English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic, debilitating and progressive disease(1). Consequently, guidelines recommend heart transplants for patients suffering from end-stage HF, termed destination therapy(2). However, with increasing disparity between the number of donor hearts available and people on the waiting list, identifying the most suitable interim intervention (bridge-to-transplant) therapy is paramount(3,4). Method A scoping search identified controversy surrounding LVAD versus ECMO in end-stage HF. Discussions with an expert in the field at a tertiary centre in the UK (Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham) enabled refinement of the topic. A literature review was conducted, followed by a title and abstract screen. Subsequently, remaining literature was critically appraised. Results First generation LVADs may decrease mortality by 48% in comparison to optimal medical management, although have been associated with disabling stroke. Second and third generation LVADs demonstrate impressive survival at 30 days (&amp;gt;95%), a strong favourable long-term prognostic indicator. Additionally, improvement in HF severity and QoL have been demonstrated. Unlike ECMO, LVAD appears to be feasible as a DT, lasting as long as 8 years. However, the cost of LVADs may be prohibitive, higher than transplantation2. However, ECMO may facilitate multi-organ and right ventricular recovery, enabling transplantation to occur with increased stability. Neither option has conclusive evidence for cost-effectiveness. Conclusions Both LVADs and ECMO can be considered as effective BTT options, suitable in different clinical scenarios. The decision for BTT intervention should be undertaken on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with NICE guidelines, aiming for optimal outcomes in terms of survival, functionality and QoL.

british journal of surgery

1011 The Implications of The Use of Left Ventricular Assist Devices (Lvads) Or Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) In Patients with Severe Heart Failure