transplantation, and re-transplantation as competing events.
A total of 906 patients received ECMO as bridge to VAD (n = 587, 64.8%) or as bridge to HT (n = 319, 35.2%). Patients bridged directly to HT were younger (age 46.3 ± 15.4 years vs. 52.1 ± 13.2 years; p < 0.001) and more likely to be female (93 [29.2%] vs. 139 [23.7%]; p = 0.022). Patients bridged directly to HT were more likely to have a nonischemic cardiomyopathy, restrictive physiologies, and allograft failure; (p < 0.05 for all). ECMO use increased over time in both UNOS and INTERMACS. There was no significant difference in mortality between groups (Gray's p = 0.581). This remained true even when the analysis was restricted to transplant-listed or eligible patients as well as patients with dilated phenotypes (excluding patients with congenital heart disease, restrictive phenotypes, and allograft failure).
There was no difference in mortality on pump support compared with posttransplant mortality among those bridged from ECMO to LVAD or HT.
本研究旨在通过注册数据比较体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)桥接左心室辅助装置(LVAD)与心脏移植(HT)患者的结局。
接受 ECMO 支持的心力衰竭患者在新的 HT 分配系统中具有最高优先级。对于接受 ECMO 的患者,桥接 LVAD 可能与桥接 HT 无差异。
纳入 2006 年至 2017 年 INTERMACS(机构间机械循环支持注册)和 2006 年至 2019 年 6 月 UNOS(器官共享联合网络)数据库中接受 ECMO 的成年患者。创建了特定原因的风险模型,并计算了死亡率、移植和再次移植作为竞争事件的累积发生率函数。
共有 906 例患者接受 ECMO 桥接 VAD(n=587,64.8%)或桥接 HT(n=319,35.2%)。直接桥接 HT 的患者年龄更小(46.3±15.4 岁 vs. 52.1±13.2 岁;p<0.001),女性比例更高(93[29.2%] vs. 139[23.7%];p=0.022)。直接桥接 HT 的患者更有可能患有非缺血性心肌病、限制性生理特征和移植物衰竭(所有 p<0.05)。在 UNOS 和 INTERMACS 中,ECMO 的使用都随着时间的推移而增加。两组之间的死亡率无显著差异(Gray's p=0.581)。即使将分析仅限于移植名单或合格患者以及扩张型表型患者(排除先天性心脏病、限制性表型和移植物衰竭患者),这一结果仍然成立。
与从 ECMO 桥接到 LVAD 或 HT 后移植的死亡率相比,泵支持期间的死亡率没有差异。