Key result
ICD use shows no benefit for 1-year waitlist survival in CF-LVAD patients awaiting heart transplant.
Why the study?
The role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients supported with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices awaiting heart transplant was not well evaluated.
Does implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use improve 1-year waitlist survival in patients awaiting heart transplant with or without continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices?
Cohort (n=34,860)
Yes
Does implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use improve 1-year waitlist survival in patients awaiting heart transplant with or without continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices?
Absolute Event Rate: 95% vs 94%
p-value: p=.1
ICD use is associated with improved 1-year waitlist survival in heart transplant candidates without a CFVAD, but offers no additional survival benefit in those supported with a CFVAD.
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have been shown to have survival advantage in advanced heart failure patients. Few studies have evaluated the role of ICDs in patients supported with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CFVADs). We aimed to evaluate the impact of ICD and CFVAD on heart transplant (HTx) waiting list survival. We queried the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) thoracic transplant database between years 2007 and 2016 for patients aged ≥ 18 years listed for HTx. Patients receiving devices other than CFVAD were excluded. Patients were divided into groups-with and without CFVAD and further subdivided into groups-with and without ICD use. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate the survival outcomes. There were 34 860 patients listed for HTx during study period of which 11 481 (32%) had a CFVAD and 26 139 (75%) had an ICD. Within CFVAD group, patients with ICD were older, more likely male, with higher creatinine and listed as UNOS status 1A. In the No-CFVAD group, 1-year waitlist survival was significantly better with ICD use (81% vs. 73%, P < .0001); however, in CFVAD patients, 1-year survival with ICD use was comparable to No-ICD use (95% vs. 94%, P = .1). Use of ICD is associated with significantly better heart transplant waitlist survival in patients not supported by CFVAD. In patients supported with CFVAD, the ICD does not offer additional survival benefit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trivedi et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Advanced heart failure awaiting heart transplant (n=34,860). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) vs. No ICD was evaluated on 1-year waitlist survival in CFVAD patients (p=.1). In patients supported with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device awaiting heart transplant, ICD use did not significantly improve 1-year waitlist survival (95% vs. 94%, P=0.1).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: