Outcomes of heart transplant recipients bridged with percutaneous versus durable left ventricular assist devices

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe new United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation policy prioritizes temporary percutaneous over durable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) as bridge to transplant. We sought to examine 1‐year outcomes of heart transplant recipients bridged with Impella versus durable LVADs.MethodsAll primary adult orthotopic heart transplant recipients registered in UNOS between January 2016 and June 2021 were analyzed. Recipients were identified as being bridged with isolated durable or percutaneous LVAD at the time of transplant. Baseline characteristics were compared and 1‐year survival was examined using the Kaplan Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.Results: During our study period, heart transplant recipients bridged with LVADs were divided between 5422(94%) durable and 324(6%) percutaneous options. Impella‐bridged recipients were more likely to be status 1A under the old allocation system (98% vs. 70%, p < .01) and status 2 or higher under the new allocation system (99% vs. 24%, p < .01). Impella‐bridged recipients were less likely to be obese (27% vs. 42%, p < .01), have ischemic cardiomyopathy (27% vs. 34%, p < .01), and were more likely to be on inotropic agents at the time of transplant (68% vs. 6%, p < .01). One‐year post‐transplant survival was not significantly different between the two groups on univariable (HR .87, 95% CI .56–1.37) or multivariable analysis (aHR .63, 95% CI .37–1.07).ConclusionsFollowing the UNOS allocation policy change, Impella utilization has increased with no significant difference in 1‐year survival compared to bridge with durable LVADs. Impella may be a reasonable alternative to durable LVADs in select patients.