Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Indication for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been a matter of debate in less sick status 2 patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were obtained from 183 consecutive patients assigned to stage D heart failure (HF) who were evaluated by the institutional review board of the University of Tokyo Hospital and then listed for heart transplantation as status 1 or 2 of the Japan Organ Transplant Network. Patients with status 2 (n=38) had a prognosis as poor as those dependent on inotropes (n=54) or MCS (n=91; P=0.615, log-rank test), and only 4 of them had eventual ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation (10.5%). Patients who eventually received VAD (n=92) had better 4-year survival than those without MCS among status 1 and 2 (P=0.030, log-rank test). On Cox regression analysis plasma B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) >740pg/ml was the only significant predictor for 4-year survival among the status 2 group (P=0.014; hazard ratio, 8.267). Ten patients with status 2 died: 6 due to acute hemodynamic compromise and 4 due to ventricular fibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: Prognosis in status 2 patients was as poor as that of those dependent on inotrope infusion or VAD, mostly because of out-of-hospital sudden death without MCS. Status 2 patients with considerably high plasma BNP may be good candidates for continuous flow VAD therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Imamura et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: