Search

Objectives: Using flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD) and reactive hyperemia (RH), this study aimed to provide greater insight into left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-induced changes in peripheral vascular function., Background: Peripheral endothelial function is recognized to be impaired in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the peripheral vascular effects of continuous-flow LVAD implantation, now used as either a bridge to transplantation or as a destination therapy, remain unclear., Methods: Sixty-eight subjects (13 New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class II HFrEF patients, 19 NYHA functional class III/IV HFrEF patients, 20 NYHA functional class III/IV HFrEF patients post-LVAD implantation, and 16 healthy age-matched control subjects) underwent FMD and RH testing in the brachial artery with blood flow velocity, artery diameters, and pulsatility index (PI) assessed by ultrasound Doppler., Results: PI was significantly lower in the LVAD group (2.0 ± 0.4) compared with both the HFrEF II (8.6 ± 0.8) and HFrEF III/IV (8.1 ± 0.9) patients, who, in turn, had significantly lower PI than the control subjects (12.8 ± 0.9). Likewise, LVAD %FMD/shear rate (0.09 ± 0.01 %Δ/s(-1)) was significantly reduced compared with all other groups (control subjects, 0.24 ± 0.03; HFrEF II, 0.17 ± 0.02; and HFrEF III/IV, 0.13 ± 0.02 %Δ/s(-1)), and %FMD/shear rate significantly correlated with PI (r = 0.45). RH was unremarkable across groups., Conclusions: Although central hemodynamics are improved in patients with HFrEF by a continuous-flow LVAD, peripheral vascular function is further compromised, which is likely due, at least in part, to the reduction in pulsatility that is a characteristic of such a mechanical assist device., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients bridged to heart transplantation with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been reported to have higher post-transplant mortality compared with those without LVADs. Our aim was to determine the impact of the type of LVAD and implant era on post-transplant survival., Methods: In this study we included 8,557 patients from the registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. We examined post-transplant outcomes in 1,100 patients bridged to transplant with pulsatile-flow LVADs between January 2000 and June 2004 (first era), 880 patients bridged with pulsatile-flow LVADs between July 2004 and May 2008 (second era), and 417 patients bridged with continuous-flow LVADs in the second era. Patients who required intravenous inotropes but not LVAD support (n = 2,728) and patients who did not require either LVAD or inotropes (n = 3,432) served as controls., Results: Post-transplant survival of patients bridged with pulsatile LVADs improved significantly between the first and the second era (p = 0.03). In the second era, there was no significant difference in post-transplant survival of patients bridged with pulsatile- vs continuous-flow LVADs (p = 0.26), and survival rates in the 2 groups were not statistically different from that of the non-LVAD group. Graft rejection was similar in patients bridged with LVADs compared to those without LVADs., Conclusions: In the most recent era, the use of either pulsatile- or continuous-flow LVADs did not result in increased post-transplant mortality. This finding is important as the proportion of patients with LVADs at the time of transplant has been rising., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: In 2003 the Department of Health and Human Services sponsored the Organ Donation Breakthrough Collaborative (ODBC) with the aim to increase organ donation. After the ODBC, increases in the number of all solid organs transplanted, except for heart, were seen. The aim of this study was to determine if ODBC resulted in temporal changes in the use of hearts from high-risk donors., Methods: We analyzed data from the Cardiac Transplant Research Database in three eras: 1990-1995, 1996-2002, and 2003-2007. We explored temporal changes in high-risk donor characteristics: age, gender, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, abnormal echocardiogram, and ischemic time., Results: Between 1990 and 2007, 7,220 patients underwent transplantation in 26 centers. Donors in the first era were least likely to have high-risk characteristics of higher age (mean, 30 years), female gender (30%), hypertension (8%), diabetes mellitus (1%), structural abnormalities on echocardiogram (7%), and prolonged graft ischemic time (mean, 163 minutes). In the second era, there was a significant increase in the use of donors with the above mentioned high-risk characteristics-32 years, 33%, 10%, 3%, 8% and 181 minutes, respectively. In the third post-ODBC era, no further increase was seen in high-risk donors, but rather a trend for avoidance of risk-32 years, 28%, 10%, 2%, 5% and 186 minutes, respectively., Conclusion: Significant temporal changes in the characteristics of heart donors have occurred in the past 17 years. Recent temporal changes, however, cannot be directly attributed to the ODBC efforts., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) implemented a thoracic organ allocation policy change (APC) in July 2006 that aimed to reduce death on the waiting list by expanding regional organ sharing. As such, organs would be allocated to the sickest recipients with highest listing status across the region. Our aim was to determine the impact of the new policy on the procurement and transplant process within our program., Methods: We analyzed data supplied by UNOS as the contractor for the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and from the local organ procurement organization for 2 years before and 2 years after implementation of the APC., Results: The APC resulted in an increase in the proportion of Status 1A patients transplanted (24% to 43%, p = 0.015) and a decrease in the proportion of Status 2 patients transplanted (56% to 24%, p = 0.001). Significant increases were observed in mean graft ischemic time (196 minutes to 223 minutes, p = 0.022), number of patients transplanted with ventricular assist devices (17% to 31%, p = 0.036), and procurement costs. There was no significant difference in waiting-list mortality (6% to 5%, p = 0.75) and short-term post-transplant survival., Conclusions: The 2006 change in UNOS organ allocation policy resulted in an increase in Status 1A transplants, graft ischemic time and procurement costs, and a decrease in Status 2 transplants, but no effect on mortality on the waiting list within our center. To assess the full effect of the APC on outcomes, the long-term impact of the increased graft ischemic time on survival should be quantified.