J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: 1027-1034 Continuous Patient Characteristics at Hospital Admission MeasurementMeanMinimumMaximumStd. Error Age at admission50.2710790.68.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
HEART TRANSPLANTATION
Advertisements

ISHLT/MCSD Analysis: Jan 2002 – Dec 2004, n= Deaths * censored at transplant Percent Survival Months after Device Implant Deaths / Month Event:
ISHLT/MCSD Analysis: Jan 2002 – Dec 2004, n= Deaths * censored at transplant Percent Survival Months after Device Implant Deaths / Month Event:
HEART TRANSPLANTATION Overall ISHLT 2008 J Heart Lung Transplant 2008;27:
HEART TRANSPLANTATION Pediatric Recipients ISHLT 2007 J Heart Lung Transplant 2007;26:
HEART TRANSPLANTATION Pediatric Recipients ISHLT 2008 J Heart Lung Transplant 2008;27:
Cost-Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVADs) as Permanent Implants for End-Stage Heart Failure David Samson Blue Cross and Blue Shield.
Cardiac Resynchronization Heart Failure Study Cardiac Resynchronization Heart Failure Study Presented at American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions.
THE AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND CARDIOTHORACIC ORGAN TRANSPLANT REGISTRY EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT 1984 – 2013 ANZCOTR 2013.
Horng H Chen MD on behalf of the NHLBI Heart Failure Clinical Research Network Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation in Acute Heart Failure (ROSE AHF):
HEART TRANSPLANTATION Adult Recipients JHLT Oct; 32(10):
Can Comparative Effectiveness Study Tell Us What Is The Best Therapy For Class IV Heart Failure? Beta blockers or LVADs?
Outcome of Patients with Advanced Heart Failure who Receive Device- Based Therapy for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death, G. Amit, N. Samniah,
HEART TRANSPLANTATION Pediatric Recipients ISHLT 2012 J Heart Lung Transplant Oct; 31(10):
Topics Zoll LifeVest  What it is  Who it treats  How does EMS handle these patients?
analysis from the SHIFT study
Predicting Major Outcomes after MCSD Implant 1 Risk Factors for Death, Transplant, and Recovery James Kirklin, MD David Naftel, PhD.
The Heart and Heart Failure in the Year 2013 Jonathan D. Rich, MD Associate Director, Mechanical Circulatory Support Program Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute.
Case Studies Advanced Heart Failure and the Role of Mechanical Circulatory Support Megan Shifrin, RN, MSN, ACNP-BC Vanderbilt University.
Left Ventricular Assist Devices: The What and the Who Lance E. Sullenberger MD FACC FACP Capital Cardiology Associates.
HEART TRANSPLANTATION Overall ISHLT 2012 J Heart Lung Transplant Oct; 31(10):
Dean Handimulya UIEU 2005 Congestive Heart Failure Dean Handimulya, M.D.
Rejection Normal response Inflammation 25% of pt. will have acute rejection during the first year post transplant Causes: Previous Rejection Noncompliance.
Introduction to Ventricular Assist Device (VAD)
9/5/20151 Ventricular Assist Device (VAD) Patients in the Community Liz Amerman, RN, BSN IU Health Methodist VAD Program Manager April 18, 2012.
Treatment of Heart Failure: Beyond Medical Therapy
Periportal Fibrosis Without Cirrhosis Does Not Affect Outcomes Following Continuous Flow Ventricular Assist Device Implantation Jonathon E. Sargent, BS,
Predicting Major Outcomes after MCSD Implant 1 Risk Factors for Death, Transplant, and Recovery James Kirklin, MD David Naftel, PhD.
Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients Assessment.
HEART TRANSPLANTATION Pediatric Recipients JHLT Oct; 32(10):
HeartWare HVAD: Risk Factors for Adverse Outcomes Mark S. Slaughter, MD Professor and Chair Department Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery University of.
RDB Jaquiss Duke University
Flow Diagram of the Main HOPE Trial and the HOPE-TOO Trial Extension The HOPE and HOPE-TOO Trial Investigators JAMA. 2005;293:
Ventricular Assist Devices A Ventricular assist device, or VAD, is a mechanical circulatory device that is used to partially or completely replace the.
BEST: Beta-blocker Evaluation Survival Trial Purpose To determine whether the β-blocker bucindolol reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced.
INTERMACS: June 2006 – December 2012: CMS Report Adults: n=7849 All primary implants as of 12/31/2012 n= 7928 Pediatric patients: n=79 (patients < 19 yrs.
Professor Davor Miličić, MD, PhD, FESC MECHANICAL SUPPORT TO THE FAILING HEART Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Zagreb University School of Medicine,
BME 301 Lecture Nineteen. Progression of Heart Disease High Blood Pressure High Cholesterol Levels Atherosclerosis Ischemia Heart Attack Heart Failure.
Ventricular Assist Device: Intervals for dressing changes By. Megan Giska.
HEART TRANSPLANTATION Pediatric Recipients 2014 JHLT Oct; 33(10):
Characteristics of Gastrointestinal Bleeding (GIB) and Subsequent Endoscopic Therapy after Implantation of Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) for End.
Mechanical Circulatory Support in Special Populations Renzo Y. Loyaga-Rendon MD.,PhD.. Assistant Professor Advanced Heart Failure Section University of.
Natural History of Heart Failure
Results Methods Abstract Number 69 Objectives 1.Nephrol Dial Transplant (2011) 26: 537–543 2.J Support Oncol 2011;9:149–155 3.N Engl J Med. 2009; 361:1627–1638.
BME 301 Lecture Nineteen. Progression of Heart Disease High Blood Pressure High Cholesterol Levels Atherosclerosis Ischemia Heart Attack Heart Failure.
When Using SRTR Slides. SRTR Slide Use Guidelines.
1 Data Quality Report Quality Assurance Report Live Data Download Site Datasets (SAS) Research Datasets Customized Cohort Reports Outcome Analytics Patient.
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Bridge to Decision and to Recovery Shigeki Tabata, Hitoshi Hirose, Nicholas C. Cavarocchi, James T. Diehl, Hiroyuki.
Identifying patients for advanced heart failure therapy by screening patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator:
James K. Kirklin, MD, Francis D. Pagani, MD, PhD, Robert L
Can the Seattle Heart Failure Model Be Used to Risk-stratify Heart Failure Patients for Potential Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy?  Wayne C. Levy,
Preoperative screening for LVAD an TAH implantation
Assist Devices for the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock
Role of ECMO in Acute Cardiogenic Shock
Multiplication table. x
Mechanical circulatory support
Pre-operative mortality risk assessment in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: Application of the HeartMate II risk score 
The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty-first Official Adult Heart Transplant Report—2014; Focus Theme: Retransplantation 
Fifth INTERMACS annual report: Risk factor analysis from more than 6,000 mechanical circulatory support patients  James K. Kirklin, MD, David C. Naftel,
RISK STRATIFICATION TOOL
A, Breakdown of frailty into its underlying causes, manifestations, and clinical outcomes separated by LVAD-responsive and LVAD-independent causes of frailty.
CIBIS II: Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices HOSEIN PASANDI.
Outcomes of contemporary mechanical circulatory support device configurations in patients with severe biventricular failure  Allison P. Levin, BA, MSc,
Long-term mechanical circulatory support (destination therapy): On track to compete with heart transplantation?  James K. Kirklin, MD, David C. Naftel,
Anaerobic threshold responder analysis
Early Outcomes With Marginal Donor Hearts Compared With Left Ventricular Assist Device Support in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure  Erin M. Schumer,
Current Status of Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy
Optimal timing for heart transplantation in patients bridged with left ventricular assist devices: Is timing of the essence?  Chase R. Brown, MD, Fabliha.
Presentation transcript:

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: Continuous Patient Characteristics at Hospital Admission MeasurementMeanMinimumMaximumStd. Error Age at admission Weight (kg) at admission BSA at admission Table I BSA, body surface area

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: Primary Device Implant LVAD (alone)339 Pulsatile flow, chronic device303 Continuous flow, chronic device27 Not specified9 LVAD + RVAD74 LVAD: Pulsatile flow, chronic device69 LVAD: Continuous flow, chronic device1 LVAD: Not specified4 RVAD: Pulsatile flow, chronic device44 RVAD: Pulsatile flow, temporary device21 RVAD: Continuous flow, temporary device8 RVAD: Not specified1 Total413 Table III

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: Intention to Treat Category # of patients % of all patients Bridge to transplant % Bridge to recovery245.8% Destination Therapy, Advanced age194.6% Destination Therapy, Co-morbidity122.9% Destination Therapy, Fixed Pulmonary Hypertension30.7% Destination Therapy, Contraindication to Transplant10.2% Not specified71.7% Table IV

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: Major Causes of Death Causen% of 105 Multiple organ failure2827% Hemorrhage1716% Cardiovascular1110% Stroke1010% Infection77% Other2322% Unspecified99% Total105100% Table VI

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: Risk Factors for Death after Device Implant Risk FactorRelative RiskP-value EARLY PHASE OF HAZARD Blood type: AB Diagnosis other than Cardiomyopathy BUN at implant1.9 (20 vs 120).04 Concurrent placement of RVAD7.4<.0001 CONSTANT PHASE OF HAZARD Older age2.7 (30 vs 60).02 Gender: female *Patients are censored at transplant BUN, Blood Urea Nitrogen Table VII

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: Death before transplant TransplantExplant-recovery Reason for Implant nn%n%n% Bridge to transplant %14546%86% Bridge to recovery 24729%28%866% Destination351029%26%0- Other7229%0-2 Unknown35720%1543%0- Total %16440%184% Table VIII ISHLT/MCSD Registry January 2002 – May 2004, n=413

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: Summary of Post-Implantation Patient-related Events Event# of Patients% of all Patients Infection % Bleeding % Arrhythmia % Renal dysfunction8520.6% Respiratory dysfunction6616.0% Neurological dysfunction5814.0% Right ventricular dysfunction4410.7% Hepatic dysfunction307.2% Cardiac tamponade225.3% Thrombotic vascular complication184.4% Hematoma102.4% Pleural effusion92.2% Internal organ compromise51.2% Pacemaker implanted20.5% Table IX

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: Device Malfunction Event# of Events Controller16 Pump/pump drive unit7 Conduit/graft inflow5 Conduit/graft outflow2 Valve/valved conduit inflow2 Battery1 Implanted battery1 Percutaneous lead/drive line1 Other 19 Total54 Table X

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: ISHLT/MCSD Analysis: Jan 2002 – May 2004 n=413, 105 deaths Percent Survival Months after Device Implant Deaths / Month Event: Death after Implant * * censored at transplant Hazard Months % Survival 184 % 376 % 668 % 1255 % (279) (140) (78) (33) Figure 1

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: p <.0001 Percent Survival Months after Device Implant LVAD only (n=339) LVAD + RVAD at the same operation (n=74) ISHLT/MCSD Analysis: Jan 2002 – May 2004 n=413, 105 deaths Primary Device Implant: Event: Death after Implant Figure 2

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: ISHLT/MCSD Analysis: Jan 2002 – May 2004 n=413 BUN at Implant Predicted % Mortality at 3 months LVAD + RVAD at the same operation LVAD (alone) Primary Device Implant: Figure 3

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: Percent freedom from Explant (due to recovery) Months after Device Implant Explant due to recovery / Month ISHLT/MCSD Analysis: Jan 2002 – May 2004 n=413, 18 Explants due to recovery Event: Device Explant due to Recovery Hazard (285) (150) (81) (21) Figure 4

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: Percent freedom from Transplantation Months after Device Implant Transplants / Month ISHLT/MCSD Analysis: Jan 2002 – May 2004 n=413, 164 transplants Event: Transplantation Hazard Months % Freedom 190 % 367 % 643 % 1222 % (279) (140) (72) (18) Figure 5

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: Instantaneous Event Rates: Events / Month Months after Device Implant Death * Transplantation Explant due to recovery * Censored at transplant ISHLT/MCSD Analysis: Jan 2002 – May 2004 n=413, Death, Transplant, Recovery Figure 6

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: Months after Device Implant Proportion of Patients MCSD Study: Jan 2002 – May 2004 Competing Outcomes Analysis (n=339) Primary Implant: LVAD only Alive (Still waiting) Death (before transplant) Explanted (recovery) Transplanted 30 % 44 % 23 % 3 % 11 % 59 % 26 % 4 % Figure 7

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: MCSD Study: Jan 2002 – May 2004 Competing Outcomes Analysis (n=74) Primary Implant: LVAD + RVAD at the same operation Months after Device Implant Proportion of Patients Alive (Still waiting) Death (before transplant) Explanted (recovery) Transplanted 14 % 33 % 43 % 10 % 3 % 36 % 48 % 13 % Figure 8

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: Months after Device Implant Cumulative Events per Patient ISHLT/MCSD Analysis: Jan 2002 – May 2004 n=413 Bleeding events (n=282) Infection events (n=304) Thromboembolism (n=59) Figure 9

J Heart Lung Transplant 2004; 23: ISHLT/MCSD Analysis: Jan 2002 – May 2004 n=413 Percent Freedom from Device Malfunction Months after Device Implant Months % Freedom 195 % 389 % 679 % 1260 % Hazard Device Adverse Events / Month (285) (132) (70) (30) Figure 10