...
首页> 外文期刊>The Annals of Thoracic Surgery: Official Journal of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the Southern Thoracic Surgical Association >Ventricular Assist Devices or Inotropic Agents in Status 1A Patients? Survival Analysis of the United Network of Organ Sharing Database
【24h】

Ventricular Assist Devices or Inotropic Agents in Status 1A Patients? Survival Analysis of the United Network of Organ Sharing Database

机译:1A状态患者的心室辅助设备或正性肌力药?器官共享数据库联合网络的生存分析

获取原文
           

摘要

Improved outcomes as well as lack of donor hearts have increased the use of ventricular assist devices (VADs), rather than inotropic support, for bridging to transplantation. Recognizing that organ allocation in the highest status patients remains controversial, we sought to compare outcomes of patients with VADs and those receiving advanced medical therapy.MethodsThe United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was used to compare survival on the waiting list and posttransplantation survival in status 1A heart transplantation patients receiving VADs or high-dose/dual inotropic therapy or an intraaortic balloon pump( IABP), or both. Adjusted survival was calculated using Cox's proportional hazard model.ResultsAdjusted 1-year posttransplantation mortality was higher among patients with VADs compared with patients receiving inotropic agents alone (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; p < 0.05). Survival remained better for patients receiving inotropic agents alone in the post-2008 era (HR, 1.36; p?= 0.03) and among those with isolated left-sided support (HR, 1.33; p?= 0.008). When patients who received IABPs were added and analyzed after 2008, the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) group had similar survival (HR, 1.2; p?= 0.3). Survival on the waiting list, however, was superior among patients with LVADs (HR, 0.56; p < 0.05). In a therapy transition analysis, failure of inotropic agents and the need for LVAD support was a consistent marker for significantly worse mortality (HR, 1.7; p < 0.05).ConclusionsAlthough posttransplantation survival is better for patients who are bridged to transplantation with inotropic treatment only, the cost of failure of inotropic agents is significant, with a nearly doubled mortality for those who later require VAD support. Survival on the waiting list appears to be improved among patients receiving VAD support. Careful selection of the appropriate bridging strategy continues to be a significant clinical challenge.CTSNet classification:27Ventricular assist devices (VADs) have been used increasingly as a bridge to heart transplantation. Since 2009, more than 30% of heart transplant recipients have been bridged with a mechanical device [
机译:结局的改善以及供体心脏的缺乏,已增加了使用心室辅助设备(VAD)而非正性肌力支持物桥接至移植的过程。认识到处于最高状态的患者的器官分配仍然存在争议,我们试图比较VAD患者和接受高级药物治疗的患者的结果。方法使用器官共享联合网络(UNOS)数据库比较等待名单上的生存率和移植后生存率在状态1A的心脏移植患者中,接受VAD或大剂量/双重正性肌力疗法或主动脉内球囊泵(IABP)或同时接受两者。使用Cox比例风险模型计算调整后的生存期。结果与单独使用正性肌力药物的患者相比,VAD患者的调整后1年移植后死亡率更高(风险比[HR],1.48; p <0.05)。在2008年后时代,仅接受正性肌力药物治疗的患者(HR,1.36; p?= 0.03)以及有孤立左侧支持物的患者(HR,1.33; p?= 0.008)的存活率仍然更高。当在2008年之后增加接受IABP的患者并进行分析时,左心室辅助装置(LVAD)组的生存率相似(HR,1.2; p = 0.3)。然而,在等待名单上的存活率在LVAD患者中更好(HR,0.56; p <0.05)。在治疗过渡期分析中,正性肌力药物失败和需要LVAD支持是死亡率显着降低的一致标志(HR,1.7; p <0.05)。结论尽管仅接受正性肌力治疗移植的患者移植后生存期更好,正性肌力药物失败的代价是巨大的,对于以后需要VAD支持的人来说,死亡率几乎增加了一倍。在接受VAD支持的患者中,等待名单上的存活率似乎有所提高。仔细选择合适的桥接策略仍然是一项重大的临床挑战。CTSNet分类:27心室辅助设备(VAD)越来越多地用作心脏移植的桥梁。自2009年以来,超过30%的心脏移植接受者已通过机械设备桥接[

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号