Search

BackgroundPatients with end-stage heart failure are at high risk for sudden cardiac death. However, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is not routinely implanted given the high competing risk of pump failure. A unique population worth separate consideration are patients with end-stage heart failure awaiting heart transplantation, as prolonged survival improves the chances of receiving transplant.ObjectiveTo compare clinical outcomes of heart failure patients with and without an ICD awaiting heart transplant.MethodsWe performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared end-stage heart failure patients with and without an ICD awaiting heart transplantation. We separately assessed the rates of total mortality, sudden cardiac death, nonsudden cardiac death, and heart transplantation. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The random effects model was used owing to heterogeneity across study cohorts.ResultsTen studies with a total of 36,112 patients were included. A total of 62.5% of patients had an ICD implanted. Patients with an ICD had decreased total mortality (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51-0.71, P < .00001) and sudden cardiac death (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.66, P = .004) and increased rates of heart transplantation (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.14, P < .0001). There was no difference in prevalence of nonsudden cardiac death (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44-1.04, P = .07).ConclusionICD implantation is associated with improved outcomes in patients awaiting heart transplant, characterized by decreased total mortality and sudden cardiac death as well as higher rates of heart transplantation.

BackgroundPatients with end-stage heart failure are at high risk for sudden cardiac death. However, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is not routinely implanted given the high competing risk of pump failure. A unique population worth separate consideration are patients with end-stage heart failure awaiting heart transplantation, as prolonged survival improves the chances of receiving transplant.ObjectiveTo compare clinical outcomes of heart failure patients with and without an ICD awaiting heart transplant.MethodsWe performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared end-stage heart failure patients with and without an ICD awaiting heart transplantation. We separately assessed the rates of total mortality, sudden cardiac death, nonsudden cardiac death, and heart transplantation. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The random effects model was used owing to heterogeneity across study cohorts.ResultsTen studies with a total of 36,112 patients were included. A total of 62.5% of patients had an ICD implanted. Patients with an ICD had decreased total mortality (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51-0.71, P < .00001) and sudden cardiac death (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.66, P = .004) and increased rates of heart transplantation (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.14, P < .0001). There was no difference in prevalence of nonsudden cardiac death (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44-1.04, P = .07).ConclusionICD implantation is associated with improved outcomes in patients awaiting heart transplant, characterized by decreased total mortality and sudden cardiac death as well as higher rates of heart transplantation.

[Background and Aims] Although hepatitis B and C have been the main drivers of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has recently become an important cause of HCC. The aim of this study was to assess the causes of HCC among liver transplant (LT) candidates in the United States., [Methods] The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (2002–2016) was used to estimate the trends in prevalence of HCC in LT candidates with the most common types of chronic liver disease: alcoholic liver disease (ALD), chronic hepatitis B (CHB), chronic hepatitis C, and NASH., [Results] 158,347 adult LT candidates were included. Of these, 26,121 (16.5%) had HCC; this proportion increased from 6.4% (2002) to 23.0% (2016) (trend P < .0001). Over the study period, CHC remained the most common etiology for HCC (65%). The proportions of HCC accounted for by CHC and ALD remained stable (both trend P > .10), the proportion of CHB decreased 3.1-fold (P < .0001), while the proportion of NASH in HCC increased 7.7-fold (from 2.1% to 16.2%; P < .0001). Furthermore, since 2002, the prevalence of HCC in LT candidates with NASH increased 11.8-fold, while this rate increased 6.0-fold in CHB, 3.4-fold in ALD, and 2.3-fold in CHC (all P < .0001); the increasing trend in NASH was steeper than that for any other etiology (P < .0001 in a trend regression model). The proportion of LT candidates with HCC who ultimately received a transplant or died while waiting did not differ between etiologies (P > .05)., [Conclusions] Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is the most rapidly growing cause of HCC among US patients listed for liver transplantation.