Do @entity1002 ( XXXX ) bridge-to-transplantation outcomes predict the results of permanent @entity1002 implantation?

@entity1 @entity64 @entity177 @entity281 @entity1002 @entity385
BACKGROUND: Implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were designed for permanent implant, but we began their use for bridge-to-transplant (BTTx) to study their safety and effectiveness. We review our experience in order to compare the BTTx lessons learned with the outcomes and goals of permanent implants. METHODS: From December 1991 until January 2002, 264 @entity1 received 277 LVADs for BTTx. We analyzed temporal trends in pre- @entity1002 @entity1 factors and device-specific time-related complications. RESULTS: Survival to transplant was 69%. Adverse event analysis demonstrated a high risk of @entity281 (0.56, 1.28, and 1.88 per @entity1 at 30 days and 3 and 6 months). HeartMate devices were more prone to @entity281 than Novacor devices (p < 0.0001). @entity385 occurred less commonly than @entity281 (0.15, 0.25, 0.30 at 30 days and 3 and 6 months), were more common in Novacor than HeartMate (p = 0.0001), and were decreased by the new Novacor Vascutek conduit (p = 0.07), but these were still slightly higher than the HeartMate (p = 0.04). @entity177 occurred in 21 instances (all but one were in HeartMate devices [p = 0.04 vs Novacor]), but have significantly decreased (p < 0.0001) in HeartMate since 1998. CONCLUSIONS: Infections and device durability limit the chronic use of the HeartMate device, but device failures are decreasing. Novacor has fewer problems with @entity281 and durability, and the new Vascutek conduit will reduce, but not eliminate, @entity64 .
