Heart transplantation is an established treatment for end-stage heart failure. Due to the increase in demand and persistent scarcity of organ, mechanical circulatory devices have played a major role in therapy for advanced heart failure. Usage of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has gone up from 6% in 2006 to 43% in 2013 as per the United Network of Organ Sharing database. Majority of patients presenting for a heart transplantation are often bridged with an assist device prior for management of heart failure while on wait-list. On one hand, it is well established that LVADs improve survival on wait-list; on the other hand, the effect of LVAD on morbidity and survival after a heart transplantation is still unclear. In this article, we review the available literature and attempt to infer the outcomes given the risks and benefits of heart transplantation with prior LVAD patients.
KirklinJKNaftelDCPaganiFD, et al. Seventh INTERMACS Annual Report: 15,000 patients and counting. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:1495-1504.
2.
StovoldEBeecherDFoxleeRNoel-StorrA.Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram. Syst Rev. 2014;3:54.
3.
PatlollaVPattenRDDenofrioDKonstamMAKrishnamaniR.The effect of ventricular assist devices on post-transplant mortality an analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing Thoracic Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:264-271.
4.
CarrozziniMBejkoJGambinoA, et al. Results of new-generation intrapericardial continuous flow left ventricular assist devices as a bridge-to-transplant. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2018;19:739-747.
5.
LoforteAMusumeciFMontaltoA, et al. Use of mechanical circulatory support devices in end-stage heart failure patients. J Card Surg. 2014;29:717-722.
6.
YoshiokaDLiBTakayamaH, et al. Outcome of heart transplantation after bridge-to-transplant strategy using various mechanical circulatory support devices. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017;25:918-924.
SasakiHMitchellJDJessenME, et al. Bridge to heart transplantation with left ventricular assist device versus inotropic agents in status 1 patients. J Card Surg. 2009;24:756-762.
9.
NativiJNDrakosSGKucheryavayaAY, et al. Changing outcomes in patients bridged to heart transplantation with continuous- versus pulsatile-flow ventricular assist devices: an analysis of the registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30:854-861.
10.
VenturaPAAlharethiRBudgeD, et al. Differential impact on post-transplant outcomes between pulsatile- and continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. Clin Transplant. 2011;25:E390-E395.
11.
TaghaviSJayarajanSNKomaroffEMangiAA.Continuous flow left ventricular assist device technology has influenced wait times and affected donor allocation in cardiac transplantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:1966-1971.e1.
12.
SchulzePCKitadaSClerkinKJinZManciniDM.Regional differences in recipient waitlist time and pre- and post-transplant mortality after the 2006 United Network for Organ Sharing policy changes in the donor heart allocation algorithm. JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2:166-177.
13.
WeissESAllenJGKilicA, et al. Development of a quantitative donor risk index to predict short-term mortality in orthotopic heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:266-273.
14.
FudimMDavisMEJenkinsC, et al. Marginal donor use in patients undergoing heart transplantation with left ventricular assist device explantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:2117-2126.
15.
SchumerEMIsingMSTrivediJRSlaughterMSChengA.Early outcomes with marginal donor hearts compared with left ventricular assist device support in patients with advanced heart failure. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:522-527.
16.
AmmiratiECiprianiMGVarrentiM, et al. A prospective comparison of mid-term outcomes in patients treated with heart transplantation with advanced age donors versus left ventricular assist device implantation. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;23:584-592.
17.
UrbanMBoothKJungschlegerJNetukaISchuelerSMacGowanG.Impact of donor variables on heart transplantation outcomes in mechanically bridged versus standard recipients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019;28:455-464.
18.
WeissESAllenJGArnaoutakisGJ, et al. Creation of a quantitative recipient risk index for mortality prediction after cardiac transplantation (IMPACT). Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92:914-922.
19.
SunavskyJZittermannAOezpekerC, et al. One-year clinical outcome in end-stage heart failure: comparison of “high urgent” listing for heart transplantation with mechanical circulatory support implantation. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;63:647-652.
20.
HealyAHStehlikJEdwardsLBMcKellarSHDrakosSGSelzmanCH.Predictors of 30-day post-transplant mortality in patients bridged to transplantation with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices—an analysis of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Transplant Registry. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016;35:34-39.
21.
SandnerSEZimpferDZrunekP, et al. Age and outcome after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation as bridge to transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28:367-372.
22.
FukuharaSTakedaKBlairAKurlanskyPATakayamaHNakaY.Posttransplant outcomes among septuagenarians bridged to transplantation with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103:41-48.
23.
DeoSVSungKDalyRC, et al. Cardiac transplantation after bridged therapy with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices. Heart Lung Circ. 2014;23:224-228.
24.
GaffeyACPhillipsECHowardJ, et al. Prior sternotomy and ventricular assist device implantation do not adversely impact survival or allograft function after heart transplantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:542-549.
25.
AxtellALFiedlerAGLewisG, et al. Reoperative sternotomy is associated with increased early mortality after cardiac transplantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;55:1136-1143.
26.
HaglundNAFeurerIDAhmadRM, et al. Institutional volume of heart transplantation with left ventricular assist device explantation influences graft survival. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014;33:931-936.
27.
NairPKKormosRLTeutebergJJ, et al. Pulsatile left ventricular assist device support as a bridge to decision in patients with end-stage heart failure complicated by pulmonary hypertension. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:201-208.
28.
MikusEStepanenkoAKrabatschT, et al. Left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation: impact of transpulmonary gradient and pulmonary vascular resistance on decision making. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;39:310-316.
29.
Torre-AmioneGSouthardRELoebeMM, et al. Reversal of secondary pulmonary hypertension by axial and pulsatile mechanical circulatory support. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:195-200.
30.
MoayedifarRZuckermannAAliabadi-ZuckermannA, et al. Long-term heart transplant outcomes after lowering fixed pulmonary hypertension using left ventricular assist devices. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;54:1116-1121.
31.
AlbaACRaoVRossHJ, et al. Impact of fixed pulmonary hypertension on post-heart transplant outcomes in bridge-to-transplant patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:1253-1258.
32.
TsukashitaMTakayamaHTakedaK, et al. Effect of pulmonary vascular resistance before left ventricular assist device implantation on short- and long-term post-transplant survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150:1352-1360.
33.
KoBSDrakosSKfouryAG, et al. Immunologic effects of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices before and after heart transplant. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016;35:1024-1030.
34.
ArnaoutakisGJGeorgeTJKilicA, et al. Effect of sensitization in US heart transplant recipients bridged with a ventricular assist device: update in a modern cohort. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:1236-1245.e1.
35.
CoromilasEQue-XuECMooreD, et al. Dynamics and prognostic role of galectin-3 in patients with advanced heart failure, during left ventricular assist device support and following heart transplantation. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2016;16:138.
36.
UrbanMSlavcevAGazdicTIvakPBesikJNetukaI.The impact of angiotensin II type 1 receptor antibodies on post-heart transplantation outcome in Heart Mate II bridged recipients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;22:292-297.
37.
YpsilantisEKeyTBradleyJA, et al. Soluble CD30 levels in recipients undergoing heart transplantation do not predict post-transplant outcome. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28:1206-1210.
38.
StoneMLLaParDJBenrashidE, et al. Ventricular assist devices and increased blood product utilization for cardiac transplantation. J Card Surg. 2015;30:194-200.
TakedaKTakayamaHColomboPC, et al. Late right heart failure during support with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices adversely affects post-transplant outcome. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:667-674.
41.
HaglundNAFeurerIDDwyerJP, et al. Does renal dysfunction and method of bridging support influence heart transplant graft survival?Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:835-841.
42.
Al-KindiSGAl-SuwaidiJJayyousiAOliveiraGHKhalilCA.Impact of diabetes mellitus on survival in patients bridged to transplantation with left ventricular assist devices in the United States. ASAIO J. 2019;65:587-592.
43.
ClerkinKJNakaYManciniDMColomboPCTopkaraVK.The impact of obesity on patients bridged to transplantation with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. JACC Heart Fail. 2016;4:761-768.
44.
TrubyLKTakedaKFarrM, et al. Incidence and impact of on-cardiopulmonary bypass vasoplegia during heart transplantation. ASAIO J. 2018;64:43-51.
45.
TrubyLKTakedaKTopkaraVK, et al. Risk of severe primary graft dysfunction in patients bridged to heart transplantation with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2018;37:1433-1442.
46.
TakedaKLiBGaranAR, et al. Improved outcomes from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation versus ventricular assist device temporary support of primary graft dysfunction in heart transplant. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36:650-656.
47.
YinMYWever-PinzonOMehraMR, et al. Post-transplant outcome in patients bridged to transplant with temporary mechanical circulatory support devices. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38:858-869.
48.
QuaderMAWolfeLGKasirajanV.Heart transplantation outcomes in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device-related complications. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:75-81.
49.
HealyAHBairdBCDrakosSGStehlikJSelzmanCH.Impact of ventricular assist device complications on posttransplant survival: an analysis of the United Network of Organ Sharing database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95:870-875.
50.
ChauhanDOkohAKFugarS, et al. Impact of left-ventricular assist device-related complications on posttransplant graft survival. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104:1947-1952.
51.
VarrBCRestainoSWFarrM, et al. Infectious complications after cardiac transplantation in patients bridged with mechanical circulatory support devices versus medical therapy. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016;35:1116-1123.
52.
SchulmanARMartensTPRussoMJ, et al. Effect of left ventricular assist device infection on post-transplant outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28:237-242.
53.
LermanDTHamiltonKWByrneD, et al. The impact of infection among left ventricular assist device recipients on post-transplantation outcomes: a retrospective review. Transpl Infect Dis. 2018;20:e12995.
54.
JohnRPaganiFDNakaY, et al. Post-cardiac transplant survival after support with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: impact of duration of left ventricular assist device support and other variables. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140:174-181.
55.
KamdarFJohnREckmanPColvin-AdamsMShumwaySJLiaoK.Postcardiac transplant survival in the current era in patients receiving continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145:575-581.
56.
GrimmJCMagruderJTCrawfordTC, et al. Duration of left ventricular assist device support does not impact survival after US heart transplantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:1206-1212.
57.
TakedaKTakayamaHKalesanB, et al. Outcome of cardiac transplantation in patients requiring prolonged continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:89-99.
58.
FukuharaSTakedaKPolancoARTakayamaHNakaY.Prolonged continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support and posttransplantation outcomes: a new challenge. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151:872-880.e5.
59.
DonneyongMChengATrivediJR, et al. The association of pretransplant HeartMate II left ventricular assist device placement and heart transplantation mortality. ASAIO J. 2014;60:294-299.
60.
TrivediJRRajagopalKSchumerEM, et al. Differences in status 1A heart transplantation survival in the continuous flow left ventricular assist device era. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:1512-1516.
61.
ColvinMMiranda-HerreraDGustafsonSK, et al. Impact of increased time at the highest urgency category on heart transplant outcomes for candidates with ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016;35:326-334.
62.
SteffenRJBlackstoneEHSmediraNG, et al. Optimal timing of heart transplant after HeartMate II left ventricular assist device implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104:1569-1576.
63.
TrachtenbergBHEstepJD.Roads, maps, and destinations: the journey of left ventricular assist device implantation in ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2016;18:132.
