4.5 Article

Age and Outcome After Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation as Bridge to Transplantation

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 367-372

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2009.01.008

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The effect of age on outcomes after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation as a bridge to transplantation (BTT) was determined. Methods: From November 1998 to July 2007, 86 patients with advanced heart failure underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation as BTT and were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into 2 groups by age at LVAD implantation: 56 patients (65.1%) younger than 60, Group 1; and 30 (34.9%) aged 60 years or older, Group 2. Results: Group 2 patients had a higher incidence of heart failure caused by ischemic heart. disease (63.3% vs 32.1%, p = 0.005) and more severely impaired renal function by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease-derived glomerular filtration rates (51.9 +/- 15.9 vs. 68.0 +/- 20.5 ml/min/1.73 m(2), p < 0.001) than Group 1. Age was the only independent predictor of post-LVAD death (hazard ratio, 1.4 p = 0.003). The BTT rate was lower (33.3% vs 62.5%, p = 0.010), and incidence of post-LVAD renal failure was higher (53.3% vs 30.4%, p = 0.037) in Group 2 vs Group 1. Post-LVAD survival at 1, 3, and 6 months was 92.9%, 79.9%, and 74.0% for Group I and 90.0%, 62.0%, and 37.0% for Group 2 (p = 0.007). Post-transplant survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 87.8%, 82.3%, and 76.0% for Group 1 and 90.0%, 67.5%, 67.5% for Group 2 (p = 0.517). Conclusions: Patients aged 60 years and older have inferior post-LVAD survival; however, post-transplant survival is excellent. We advocate LVAD placement as bridge-to-transplant therapy only in carefully selected older patients most well suited for transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009;28:367-72. Copyright (C) 2009 by the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据