Search

Background: In Spain, listing for high-urgent heart transplantation is allowed for critically ill candidates not weanable from temporary mechanical circulatory support (T-MCS). We sought to analyse the clinical outcomes of this strategy. Methods and results: We conducted a case-by-case, retrospective review of clinical records of 291 adult patients listed for high-urgent heart transplantation under temporary devices from 2010 to 2015 in 16 Spanish institutions. Survival after listing and adverse clinical events were studied. At the time of listing, 169 (58%) patients were supported on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), 70 (24%) on temporary left ventricular assist devices (T-LVAD) and 52 (18%) on temporary biventricular assist devices (T-BiVAD). Seven patients transitioned from VA-ECMO to temporary ventricular assist devices while on the waiting list. Mean time on T-MCS was 13.1 ± 12.6 days. Mean time from listing to transplantation was 7.6 ± 8.5 days. Overall, 230 (79%) patients were transplanted and 54 (18.6%) died during MCS. In-hospital postoperative mortality after transplantation was 33.3%, 11.9% and 26.2% for patients bridged on VA-ECMO, T-LVAD and T-BiVAD, respectively (P = 0.008). Overall survival from listing to hospital discharge was 54.4%, 78.6% and 55.8%, respectively (P = 0.002). T-LVAD support was independently associated with a lower risk of death over the first year after listing (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.30–0.92). Patients treated with VA-ECMO showed the highest incidence rate of adverse clinical events associated with T-MCS. Conclusion: Temporary devices may be used to bridge critically ill candidates directly to heart transplantation in a setting of short waiting list times, as is the case of Spain. In our series, bridging with T-LVAD was associated with more favourable outcomes than bridging with T-BiVAD or VA-ECMO.

Introducción y objetivos En España, el balón de contrapulsación intraaórtico (BCIA) se ha usado frecuentemente como puente al trasplante cardiaco (TxC) urgente. El propósito es analizar los resultados de esta estrategia. Métodos Se realizó una revisión retrospectiva caso por caso de los registros clínicos de 281 pacientes adultos listados para TxC urgente asistidos con BCIA en 16 hospitales españoles entre 2010 y 2015. Se analizaron la supervivencia antes y después del trasplante y la incidencia de eventos adversos. Resultados Se trasplantó a 194 pacientes (69%; IC95%, 63, 3-74, 4) y 20 (7, 1%; IC95%, 4, 4-10, 8) fallecieron durante la asistencia, cuya duración media fue de 10, 9 ± 9, 7 días. El BCIA se explantó antes de obtener un órgano a 32 pacientes (11, 4%). En 35 pacientes (12, 5%; IC95%, 8, 8-16, 9) se implantó un dispositivo de asistencia circulatoria mecánica completa. El tiempo en la lista de espera urgente se incrementó desde 5, 9 ± 6, 3 días en 2010 hasta 15 ± 11, 7 días en 2015 (p = 0, 001). La supervivencia a 30 días y a 1 y 5 años tras el TxC fue del 88, 1% (IC95%, 85, 7-90, 5), 76% (IC95%, 72, 9-79, 1) y 67, 8% (IC95%, 63, 7-71, 9) respectivamente. La tasa de incidencia de eventos adversos mayores —disfunción del BCIA, ictus, hemorragia o infección— durante la asistencia fue de 26 (IC95%, 20, 6-32, 4) eventos/1.000 pacientes-día. La tasa de incidencia de explante del BCIA por complicaciones fue de 7, 2 (IC95%, 4, 5-10, 8) casos/1.000 pacientes-día. Conclusiones En el contexto de listas de espera cortas, el BCIA puede utilizarse como puente al TxC urgente con resultados aceptables. Esta estrategia conlleva una incidencia significativa de eventos adversos. Introduction and objectives: In Spain, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been used frequently as a bridge to urgent heart transplant (HT). We sought to analyze the clinical outcomes of this strategy. Methods: We conducted a case-by-case, retrospective review of clinical records of 281 adult patients listed for urgent HT under IABP support in 16 Spanish institutions from 2010 to 2015. Pre- and post-transplant survival and adverse clinical events were analyzed. Results: A total of 194 (69%, 95%CI, 63.3-74.4) patients were transplanted and 20 (7.1%, 95%CI, 4.4-10.8) died during a mean period of IABP support of 10.9 ± 9.7 days. IABP support was withdrawn before an organ became available in 32 (11.4%) patients. Thirty-five (12.5%, 95%CI, 8.8-16.9) patients transitioned from IABP to full-support mechanical devices. Mean urgent waiting list time increased from 5.9 ± 6.3 days in 2010 to 15 ± 11.7 days in 2015 (P =.001). Post-transplant survival rates at 30-days, 1-year, and 5-years were 88.1% (95%CI, 85.7-90.5), 76% (95%CI, 72.9-79.1), and 67.8% (95%CI, 63.7-71.9), respectively. The incidence rate of major adverse clinical outcomes—device dysfunction, stroke, bleeding or infection—during IABP support was 26 (95%CI, 20.6-32.4) episodes per 1000 patient-days. The incidence rate of IABP explantation due to complications was 7.2 (95%CI, 4.5-10.8) cases per 1000 patient-days. Conclusions: In a setting of short waiting list times, IABP can be used to bridge candidates to urgent HT with acceptable postoperative results, but there were significant rates of adverse clinical events during support. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en