Effects of left ventricular assist devices on outcomes in patients undergoing heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly being used to "bridge" patients to heart transplantation. METHODS: Data from 40 consecutive status 1 heart transplantation patients treated with intravenous inotrope therapy (n = 20) or the HeartMate LVAD (n = 20) were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in the two groups. At the time of transplantation, LVAD patients had significantly higher blood pressure and sodium with significantly lower blood urea nitrogen and creatinine. After transplantation, renal failure (52.6% versus 16.7%) and right heart failure (31.6% versus 5.6%) occurred more frequently (p < 0.05) in the inotrope group. Six-month survival after transplantation did not significantly differ in the inotrope or LVAD groups (73.7% versus 88.9%) but event-free survival was significantly (p < 0.05) lower in the inotrope group (15.8% versus 55.6%). Total hospital charges were significantly lower in the inotrope group ($213,860 +/- $107,560 versus $342,620 +/- $104,420), but average daily hospital charges were not different ($3,990 +/- $1,300 versus $4,130 +/- $2,050). CONCLUSIONS: Status 1 heart transplant patients treated with an LVAD as opposed to inotrope therapy have improved clinical and metabolic function at the time of transplant and improved survival to 6 months after transplant without major complications. Total costs are higher in the LVAD patients but average daily costs are similar.

Health status of heart transplant recipients versus patients awaiting heart transplantation: a preliminary evaluation of the SF-36 questionnaire.

Measures of the effects of health care on patients' lives are being requested to evaluate heart transplantation programs. A relatively short, 36-item, questionnaire (SF-36) designed to measure health status is being evaluated as an outcome measure for a variety of conditions. The SF-36 was sent to all adults awaiting heart transplantation (n = 48) and heart transplant recipients (n = 177) at the University of Minnesota as a pilot study of the SF-36 applied to heart transplantation. Response rates were 88% and 81%, respectively. Heart transplant recipients had significantly (p < 0.0001) better scores for general health perceptions (70 +/- 21 versus 33 +/- 21), vitality (62 +/- 19 versus 39 +/- 2), physical function (71 +/- 22 versus 36 +/- 24), ability to perform roles without physical limitations (62 +/- 41 versus 27 +/- 35), and social function (85 +/- 18 versus 63 +/- 31) compared with patients awaiting heart transplantation. Mental function and ability to perform roles without emotional problems were good in both groups and not significantly different. Mean SF-36 scores for the heart transplant recipients were uniformly not as high as scores for a historical group with only minor medical problems. These preliminary data suggest that the SF-36 is sensitive to the effects of heart transplantation. Additional studies of the SF-36 as an outcome measure for heart transplantation are warranted and should include methods to control for extraneous variability and to provide unbiased data collection.

Trends in patient selection for heart transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to review specific outcomes of patient referrals and the utility of selection criteria for heart transplantation at a single transplant center and to assess important trends over a 5-year period. BACKGROUND: Although patient selection criteria are important for the clinical success of heart transplantation and the optimal utilization of the limited supply of donor organs, there are few data regarding actual outcomes and whether selection criteria are facilitating the identification of the most appropriate patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 511 consecutive referrals of adult patients with heart failure from January 1, 1987 to December 31, 1991. Patients were followed up to one of five end points: 1) acceptance onto the transplant waiting list, 2) rejection from the transplant waiting list, 3) death, 4) referral to another program, and 5) still pending evaluation. RESULTS: Of the 511 referred patients, 221 (43%) were accepted onto the waiting list, 222 (43%) were rejected, 39 (8%) died before the evaluation was completed, 15 (3%) were referred to another program and 14 (3%) are still pending evaluation. The rates for acceptance and rejection each year ranged between 30% and 51% and there were no consistent trends in the acceptance/rejection ratio from 1987 to 1991. Of the 221 patients accepted onto the waiting list, 115 (52%) underwent transplantation, 50 (22%) died, 12 (5%) were removed from the list because of clinical improvement, 9 (4%) were referred to another program and 35 (16%) are still on the waiting list. The continuing shortage of donor organs resulted in a marked increase in the size of the waiting list from 12.6 patients in 1987 to 36.5 in 1991, as well as a marked increase in the time on the waiting list before transplantation. Over 5 years, 50 patients were considered "too well" for transplantation (23% of all rejections). Of these 50 patients, 43 (86%) are alive and 7 were lost to follow-up during a mean period of 28.6 months (range 4 to 62). All 12 patients who were taken off the active transplant list because of improvement in symptoms, ejection fraction or peak exercise oxygen consumption are alive with a mean follow-up period of 27.7 months (range 11 to 61). CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm the fact that transplant referrals are a selected group of patients with a high mortality rate, as 8% died before the evaluation could be completed and 22% died while waiting for a suitable donor organ. Furthermore, patient selection criteria are able to identify a small subset of patients with a low mortality risk as patients who were rejected because they were too well or taken off the list for clinical improvement have a reasonably good prognosis.