FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3169297513> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3169297513 endingPage "723" @default.
• W3169297513 startingPage "722" @default.
• W3169297513 abstract "Central MessagePatient selection and timing of interventions are key considerations in patients being considered for bridge to heart transplantation with VA ECMO.See Article page 711. Patient selection and timing of interventions are key considerations in patients being considered for bridge to heart transplantation with VA ECMO. See Article page 711. Modern outcomes of patients bridged to heart transplant (orthotopic heart transplantation [OHT]) with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) continue to be poor.1Moonsamy P. Axtell A.L. Ibrahim N.E. Funamoto M. Tolis G. Lewis G.D. et al.Survival after heart transplantation in patients bridged with mechanical circulatory support.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020; 75: 2892-2905Crossref PubMed Scopus (30) Google Scholar The 2018 update to the heart allocation system places ECMO and temporary ventricular assist device (VAD) support in Status 1 priority. In this modern context, it is increasingly valuable to understand the outcomes of OHT in various subsets of patients bridged with ECMO to guide patient selection in this high-risk population. In the current issue of the Journal, Ivey-Miranda and colleagues2Ivey-Miranda J.B. Maulion C. Farrero-Torres M. Griffin M. Posada-Martinez E.L. Testani J.M. et al.Risk stratification of patients listed for heart transplantation while supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023; 165: 711-720Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar present a novel analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing registry seeking to further elucidate this important issue. Among patients who underwent OHT, subsets of patients who underwent transplantation on ECMO versus being decannulated before transplant were compared. The decannulated before transplant group, 90% of whom were transitioned to some form of more durable circulatory support, demonstrate survival comparable to that of patients who never required ECMO support. This trend was supported by a propensity score–matched analysis of patients transitioned from ECMO to VAD versus those on ECMO at the time of transplant, with similar outcomes between groups. Further subanalysis showed a sequential increase in hazard after OHT in patients on ECMO with added risk factors, such as mechanical ventilation and renal impairment. The authors should be commended for performing a sound analysis of a powerful database. The conclusions from this analysis have important implications for the transplant surgeon: Patients bridged to transplant with ECMO are a heterogeneous cohort. As risk factors, such as renal impairment and prolonged waitlist time, accumulate, potential survival after OHT decreases drastically. However, patients undergoing transplantation before developing risk factors and those who can transition to durable VAD or other form of mechanical support may undergo transplantation with similar risk as patients who never required ECMO. This conclusion also raises an important discussion about the use of ECMO as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as a bridge to eventual OHT (“bridge to bridge”).3Fitzgerald D. Ging A. Burton N. Desai S. Elliott T. Edwards L. The use of percutaneous ECMO support as a ‘bridge to bridge’ in heart failure patients: a case report.Perfusion. 2010; 25: 321-325Crossref PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar Preoperative ECMO is a known risk factor for impaired survival after LVAD implantation.4Loyaga-Rendon R.Y. Boeve T. Tallaj J. Lee S. Leacche M. Lotun K. et al.Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to durable mechanical circulatory support.Circ Heart Fail. 2020; 13: e006387PubMed Google Scholar However, potential improvement versus continued downtrend in end-organ function while on ECMO has similar implications in this analysis, revealing that outcomes with ECMO as a bridge to LVAD versus OHT are subject to the same patient factors.5Durinka J.B. Bogar L.J. Hirose H. Brehm C. Koerner M.M. Pae W.E. et al.End-organ recovery is key to success for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to implantable left ventricular assist device.ASAIO J. 2014; 60: 189-192Crossref PubMed Scopus (25) Google Scholar A recent landmark analysis by DeFilippis and colleagues6DeFilippis E.M. Clerkin K. Truby L.K. Francke M. Fried J. Masoumi A. et al.ECMO as a bridge to left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation.JACC Heart Fail. 2021; 9: 281-289Crossref PubMed Scopus (28) Google Scholar found similar 1-year survival after OHT versus durable LVAD outcomes in patients bridged with ECMO. All of these analyses support the conclusion that patients requiring ECMO for cardiogenic shock are high risk for any advanced therapy, and outcomes are best with any approach before the sequelae of prolonged ECMO support set in. Shorter wait-list times for patients requiring ECMO driven by the new allocation system, ex vivo perfusion, and donation after cardiac death may shift the trend toward transplantation rather than durable LVAD in the coming years, and further analysis of “bridge-to-bridge” approaches is necessary. Risk stratification of patients listed for heart transplantation while supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenationThe Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryVol. 165Issue 2PreviewExtracorporeal 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. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W3169297513 created "2021-06-22" @default.
• W3169297513 creator A5030307711 @default.
• W3169297513 creator A5035615369 @default.
• W3169297513 date "2023-02-01" @default.
• W3169297513 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W3169297513 title "Commentary: A bridge to somewhere" @default.
• W3169297513 cites W2005542938 @default.
• W3169297513 cites W2049217702 @default.
• W3169297513 cites W3011501071 @default.
• W3169297513 cites W3034093816 @default.
• W3169297513 cites W3134674996 @default.
• W3169297513 cites W3166426851 @default.
• W3169297513 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.06.012" @default.
• W3169297513 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34175116" @default.
• W3169297513 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W3169297513 type Work @default.
• W3169297513 sameAs 3169297513 @default.
• W3169297513 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3169297513 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3169297513 hasAuthorship W3169297513A5030307711 @default.
• W3169297513 hasAuthorship W3169297513A5035615369 @default.
• W3169297513 hasBestOaLocation W31692975131 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C2776858399 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C2778849806 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C2911091166 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C3020404979 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C83867959 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C126322002 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C151730666 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C164705383 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C17744445 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C177713679 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C199539241 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C2776858399 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C2778849806 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C2779343474 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C2779473830 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C2908647359 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C2911091166 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C3020404979 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C71924100 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C83867959 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C86803240 @default.
• W3169297513 hasConceptScore W3169297513C99454951 @default.
• W3169297513 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W3169297513 hasLocation W31692975131 @default.
• W3169297513 hasLocation W31692975132 @default.
• W3169297513 hasOpenAccess W3169297513 @default.
• W3169297513 hasPrimaryLocation W31692975131 @default.
• W3169297513 hasRelatedWork W2010530997 @default.
• W3169297513 hasRelatedWork W2417799809 @default.
• W3169297513 hasRelatedWork W2469559411 @default.
• W3169297513 hasRelatedWork W2930638459 @default.
• W3169297513 hasRelatedWork W3023589795 @default.
• W3169297513 hasRelatedWork W3094038088 @default.
• W3169297513 hasRelatedWork W4239358355 @default.
• W3169297513 hasRelatedWork W4362712806 @default.
• W3169297513 hasRelatedWork W4379790954 @default.
• W3169297513 hasRelatedWork W1777239160 @default.
• W3169297513 hasVolume "165" @default.
• W3169297513 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3169297513 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3169297513 magId "3169297513" @default.
• W3169297513 workType "article" @default.