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

OBJECTIVES Survival is poor following an orthotopic heart transplant with gender-mismatched donors and recipients. Patients bridged to an orthotopic heart transplant with a ventricular assist device (VAD) frequently become sensitized. We hypothesized that the combination of VAD bridging and gender-mismatch may result in greater rejection and poorer survival. METHODS Data were obtained from the United Network of Organ Sharing database. Patients were divided into 4 groups: (i) VAD recipients who received a heart from a gender-matched donor (VAD-M); (ii) VAD recipients who received a heart from a gender-mismatched donor (VAD-MM); (iii) noVAD recipients who received a heart from a gender-matched donor (noVAD-M); and (iv) noVAD recipients who received a heart from a gender-mismatched donor (noVAD-MM). Rejection episodes within 1-year post-transplant and transplant survival were compared in VAD-M versus VAD-MM and noVAD-M versus noVAD-MM groups, respectively. RESULTS Between January 2000 and June 2017, of 33 401 adult patients who underwent heart transplants, 8648, 2441, 12 761 and 4992 patients were identified as VAD-M, VAD-MM, noVAD-M and noVAD-MM, respectively. Rejection within 1-year post-transplant occurred in 23.3% and 27.3% of the VAD-M and VAD-MM groups, respectively (P &amp;lt; 0.01) and in 21.8% and 23.6% of the noVAD-M and noVAD-MM groups (P = 0.02), respectively. In an adjusted survival analysis, the VAD-MM group showed significantly worse survival than the VAD-M group (P &amp;lt; 0.01), whereas there was no significant difference between the noVAD-M and noVAD-MM groups (P = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS Our results indicated that the combination of VAD bridging and gender-mismatch caused greater rejection and worse survival following a transplant. Further study is necessary to prove comparable post-transplant survival of gender-matched or -mismatched recipients without VAD bridging.

Ventricular assist device bridging with gender-mismatch increases rejection and decreases survival following a heart transplant