Impact of mechanical circulatory support on pediatric heart transplant candidates with elevated pulmonary vascular resistance. Issue 1 (25th July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Thangappan, Karthik; Morales, David L. S.; Vu, Quyen; Lehenbauer, David; Villa, Chet; Wittekind, Samuel; Hirsch, Russel; Lorts, Angela; Zafar, Farhan
• Is Part Of: Artificial organs. Volume 45:Issue 1(2021)
• Page Start: 29
• Page End: 37
• Publication Date: 2020-07-25
• Subjects: heart transplantation -- mechanical circulatory support -- pulmonary hypertension -- pulmonary vascular resistance; Artificial organs -- Periodicals; 617.956
• DOI: 10.1111/aor.13747
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0160-564X

Abstract

Abstract: With the new era of increasing use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in children, seemingly more patients with elevated pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) are having positive outcomes. The purpose of this study was to define the effect of MCS on pediatric patients listed for heart transplant with an elevated PVR. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was used to identify patients aged 0‐18 at the time of listing for heart transplant between 2010 and 2019 who had PVR documented ( n = 2081). Patients were divided into MCS (LVAD, RVAD, BiVAD, and TAH) and No MCS groups, then divided by PVR (PVR) at the time of listing: <3, 3‐6, and >6 Wood units (WU). MCS was used in 20% overall ( n = 426); 57% of those with PVR <3, 27% with PVR 3‐6, and 16% with PVR >6. MCS, PVR <3 patients had a higher chance of positive waitlist outcome than all No MCS groups (vs. PVR <3, P = .049; vs. PVR 3‐6, P = .004; vs. PVR >6, P < .001). MCS, PVR 3‐6 patients had a higher chance of positive waitlist outcome than all No MCS groups (vs. PVR <3, P = .048; vs. PVR 3‐6, P = .009; vs. PVR >6, P < .001). MCS, PVR >6 patients had a higher chance of positive waitlist outcome than No MCS, PVR >6 patients ( P = .012). Within the No MCS group, patients with a PVR >6 had a higher incidence of negative waitlist outcome compared to PVR <3 (17% vs. 10%, P = .002); this was not the case in the MCS group (5% vs. 6%, P = .693). More patients in the MCS group were ventilator dependent (15% vs. 9%, P < .001) at the time of listing and less likely to have a functional status >50% (43% vs. 73%, P < .001). No significant differences in post‐transplant survival were found in pairwise comparisons of MCS and No MCS PVR subgroups. Patients supported with MCS had a significantly higher chance of a positive waitlist outcome than those without such support regardless of PVR status. This was most pronounced with a PVR greater than 6 WU. MCS compared to No MCS patients had better waitlist survival and equivalent post‐transplant survival. MCS patients, despite being more ill, had better overall survival regardless of PVR.