RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is used to support patients in severe cardiogenic shock. In the absence of recovery, these patients may need to be listed for heart transplant (HT), which offers the best long-term prognosis. However, posttransplantation mortality is significantly elevated in patients who receive ECMO. The objective of the present study was to describe and risk-stratify different profiles of patients listed for HT supported by ECMO. METHODS: Patients listed for HT in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were analyzed. The primary outcome was 1-year survival and was assessed in patients bridged to transplant with ECMO (ECMOBTT) and patients who were previously supported on ECMO but had it removed before HT (ECMOREMOVED). RESULTS: Among 65,636 adult candidates listed for HT (between 2001 and 2017), 712 were supported on ECMO, 292 of whom (41%) underwent HT (ECMOBTT, n = 202; ECMOREMOVED, n = 90). Most of the patients with ECMOREMOVED were transplanted with a ventricular assist device. In ECMOBTT, recipient age (each 10-year increase), time on the waitlist (both defined as minor risk factors), need for dialysis, and need for mechanical ventilation (both defined as major risk factors) were independent predictors of mortality. ECMOREMOVED and ECMOBTT with no risk factors showed 1-year survival comparable to that in patients who were never supported on ECMO. Compared with patients who were never on ECMO, patients in ECMOBTT group with minor risk factors, 1 major risk factor, and 2 major risk factors had ~2-, ~5-, and >10-fold greater 1-year mortality, respectively (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The HT recipients in the ECMOREMOVED and ECMOBTT groups with no risk factors showed similar survival as the HT recipients who were never supported on ECMO. In the ECMOBTT group, posttransplantation mortality increased significantly with increasing risk factors.
Assuntos
Oxigenação por Membrana Extracorpórea , Transplante de Coração , Coração Auxiliar , Adulto , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Diálise Renal , Transplante de Coração/efeitos adversos , Coração Auxiliar/efeitos adversos , Medição de Risco , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Sodium restriction is recommended for patients with heart failure (HF) despite the lack of solid clinical evidence from randomized controlled trials. Whether or not sodium restrictions provide beneficial cardiac effects is not known. METHODS: The present study is a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of stable HF patients with ejection fraction ≤ 40%. Patients were allocated to sodium restriction (2 g of sodium/day) vs. control (3 g of sodium/day). The primary outcome was change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) at 20 weeks. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and adverse safety events (HF readmission, blood pressure or electrolyte abnormalities). RESULTS: Seventy patients were enrolled. Median baseline sodium consumption was 3268 (2225-4537) mg/day. Adherence to the intervention based on 24-hour urinary sodium was 32%. NT-proBNP and quality of life did not significantly change between groups (p > 0.05 for both). Adverse safety events were not significantly different between the arms (p > 0.6 for all). In the per protocol analysis, patients who achieved a sodium intake < 2500 mg/day at the intervention conclusion showed improvements in NT-proBNP levels (between-group difference: -55%, 95% confidence interval -27 to -73%; p = 0.002) and quality of life (between-group difference: -11 ± 5 points; p = 0.04). Blood pressure decreased in patients with lower sodium intake (between-group difference: -9 ± 5 mmHg; p = 0.05) without significant differences in symptomatic hypotension or other safety events (p > 0.3 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence assessed by 24-hour natriuresis and by the nutritionist was poor. The group allocated to sodium restriction did not show improvement in NT-proBNP. However, patients who achieved a sodium intake < 2500 mg/day appeared to have improvements in NT-proBNP and quality of life without any adverse safety signals. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT03351283.
Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Sódio na Dieta , Humanos , Biomarcadores , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Peptídeo Natriurético Encefálico , Fragmentos de Peptídeos , Qualidade de Vida , Sódio , Volume Sistólico/fisiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Congestion is central to the pathophysiology of heart failure (HF); thus, tracking congestion is crucial for the management of patients with HF. In this study we aimed to compare changes in inferior vena cava diameter (IVCD) with venous pressure following manipulation of volume status during ultrafiltration in patients with cardiac dysfunction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with stable hemodialysis and with systolic or diastolic dysfunction were studied. Central venous pressure (CVP) and peripheral venous pressure (PVP) were measured before and after hemodialysis. IVCD and PVP were measured simultaneously just before dialysis, 3 times during dialysis and immediately after dialysis. Changes in IVCD and PVP were compared at each timepoint with ultrafiltration volumes. We analyzed 30 hemodialysis sessions from 20 patients. PVP was validated as a surrogate for CVP. Mean ultrafiltration volume was 2102 ± 667 mL. IVCD discriminated better ultrafiltration volumes ≤ 500 mL or ≤ 750 mL than PVP (AUC 0.80 vs 0.62, and 0.80 vs 0.56, respectively; both P< 0.01). IVCD appeared to track better ultrafiltration volume (P< 0.01) and hemoconcentration (P< 0.05) than PVP. Changes in IVCD were of greater magnitude than those of PVP (average change from predialysis: -58 ± 30% vs -28 ± 21%; P< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing ultrafiltration, changes in IVCD tracked changes in volume status better than venous pressure.
Assuntos
Cardiopatias , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Humanos , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Veia Cava Inferior/diagnóstico por imagem , Pressão Venosa Central/fisiologia , Diálise Renal , Pressão VenosaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Sensitized patients awaiting heart transplantation spend a longer time on the waitlist and have higher mortality. We are now able to further characterize sensitization by discriminating antibodies against class I and II, but the differential impact of these has not been assessed systematically. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using United Network for Organ Sharing data (2004-2015), we analyzed 17,361 adult heart transplant patients whose class I and II panel reactive antibodies were reported. Patients were divided into 4 groups: class I and II ≤25% (group 1); class I ≤25% and class II Ë25% (group 2); class II ≤25% and class I >25% (group 3); and both class I and II >25% (group 4). Outcomes assessed were treated rejection at 1-year mortality, all-cause mortality, and rejection-related mortality. Compared with group 1, only group 4 was associated with a higher risk of treated rejection at 1 year (odds ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.64), all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.06-1.46), and mortality owing to rejection (subhazard ratio 1.84, 95% CI 1.18-2.85), whereas groups 2 and 3 were not (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Combined elevation in class I and II panel reactive antibodies seem to increase the risk of treated rejection and all-cause mortality, whereas risk with isolated elevation is unclear.