Comparison of Transplant Waitlist Outcomes for Pediatric Candidates Supported by Ventricular Assist Devices Versus Medical Therapy. Issue 5 (May 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Law, Sabrina P.; Oron, Assaf P.; Kemna, Mariska S.; Albers, Erin L.; McMullan, D. Michael; Chen, Jonathan M.; Law, Yuk M.
• Is Part Of: Pediatric critical care medicine. Volume 19:Issue 5(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-05
• Subjects: heart-assist devices -- heart failure -- heart transplantation -- intensive care units -- pediatrics -- registries; Pediatric intensive care -- Periodicals; Pediatric emergencies -- Periodicals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000001503
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1529-7535

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Ventricular assist devices have gained popularity in the management of refractory heart failure in children listed for heart transplantation. Our primary aim was to compare the composite endpoint of all-cause pretransplant mortality and loss of transplant eligibility in children who were treated with a ventricular assist device versus a medically managed cohort. Design: This was a retrospective cohort analysis. Settings: Data were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Patients: The at-risk population ( n = 1, 380) was less than 18 years old, either on a ventricular assist device (605 cases) or an equivalent-severity, intensively medically treated group (referred to as MED, 775 cases). Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The impact of ventricular assist devices was estimated via Cox proportional hazards regression (hazard ratio), dichotomizing 1-year outcomes to "poor" (22%: 193 deaths, 114 too sick) versus all others (940 successful transplants, 41 too healthy, 90 censored), while adjusting for conventional risk factors. Among children 0–12 months old, ventricular assist device was associated with a higher risk of poor outcomes (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5–3.0; p < 0.001). By contrast, ventricular assist device was associated with improved outcomes for ages 12–18 (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1–0.7; p = 0.003). For candidates 1–5 and 6–11 years old, there were no differences in outcomes between the ventricular assist device and MED groups (hazard ratio, 0.8 and 1.0, p = 0.43 and 0.9). The interaction between ventricular assist devices and age group was strongly significant ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: This is a comparative study of ventricular assist devices versus medical therapy in children. Age is a significant modulator of waitlist outcomes for children with end-stage heart failure supported by ventricular assist device, with the impact of ventricular assist devices being more beneficial in adolescents.