13 research outputs found
The value of Stanford integrated psychosocial assessment for transplantation (SIPAT) in prediction of clinical outcomes following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation
Background: The Stanford integrated psychosocial assessment for transplantation (SIPAT) is a validated psychosocial evaluation tool in the transplant population. Objective: We evaluated SIPAT in predicting post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) outcomes, including cumulative re-admissions, driveline infections, pump malfunction, pump thrombosis, gastrointestinal bleeding, major bleeding, stroke and right ventricular failure. Methods: This retrospective study included 50 LVAD patients at an academic institution in the United States who had a pre-implant SIPAT score during the years 2015-2017. Patients were split into two groups based on SIPAT score, separating a “excellent”/“good” from a “minimally acceptable”/“poor” candidate. Poisson regression, using SIPAT as both a categorical and continuous variable, was used to compare the incidence rates of the primary outcome of cumulative re-admissions and secondary outcomes of LVAD complications. Results: The patient cohort was predominantly male 93.5% vs 89.4% (p = 0.629) with a median age of 67.0 vs 58.0 years (p = 0.037), planned destination therapy 48.4% vs 68.4% (p = 0.242) and median LVAD follow-up time of 241 vs 379 days (p = 0.10) in the low- and high- SIPAT groups, respectively. SIPAT was not a significant predictor for cumulative re-admissions, but there was an association between higher SIPAT scores and major bleeding. Conclusion: In this single-center retrospective study, SIPAT did not predict cumulative re-admissions. Further study is required to validate SIPAT before clinical implementation
Which advanced heart failure therapy strategy is optimal for patients over 60 years old?
BACKGROUND: The optimal advanced heart failure (HF) therapy strategy for patients aged 60 or older with end-stage HF refractory to optimal medical therapy remains uncertain. This study compares outcomes of three advanced HF therapy strategies in this patient population. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was conducted in 95 patients aged 60-73 years who had undergone isolated heart transplantation (HTx) or continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation from 2010 to 2017. Patients were stratified into three cohorts by strategy; HTx-only (N.=25), LVAD-to-HTx (N.=29), and LVAD-only (N.=41). Primary end point was 2-year overall survival. Secondary end points included incidence of post-operative adverse events, freedom from first readmission at 1 year, and percentage of days spent in hospital following advanced HF therapy. RESULTS: Two-year survival was 91% in HTx-only patients, 88% in LVAD-to-HTx patients, and 49% in LVAD-only patients (P=0.0008). No significant difference in post-transplant survival was found between patients with or without LVAD-related adverse events preceding transplantation (P=0.42). One-year freedom from first readmission was 38.3% in HTx-only patients, 17.2% in LVAD-to-HTx patients and 7.3% in LVAD-only patients (P=0.0028). Patients in LVAD-to-HTx cohort had higher incidences of gastrointestinal bleeding (38% vs. 3%; P<0.01), major bleeding (28% vs. 3%; P=0.02), and right heart failure (69% vs. 31%; P<0.01) during post-LVAD period compared with post-HTx period. Their percentage of days spent in hospital during post-LVAD period was significantly higher than post-HTx period (7.9% vs. 1.2%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our experience with patients over 60 years old undergoing advanced therapy suggests that HTx-only and LVAD-to-HTx strategies had superior medium-term survival than LVAD-only strategy. LVAD-to-HTx strategy is effective in reducing incidence of adverse events and percentage of hospitalized days in this specific patient population
Which advanced heart failure therapy strategy is optimal for patients over 60 years old?
BACKGROUND: The optimal advanced heart failure (HF) therapy strategy for patients aged 60 or older with end-stage HF refractory to optimal medical therapy remains uncertain. This study compares outcomes of three advanced HF therapy strategies in this patient population. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was conducted in 95 patients aged 60-73 years who had undergone isolated heart transplantation (HTx) or continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation from 2010 to 2017. Patients were stratified into three cohorts by strategy; HTx-only (N.=25), LVAD-to-HTx (N.=29), and LVAD-only (N.=41). Primary end point was 2-year overall survival. Secondary end points included incidence of post-operative adverse events, freedom from first readmission at 1 year, and percentage of days spent in hospital following advanced HF therapy. RESULTS: Two-year survival was 91% in HTx-only patients, 88% in LVAD-to-HTx patients, and 49% in LVAD-only patients (P=0.0008). No significant difference in post-transplant survival was found between patients with or without LVAD-related adverse events preceding transplantation (P=0.42). One-year freedom from first readmission was 38.3% in HTx-only patients, 17.2% in LVAD-to-HTx patients and 7.3% in LVAD-only patients (P=0.0028). Patients in LVAD-to-HTx cohort had higher incidences of gastrointestinal bleeding (38% vs. 3%; P<0.01), major bleeding (28% vs. 3%; P=0.02), and right heart failure (69% vs. 31%; P<0.01) during post-LVAD period compared with post-HTx period. Their percentage of days spent in hospital during post-LVAD period was significantly higher than post-HTx period (7.9% vs. 1.2%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our experience with patients over 60 years old undergoing advanced therapy suggests that HTx-only and LVAD-to-HTx strategies had superior medium-term survival than LVAD-only strategy. LVAD-to-HTx strategy is effective in reducing incidence of adverse events and percentage of hospitalized days in this specific patient population
The use of cangrelor with heparin for left ventricular assist device implantation in a patient with acute heparin-induced thrombocytopenia
Establishing causality between pollution and effects at different levels of biological organization: The VALIMAR project
Triebskorn R, Adam S, Behrens A, et al. Establishing causality between pollution and effects at different levels of biological organization: The VALIMAR project. HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT. 2003;9(1):171-194.The study summarizes the objectives of the VALIMAR project and gives selected examples of biomarker responses that allow causal relationships to be established between exposure and biological effects at different levels of biological organization. In this project, active and passive biomonitoring experiments with brown trout (Salmo trutta f. fario) and stone loach (Barbatula barbatula) were performed in two small streams in southern Germany between 1995 and 1999 in parallel with investigations on contaminant mixtures in the laboratory in order to evaluate the suitability of biomarkers representing different levels of biological organization for the assessment of pollution in small streams. In addition to biomarker studies, the morphology of the test streams was characterized and limnological and chemical parameters were monitored. Early life stage tests and ecological studies of brown trout and stone loach population demography, of the fish assemblages, and the macro- and meiozoobenthos communities in the two test streams were included in the project. Several causality criteria were addressed by means of combined (1) laboratory and field studies, (2) chemical, biological, and statistical investigations, and (3) in vivo and in vitro studies that allowed establishment of cause-effect relationships at different biological levels. The comparison of results obtained at these levels allowed identification of mechanisms responsible for the respective effects (coherence of association, biological plausibility). Finally, individual responses (biomarkers, bioindicators) could be extrapolated to higher biological levels (population, community) thus addressing the criteria of 'time order' and 'coherence of association'
Implantation Strategies and Outcomes of Patients Treated with Left Ventricular Assist Devices Awaiting for Heart Transplant in Europe and United States: Data from the TransAtlantic Registry on VAD and Transplant (TRAVIATA)
Outcome of patients on heart transplant list treated with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device : Insights from the TRans-Atlantic registry on VAd and TrAnsplant (TRAViATA)
Background: Geographic variations in management and outcomes of individuals supported by continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD) between the United States (US) and Europe (EU) is largely unknown. Methods: We created a retrospective, multinational registry of 524 patients who received a CF-LVAD (either HVAD or Heartmate II) between January 2008 and April 2017. Follow up spanned from date of CF-LVAD implant to post-HTx period with a median follow up of 44.8 months. Results: The cohort included 299 (57.1%) EU and 225 (42.9%) US patients. Although the US cohort was significantly older with a higher prevalence of comorbidities, survival was similar between the cohorts (US 63.1%, EU 68.4% at 5 years, unadjusted log-rank test p = 0.43).Multivariate analyses suggested that older age, higher body mass index, elevated creatinine, use of temporary mechanical circulatory support prior CF-LVAD, and implantation of HVAD were associated with increased mortality. Among CF-LVAD patients undergoing HTx, the median time on CF-LVAD support was shorter in the US, meanwhile US donors were younger. Finally, the pattern of adverse events (stroke, gastrointestinal bleedings, late right ventricular failure, and driveline infection) during support differed significantly between US and EU. Conclusions: Although waitlisted patients in the US on CF-LVAD have higher risk comorbid conditions, the overall outcome is similar in US and EU. Geographic variations with regards to donor characteristics, duration of CF-LVAD support prior to transplant, and adverse events on support can explain the disparity in the utilization of mechanical bridge to transplant strategy between US and EU
Metals bioaccumulation and histopathological biomarkers in Carcinus maenas crab from Bizerta lagoon, Tunisia
Outcome of patients on heart transplant list treated with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: Insights from the TRans-Atlantic registry on VAd and TrAnsplant (TRAViATA).
BACKGROUND: Geographic variations in management and outcomes of individuals supported by continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD) between the United States (US) and Europe (EU) is largely unknown. METHODS: We created a retrospective, multinational registry of 524 patients who received a CF-LVAD (either HVAD or Heartmate II) between January 2008 and April 2017. Follow up spanned from date of CF-LVAD implant to post-HTx period with a median follow up of 44.8 months. RESULTS: The cohort included 299 (57.1%) EU and 225 (42.9%) US patients. Although the US cohort was significantly older with a higher prevalence of comorbidities, survival was similar between the cohorts (US 63.1%, EU 68.4% at 5 years, unadjusted log-rank test p = 0.43).Multivariate analyses suggested that older age, higher body mass index, elevated creatinine, use of temporary mechanical circulatory support prior CF-LVAD, and implantation of HVAD were associated with increased mortality. Among CF-LVAD patients undergoing HTx, the median time on CF-LVAD support was shorter in the US, meanwhile US donors were younger. Finally, the pattern of adverse events (stroke, gastrointestinal bleedings, late right ventricular failure, and driveline infection) during support differed significantly between US and EU. CONCLUSIONS: Although waitlisted patients in the US on CF-LVAD have higher risk comorbid conditions, the overall outcome is similar in US and EU. Geographic variations with regards to donor characteristics, duration of CF-LVAD support prior to transplant, and adverse events on support can explain the disparity in the utilization of mechanical bridge to transplant strategy between US and EU.status: Published onlin