HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Takeshi Komoda Roland Hetzer Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Komoda, T. Articles by Lehmkuhl, H. B. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Komoda, T. Articles by Lehmkuhl, H. B. Related Collections Congestive Heart Failure Mechanical Circulatory Assistance Transplantation - heart

Destiny of candidates for heart transplantation in the Eurotransplant heart allocation system

Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany

Received 24 August 2007; received in revised form 29 February 2008; accepted 6 March 2008.

^_* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 30 4593 2031; fax: +49 30 4593 2047. (Email: komoda{at}dhzb.de).

Objective: We analyzed the prognosis of candidates for heart transplantation (HTx) after being listed with ‘urgent status’ for donor heart allocation or after ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation without application for urgent status. Methods: Urgent status as used in this study refers to both the high urgency (HU) status awarded by Eurotransplant until August 31, 2005 and the urgent (U) status that replaced it from then on. Patients who underwent primary VAD implantation between January 2001 and December 2006 and who were listed as transplantable (T) (group VAD-prim, n = 159), and patients listed primarily in urgent status before VAD implantation and/or HTx during the same period (group U-prim, n = 168) were enrolled in the study. Group U-prim consists of subgroups: group U-HTx (n = 123), who underwent primarily HTx in urgent status; group U-VAD (n = 25), who underwent primarily VAD implantation in urgent status; patients who died in urgent status before HTx or VAD implantation (n = 6); and patients in urgent status without HTx or VAD implantation (n = 14). The survival rate in each group was studied. Results: Survival rates after VAD implantation in group VAD-prim were comparable to those after urgent status listing in group U-prim (67.0% vs 68.5% for 1-year survival, 56.6% vs 65.8% for 2-year survival, respectively). Actuarial survival after listing for urgent status in group U-HTx was significantly better than that in group U-VAD (73.7% vs 46.0% for 1-year survival, p < 0.05, log-rank test). Actuarial survival during mechanical circulatory support after the VAD implantation (censored at HTx or weaning from the device) in group VAD-prim was significantly better than that in group U-VAD (80.7% vs 56.2% for 3-month survival, p < 0.001, log-rank test). Conclusions: In order to receive urgent HTx, HTx candidates may choose urgency listing without primary VAD implantation at the risk of failed donor heart allocation in urgent status. However, the prognosis of the patients in the latter situation is poor.

Key Words: Heart failure • Heart failure operations • Heart transplantation • Circulatory assist devices • Left ventricular assist device

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. R. Sindermann, C. Vahlhaus, A. Hoffmeier, H. H. Scheld, and S. Klotz Impact of ventricular assist device support on post-transplant mortality searching for reasons. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 4, 2009; 54(6): 573 - 573. [Full Text] [PDF]