BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced heart failure and cardiogenic shock (CS) often require temporary circulatory support (TCS) as a bridge to durable ventricular assist devices (dVADs). We aim to characterize longitudinal outcomes of patients with and without CS. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2017, 13,813 adult patients classified as Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) Profiles 1 to 3 with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices or biventricular assist devices were registered into the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support. Patients were sub-grouped according to support type (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], intra-aortic balloon pump [IABP], and other TCS). Other TCS included all other surgical and percutaneous TCS devices. Estimated survival was compared based on need for pre-operative TCS and by profile. RESULTS: Pre-operative TCS was used in 5,632 (41%) cases. Of these, ECMO was used in 1,138 (20%) cases, IABP in 3,901 (69%) cases, and other TCS in 595 (11%) cases. Patients requiring ECMO had greater needs for biventricular support after dVAD (22% ECMO, 5% IABP, and 7% other TCS; p < 0.001) with longer post-implant intensive care stays (ECMO 24 days, IABP 14 days, and other TCS 12 days; p < 0.001). INTERMACS Profile 1 to 3 patients with pre-implant ECMO had the lowest longitudinal survival (82% at 1 month and 44% at 48 months) compared with IABP (93% at 1 month and 51% at 48 months), other TCS (92% at 1 month and 52% at 48 months), and non-TCS (95% at 1 months and 55 % at 48 months) (p < 0.0001). Propensity score matching analysis of the pre-implant ECMO INTERMACS Profile 1 group when compared with alternative pre-implant TCS strategies had an associated higher hazard impacting early phase survival vs other TCS (hazard ratio, 1.80; p < 0.01) and IABP (hazard ratio, 1.65; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In advanced heart failure with patients with CS, the use of ECMO before dVAD was associated with lower longitudinal survival and increased utilization of biventricular support compared with alternative TCS strategies. Research focused on longitudinal profiling in CS and pre-implant TCS is warranted to further understand these differences.

• MeSH
• design vybavení MeSH
• kardiogenní šok diagnóza   etiologie   terapie   MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mimotělní membránová oxygenace přístrojové vybavení   MeSH
• následné studie MeSH
• podpůrné srdeční systémy * MeSH
• registrace * MeSH
• retrospektivní studie MeSH
• srdeční selhání komplikace   diagnóza   terapie   MeSH
• tendenční skóre * MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• multicentrická studie MeSH

BACKGROUND: Patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) needing temporary circulatory support (TCS) have poor survival rates after implantation of durable ventricular assist device (dVAD). We aimed to characterize post-dVAD adverse event burden and survival rates in patients requiring pre-operative TCS. METHOD: We analyzed 13,511 adults (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support [INTERMACS] Profiles 1-3) with continuous-flow dVADs in International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (2013-2017) according to the need for pre-operative TCS (n = 5,632) vs no TCS (n = 7,879). Of these, 726 (5.4%) had biventricular assist devices (BiVAD). Furthermore, we compared prevalent rates (events/100 patient-months) of bleeding, device-related infection, hemorrhagic and ischemic cerebrovascular accidents (hemorrhagic cerebral vascular accident [hCVA], and ischemic cerebral vascular accident [iCVA]) in early (<3 months) and late (≥3 months) post-operative periods. RESULTS: TCS included extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (n = 1,138), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (n = 3,901), and other TCS (n = 593). Within 3 post-operative months, there were more major bleeding and cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs) in patients with pre-operative ECMO (events/100 patient-months rates: bleeding = 19, hCVA = 1.6, iCVA = 2.8) or IABP (bleeding = 17.3, hCVA = 1.5, iCVA = 1.5) vs no TCS (bleeding = 13.2, hCVA = 1.1, iCVA = 1.2, all p < 0.05). After 3 months, adverse events were lower and similar in all groups. Patients with ECMO had the worst short- and long-term survival rates. Patients with BiVAD had the worst survival rate regardless of need for pre-operative TCS. CVA and multiorgan failures were the common causes of death for patients with TCS and patients without TCS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients requiring TCS before dVAD had a sicker phenotype and higher rates of early post-operative adverse events than patients without TCS. ECMO was associated with very high early ischemic stroke, bleeding, and mortality. The extreme CS phenotype needing ECMO warrants a higher-level profile status, such as INTERMACS "0."

• MeSH
• celosvětové zdraví MeSH
• intraaortální balónková pumpa škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mimotělní membránová oxygenace škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• míra přežití trendy   MeSH
• podpůrné srdeční systémy škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• registrace * MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• srdeční selhání mortalita   terapie   MeSH
• transplantace srdce * MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• multicentrická studie MeSH

BACKGROUND: The IMACS Registry compiles and analyzes worldwide data from patients undergoing implantation of durable left ventricular assist devices. METHODS: Data encompassing 16,286 LVAD recipients from 4 collectives and 24 individual hospitals was collected and analyzed. In this 3rd annual report we compare and contrast outcomes, adverse events and risks factors between axial flow and centrifugal flow device recipients. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in the baseline characteristics of axial vs centrifugal flow LVAD recipients. Survival was similar between pump types. INTERMACS profile 1-3 constitute 85% of implants. A survival gap persists in destination therapy compared to bridge patients. RVAD need and delay impact survival dramatically. Centrifugal flow outperforms axial flow recipients in regards to GI bleeding and freedom from hemocompatibility related adverse events. No significant difference in the actuarial freedom from all strokes or either stroke subtype (hemorrhagic or ischemic) was seen among the two types of pumps. New end points to guide decision making are proposed. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a transition from axial to centrifugal flow with four-year survival that approximates 60%. A high frequency of adverse events remains an impediment to the wider adoption of these technologies. In the future, composite study endpoints examining life quality and adverse events beyond survival may help in shared decision making prior to MCS implant, and may provide the requisite data to support extension of MCS therapy into the lesser ill heart failure population.

• MeSH
• asistovaná cirkulace MeSH
• dospělí MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mezinárodní spolupráce MeSH
• podpůrné srdeční systémy * MeSH
• protézy - design * MeSH
• registrace MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• společnosti lékařské MeSH
• srdeční selhání chirurgie   MeSH
• transplantace srdce a plic MeSH
• výroční zprávy jako téma MeSH
• Check Tag
• dospělí MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• srovnávací studie MeSH