Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Heart Failure Society of America’

Heart Transplant (HT) Indication for Heart Failure (HF): Procedure Outcomes and Research on HF, HT @ Two Nation’s Leading HF & HT Centers

Heart Transplant (HT) Indication for Heart Failure (HF) – Procedure Outcomes and Research on HF, HT @ Two Nation’s Leading HF & HT Centers:

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

UPDATED on 10/15/2013

http://archive.is/5kQgj

Practice Guideline | October 2013

2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart FailureA Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, FACC, FAHA; Mariell Jessup, MD, FACC, FAHA; Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA; Javed Butler, MBBS, FACC, FAHA; Donald E. Casey, MD, MPH, MBA, FACP, FAHA; Mark H. Drazner, MD, MSc, FACC, FAHA; Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, FACC, FAHA; Stephen A. Geraci, MD, FACC, FAHA, FCCP; Tamara Horwich, MD, FACC; James L. Januzzi, MD, FACC; Maryl R. Johnson, MD, FACC, FAHA; Edward K. Kasper, MD, FACC, FAHA; Wayne C. Levy, MD, FACC; Frederick A. Masoudi, MD, MSPH, FACC, FAHA; Patrick E. McBride, MD, MPH, FACC; John J.V. McMurray, MD, FACC; Judith E. Mitchell, MD, FACC, FAHA; Pamela N. Peterson, MD, MSPH, FACC, FAHA; Barbara Riegel, DNSc, RN, FAHA; Flora Sam, MD, FACC, FAHA; Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, FACC; W.H. Wilson Tang, MD, FACC; Emily J. Tsai, MD, FACC; Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, FACC, FHRS

 

This article has THREE Parts:

Part One: National Organizations Addressing the Heart Transplant (HT) Indication for Heart Failure (HF)

Part Two: Procedure Outcomes of Heart Transplant (HT) Indication for Heart Failure (HF)

  • Center for Heart Failure @Cleveland Clinic, and
  • Transplant Center @Mayo Clinic

Part Three: Research  on Heart Transplant (HT) and Alternative Solutions Indicated for Heart Failure (HF)

  • Center for Heart Failure @Cleveland Clinic, and
  • Transplant Center @Mayo Clinic

Part One

National Organizations Addressing the 

Heart Transplant (HT) Indication for Heart Failure (HF)

The Clinical Deliberation of the Heart Failure Diagnosis and the Heart Transplant Treatment Decision

have taken central stage as it is related to

  • patient safety
  • prolongation of life
  • quality of life post procedure
  • procedure outcomes, and
  • cost of care for the patient diagnosed with Heart  Failure

VIEW VIDEO –  Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure

http://theheart.medscape.org/viewarticle/803124

We present below four National institutions with pubic mandate to promote all Healthcare aspects of Cardiovascular Diseases.

A.            2020 Vision of the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA)

Special Communication: The Heart Failure Society of America in 2020: A Vision for the Future

Journal of Cardiac Failure Vol. 18 No. 2 2012 written by BARRY H. GREENBERG, MD,1,3 INDER S. ANAND, MD, PhD,2 JOHN C. BURNETT JR, MD,2,3 JOHN CHIN, MD,2,3 KATHLEEN A. DRACUP, RN, DNSc,3 ARTHUR M. FELDMAN, MD, PhD,3 THOMAS FORCE, MD,2,3 GARY S. FRANCIS, MD,3 STEVEN R. HOUSER, PhD,2 SHARON A. HUNT, MD,2 MARVIN A. KONSTAM, MD,3 JOANN LINDENFELD, MD,2,3 DOUGLAS L. MANN, MD,2,3 MANDEEP R. MEHRA, MD,2,3 SARA C. PAUL, RN, DNP, FNP,2,3 MARIANN R. PIANO, RN, PhD,2 HEATHER J. ROSS, MD,2 HANI N. SABBAH, PhD,2 RANDALL C. STARLING, MD, MPH,2 JAMES E. UDELSON, MD,2 CLYDE W. YANCY, MD, MSc,3 MICHAEL R. ZILE, MD,2 AND BARRY M. MASSIE, MD2,3

From the 1Chair, ad hoc Committee for Strategic Development, Heart Failure Society of America; 2Member of Executive Council, Heart Failure Society of America and 3Member, ad hoc Committee for Strategic Development, Heart Failure Society of America.

They write:

The preceding 2 decades had been marked by unprecedented insights into the underlying pathophysiology of cardiac dysfunction that were paralleled by therapeutic advances that, for the first time, were shown to clearly improve outcomes in heart failure patients. At the same time, heart failure prevalence was rapidly increasing throughout the world because of the aging of the population, improved survival of patients with myocardial infarction and other cardiac conditions, and inadequate treatment of common risk factors such as hypertension.

More recently the Heart Failure Society successfully promoted establishment of Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology as an American Board of Internal Medicine recognized secondary subspecialty of cardiology developed a board review course to help physicians prepare for the certification examination for the new subspecialty and created a national heart failure review course.

The Society has Advocacy goals, membership goals – to increase by 10% per year for 3 years from all disciplines of Heart Failure.

Education Goals:

The Heart Failure Society of America will be recognized for its innovative approaches to educating and content dissemination on heart failure targeting

  • healthcare professionals and patients
  • Grow and enhance the annual meeting through innovative approaches
  • Continue board review course
  • Increase web-based programs for patients and health care providers
  • Enhance the website as a portal for information dissemination for health care professionals and patients
  • Grow and enhance the relevance and value of the Journal of Cardiac Failure

Journal of Cardiac Failure Vol. 18 No. 2 2012

B.            American Heart Association Research on the National Cost of Care of Heart Failure

Conceptual analysis of projection done by the AHA regarding the increase in the Cost of Care for the the American Patient in Heart Failure were developed in the following two articles:

Economic Toll of Heart Failure in the US: Forecasting the Impact of Heart Failure in the United States -A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association (Aviva Lev-Ari)

Diagnosis of Cardiovascular Disease, Treatment and Prevention: Current & Predicted Cost of Care and the Promise of Individualized Medicine Using Clinical Decision Support Systems (Justin Pearlman, Larry H Bernstein and Aviva Lev-Ari)

C. National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute  (NHLBI)’s Ten year Strategic Research Plan

Heart Transplantation: NHLBI’s Ten year Strategic Research Plan to Achieving Evidence-based Outcomes (Larry H Bernstein and Aviva Lev-Ari)

National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute Working Group identified the most urgent knowledge gaps in Heart Transplantation Research. These gaps require to address the following 4 specific research directions:

  • enhanced phenotypic characterization of the pre-transplant population
  • donor-recipient optimization strategies
  • individualized immunosuppression therapy, and
  • investigations of immune and non-immune factors affecting late cardiac allograft outcomes.

D. Donor-Recipient Optimization Strategies – 33,640 Cases in the United Network for Organ Sharing database – Organ Donor’s Age is BEST predictor for survival after Heart Transplant

IF the donor age is in the 0- to 19-year-old group the median survival of 11.4 years follows the Heart Transplant.

The effect of ischemic time on survival after heart transplantation varies by donor age: An analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery ● February 2007

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;133:554-9

Mark J. Russo, MD, MS,a,b Jonathan M. Chen, MD,a Robert A. Sorabella, BA,a Timothy P. Martens, MD,a

Mauricio Garrido, MD,a Ryan R. Davies, MD,a Isaac George, MD,a Faisal H. Cheema, MD,a Ralph S. Mosca, MD,a Seema Mital, MD,c Deborah D. Ascheim, MD,b,d Michael Argenziano, MD,a Allan S. Stewart, MD,a Mehmet C. Oz, MD,a and Yoshifumi Naka, MD, PhDa

Objectives:

(1) To examine the interaction of donor age with ischemic time and their effect on survival and

(2) to define ranges of ischemic time associated with differences in survival.

Methods: The United Network for Organ Sharing provided de-identified patientlevel data. The study population included 33,640 recipients undergoing heart transplantation between October 1, 1987, and December 31, 2004. Recipients were divided by donor age into terciles: 0 to 19 years (n  10,814; 32.1%), 20 to 33 years (11,410, 33.9%), and 34 years or more (11,416, 33.9%). Kaplan-Meier survival functions and Cox regression were used for time-to-event analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curves and stratum-specific likelihood ratios were generated to compare 5-year survival at various thresholds for ischemic time.

Results: In univariate Cox proportional hazards regression, the effect of ischemic time on survival varied by donor age tercile: 0 to 19 years (P .141), 20 to 33 years (P .001), and 34 years or more (P .001). These relationships persisted in multivariable regression. Threshold analysis generated a single stratum (0.37-12.00 hours) in the 0- to 19-year-old group with a median survival of 11.4 years. However, in the 20- to 33-year-old-group, 3 strata were generated: 0.00 to 3.49 hours (limited), 3.50 to 6.24 hours (prolonged), and 6.25 hours or more (extended), with median survivals of 10.6, 9.9, and 7.3 years, respectively. Likewise, 3 strata were generated in the group aged 34 years or more: 0.00 to 3.49 (limited), 3.50 to 5.49 (prolonged), and 5.50 or more (extended), with median survivals of 9.1, 8.5, and 6.3 years, respectively.

Conclusions: The effect of ischemic time on survival after heart transplantation is dependent on donor age, with greater tolerance for prolonged ischemic times among grafts from younger donors. Both donor age and anticipated ischemic time must be considered when assessing a potential donor.

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;133:554-9

Part Two

Procedures Outcomes of Heart Transplant (HT) Indication for Heart Failure (HF)

  • Center for Heart Failure @Cleveland Clinic, and

  • Transplant Center @Mayo Clinic

 

Center for Heart Failure @Cleveland Clinic: Institution Profile

Heart failure (sometimes called congestive heart failure or ventricular dysfunction) means your heart muscle is not functioning as well as it should. Either the left ventricle (lower chamber of the heart) is not contracting with enough force (systolic heart failure), or the ventricles are stiff and do not relax and fill properly (diastolic heart failure). The treatment of heart failure requires a specialized multidisciplinary approach to manage the overall patient care plan.

The George M and Linda H Kaufman Center for Heart Failure is one of the premier facilities in the United States for the care of people with heart failure.

  • The Kaufman Center Heart Failure Intensive Care was the recipient of the Beacon Award of Excellence for continuing improvements in providing the highest quality of care for patients. With over 6,000 ICUs in the Unites States, the Center joins a distinguished group of just 300 to receive this honor that recognizes the highest level of standards in patient safety and quality in acute and critical care.
  • In 2011, Cleveland Clinic received the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines Heart Failure GOLD Plus Certification for improving the quality of care for heart failure patients. Gold Plus distinction recognizes hospitals for their success in using Get With The Guidelines treatment interventions. This quality improvement program provides tools that follow proven, evidence-based guidelines and procedures in caring for heart failure patients to prevent future hospitalizations.

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/departments-centers/heart-failure.aspx

The Kaufman Center for Heart Failure Team brings together clinicians that specialize in cardiomyopathies and ischemic heart failure. The team includes physicians and nurses from Cardiovascular Medicine, Cardiothoracic Surgery, Radiology, Infectious Disease, Immunology, Pathology, Pharmacy, Biothetics and Social Work with expertise in diagnostic testing, medical and lifestyle management, surgical procedures, and psychosocial support for patients with:

Please note Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy is treated by our Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center.

Patients at Cleveland Clinic Kaufman Center for Heart Failure have available to them the full array of diagnostic testing, treatments and specialized programs.

»Services Provided for Heart Failure Patients
»Specialized Programs for Heart Failure
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/departments-centers/heart-failure.aspx

Outcomes of Heart Failure and Heart Transplant @Cleveland Clinic

1,570 Number of heart transplants performed at Cleveland Clinic since inception of the Cardiac Transplant Program in 1984.

The survival rates among patients who have heart transplants at Cleveland Clinic exceeds the expected rates. Of the 150 transplant centers in the United States, Cleveland Clinic is one of only three that had better-than-expected one-year survival rates in 2011.

Ventricular Assist Device Volume 2007 – 2011

2007 – N = 23

2008 – N = 48

2009 – N = 76

2010 – N = 51

2011 – N = 56

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are used in patients with heart failure to preserve heart function until transplantation (bridge-to-transplant) or as a final treatment option (destination therapy). Cleveland Clinic has more than 20 years of experience with MCS devices for both types of therapy.

LVAD In-Hospital Mortality 2007 – 2011

Cleveland Clinic continues to make improvements to reduce mortality rates among patients who are placed on mechanical circulatory support. The mortality rate among patients who have a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has been drastically reduced over the past five years.5% in 2011

VAD Mortality 2011

The mortality rate among Cleveland Clinic patients placed on ventricular assist devices (VADs) was much lower than expected in 2011. Observed 10%, Expected 17.5%

Heart Failure – National Hospital Quality Measures

This composite metric, based on four heart failure hospital quality process measures developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), shows the percentage of patients who received all the recommended care for which they were eligible. Cleveland Clinic has set a target of UHC’s 90th percentile.

Cleveland Clinic, 2010 (N = 1,194) 93.9%

Cleveland Clinic, 2011 (N = 1,163) 96.9%

UHC Top Decile, 2011 99.2%

SOURCE

University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) Comparative Database, January through November 2011 discharges.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) calculates two heart failure outcome measures: all-cause mortality and all-cause readmission rates, each based on Medicare claims and enrollment information. Cleveland Clinic’s performance appears below.

Heart Failure All-Cause 30-Day Mortality (N = 762)  July 2008 – June 2011

Cleveland Clinic 9.2%

National Average 11.6%

Heart Failure All-Cause 30-Day Readmission (N = 1,029)  July 2008 – June 2011

Cleveland Clinic 27.3%

National Average 24.7%

SOURCE:

hospitalcompare.hhs.gov

Cleveland Clinic’s heart failure risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rate is below the national average; the difference is statistically significant. Our heart failure risk-adjusted readmission rate is higher than the national average; that difference is also statistically significant. To further reduce this rate, a multidisciplinary team was tasked with improving transitions from hospital to home or post-acute care facility. Specific initiatives have been implemented in each of these focus areas: communication, education and follow-up.

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/Documents/outcomes/2011/outcomes-hvi-2011.pdf

Lung and Heart-Lung Transplant

In 2011, 51% of lung transplant patients were from outside the state of Ohio.

Cleveland Clinic surgeons transplanted 111 lungs in 2011. Our Lung and Heart-Lung Transplant

Program is the leader in Ohio and among the best programs in the country.

July 2010 – June 2011

160 Performed in 2009

Liver-Lung

Heart-Lung

Double Lung

Single Lung

53.5% Idiopathic

Primary Disease of Lung Transplant Recipients (N = 101)

Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. March 2011. Ohio, Lung Centers, Cleveland Clinic. Table 7

Cleveland Clinic surgeons transplanted 111 lungs in 2011. Our Lung and Heart-Lung Transplant Program is the leader in Ohio and among the best programs in the country.

July 2010 – June 2011

53.5% Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (N = 54)

26.7% Emphysema/Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (N = 27)

9.9% Cystic Fibrosis (N = 10)

6.9% Idiopathic Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (N = 7)

3.0% Other (N = 3)

Peripheral Vascular Diseases

Lower Extremity Interventional

Procedure Volume

2011

Angioplasty 451

Atherectomy 74

Stenting 260

Thrombolysis 91

Lower Extremity Surgery Volume and Mortality (N = 303)

A total of 229 lower extremity bypass surgeries were performed in 2011. The 30-day

mortality rate was 0 percent. Cleveland Clinic’s vascular surgeons have expertise in this area

and strive to use autologous vein grafts.

2011 Volume

Bypass 229

Thrombectomy 74

2011 30-Day Mortality (%)

Bypass 0%

Noninvasive Vascular Lab Ultrasound Study Distribution (N = 36,775)

2011

The Noninvasive Vascular Laboratory provides service seven days a week to diagnose arterial and

venous disorders throughout the vascular tree and for follow-up after revascularization procedures,

such as bypass grafts and stents. In 2011, 36,775 vascular lab studies were performed.

47% Venous Duplex (N = 17,284)

36% Arterial Duplex (N = 13,239)

17% Physiologic Testing (N = 6,252)

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/Documents/outcomes/2011/outcomes-hvi-2011.pdf

Transplant Center @Mayo Clinic: Heart Transplant Procedures Outcomes

Mayo Clinic History

Dr. W.W. Mayo with a horse and carriage.

Dr. W.W. Mayo

Portrait of the two Mayo brothers.

Drs. William (left) and Charles Mayo

Mayo Clinic developed gradually from the medical practice of a pioneer doctor, Dr. William Worrall Mayo, who settled in Rochester, Minn., in 1863. His dedication to medicine became a family tradition when his sons, Drs. William James Mayo and Charles Horace Mayo, joined his practice in 1883 and 1888, respectively.

From the beginning, innovation was their standard and they shared a pioneering zeal for medicine. As the demand for their services increased, they asked other doctors and basic science researchers to join them in the world’s first private integrated group practice.

Although the Mayo doctors were initially viewed as unconventional for practicing medicine through this teamwork approach, the benefits of a private group practice were undeniable.

As the success of their method of practice became evident, so did its acceptance. Patients discovered the advantages to a “pooled resource” of knowledge and skills among doctors. In fact, the group practice concept that the Mayo family originated has influenced the structure and function of medical practice throughout the world.

Along with its recognition as a model for integrated group practice, “the Mayos’ Clinic” developed a reputation for excellence in individual patient care. Doctors and students came from around the world to learn new techniques from the Mayo doctors, and patients came from around the world for diagnosis and treatment. What attracted them was not only technologically advanced medicine, but also the caring attitude of the doctors.

Through the years, Mayo Clinic has nurtured and developed its founders’ style of working together as a team. Shared responsibility and consensus still provide the framework for decision making at Mayo.

That teamwork in medicine is carried out today by more than 55,000 doctors, nurses, scientists, students and allied health staff at Mayo Clinic locations in the Midwest, Arizona and Florida.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/history/

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tradition-heritage-artifacts/2-1.html

2013 – Transplant Center @ Mayo Clinic:

Alternative Solutions to Treatment of Heart Failure

Mayo Clinic, with transplant services in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota, performs more transplants than any other medical center in the world. Mayo Clinic has pre-eminent adult and pediatric transplant programs, offering cardiac, liver, kidney, pancreas and bone marrow transplant services. Since performing the first clinical transplant in 1963, Mayo’s efforts to continually improve and expand organ transplantation have placed Mayo at the leading edge of clinical and basic transplant research worldwide. Research activities in the Transplant Center at Mayo Clinic have contributed significantly to the current successful outcomes of organ transplantation.

Transplant research articles

  1. Innovation in transplant surgical techniques
  2. Intestinal transplantation
  3. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy
  4. Living-donor transplantation
  5. Mayo Clinic launches hand transplant program
  6. Multidisciplinary team approach
  7. Multiorgan transplants
  8. Paired kidney donation
  9. Pediatric services in transplant
  10. Regenerative medicine
  11. Toward a bioartificial liver: Buying time, boosting hope

VIEW VIDEO on LVAD

VIEW VIDEO on  Mayo Clinic Heart Attack Study
People who survive a heart attack face the greatest risk of dying from sudden cardiac death (SCD) during the first month after leaving the hospital, according to a long-term community study by Mayo Clinic researchers of nearly 3,000 heart attack survivors.
Sudden cardiac death can happen when the hearts electrical system malfunctions; if treatment — cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation — does not happen fast, a person dies.
After that first month, the risk of sudden cardiac death drops significantly — but rises again if a person experiences signs of heart failure. The research results appear in the Nov. 5 edition of Journal of the American Medical Association.
Veronique Roger, M.D., a Mayo Clinic cardiologist provides an overview of the study and it’s findings.
For more information on heart attacks, click on the following link:http://www.mayoclinic.org/heart-attack/

VIEW VIDEO on Mayo Clinic Regenerative Medicine Consult Service – Stem Cell Transplantation post MI

In a proof-of-concept study, Mayo Clinic investigators have demonstrated that induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells can be used to treat heart disease. iPS cells are stem cells converted from adult cells. In this study, the researchers reprogrammed ordinary fibroblasts, cells that contribute to scars such as those resulting from a heart attack, converting them into stem cells that fix heart damage caused by infarction. The findings appear in the current online issue of the journal Circulation.
Timothy Nelson, M.D., Ph.D., first author on the Mayo Clinic study, talks about the study and it’s findings.

Heart Transplant: Volumes and success measures Transplant Center@ Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic doctors’ experience and integrated team approach results in transplant outcomes that compare favorably with national averages. Teams work with transplant recipients before, during and after surgery to ensure the greatest likelihood of superior results.

Volumes and statistics are maintained separately for the three Mayo Clinic locations. Taken together or separately, transplant recipients at Mayo Clinic enjoy excellent results.

Volumes

Arizona

More than 100 heart transplants have been completed since the program began in 2005.

Florida

Surgeons at Mayo Clinic in Florida have performed more than 167 heart transplants and eight heart-lung transplants since the program began in 2001. Mayo surgeons have performed combined transplants, such as heart-kidney and heart-lung-liver transplants.

Minnesota

Mayo Clinic’s outcomes for heart transplantation compare favorably with national norms. Doctors at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota have transplanted more than 450 adult and pediatric patients, including both isolated heart transplants and combined transplants such as heart-liver, heart-kidney and others.

Success Measures

Heart Transplant Patient Survival — Adult

  1. Arizona

Mayo Clinic Hospital
(Phoenix, AZ)

  1. 1-month survival: 97.50%(n=40) • 2009-2011
  2. 1-year survival: 94.63%(n=40) • 2009-2011
  3. 3-year survival: 82.22%(n=45) • 2006-2008
  4. n = number of patients

National Average

  1. 1-month survival: 95.89%
  2. 1-year survival: 90.21%
  3. 3-year survival: 81.79%

Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, July 2012

  1. Florida

Mayo Clinic Hospital**
(Jacksonville, FL)

  1. 1-month survival: 95.08%(n=61) • 2009-2011
  2. 1-year survival: 91.50%(n=61) • 2009-2011
  3. 3-year survival: 81.82%(n=44) • 2006-2008
  4. n = number of patients
  5. **Surgeries before April 11, 2008, were performed at St. Luke’s Hospital in Jacksonville, FL.

National Average

  1. 1-month survival: 95.89%
  2. 1-year survival: 90.21%
  3. 3-year survival: 81.79%

Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, July 2012

  1. Minnesota

Saint Marys Hospital
(Mayo Clinic)

  1. 1-month survival: 95.83%(n=48) • 2009-2011
  2. 1-year survival: 95.83%(n=48) • 2009-2011
  3. 3-year survival: 82.61%(n=46) • 2006-2008
  4. n = number of patients

National Average

  1. 1-month survival: 95.89%
  2. 1-year survival: 90.21%
  3. 3-year survival: 81.79%

Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, July 2012

Heart Transplant Patient Survival — Children

  1. Minnesota

Saint Marys Hospital
(Mayo Clinic)

  1. 1-month survival: 100.00%(n=5) • 2009-2011
  2. 1-year survival: 100.00%(n=5) • 2009-2011
  3. 3-year survival: 60.00%(n=5) • 2006-2008
  4. n = number of patients

National Average

  1. 1-month survival: 96.38%
  2. 1-year survival: 91.31%
  3. 3-year survival: 82.93%

Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, July 2012

Heart Donor Organ (Graft) Survival — Adult

  1. Arizona

Mayo Clinic Hospital
(Phoenix, AZ)

  1. 1-month survival: 97.56%(n=41) • 2009-2011
  2. 1-year survival: 94.77%(n=41) • 2009-2011
  3. 3-year survival: 82.22%(n=45) • 2006-2008
  4. n = number of patients

National Average

  1. 1-month survival: 95.71%
  2. 1-year survival: 89.91%
  3. 3-year survival: 80.92%

Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, July 2012

  1. Florida
  2. Mayo Clinic Hospital**
    (Jacksonville, FL)

    1. 1-month survival: 95.08%(n=61) • 2009-2011
    2. 1-year survival: 91.50%(n=61) • 2009-2011
    3. 3-year survival: 80.00%(n=45) • 2006-2008
    4. n = number of patients
    5. **Surgeries before April 11, 2008, were performed at St. Luke’s Hospital in Jacksonville, FL.

    National Average

    1. 1-month survival: 95.71%
    2. 1-year survival: 89.91%
    3. 3-year survival: 80.92%

Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, July 2012

  1. Minnesota

Saint Marys Hospital
(Mayo Clinic)

  1. 1-month survival: 93.88%(n=49) • 2009-2011
  2. 1-year survival: 93.88%(n=49) • 2009-2011
  3. 3-year survival: 82.61%(n=46) • 2006-2008
  4. n = number of patients

National Average

  1. 1-month survival: 95.71%
  2. 1-year survival: 89.91%
  3. 3-year survival: 80.92%

Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, July 2012

Heart-Lung Transplant Patient Survival — Adult

  1. Florida

Mayo Clinic Hospital**
(Jacksonville, FL)

  1. 1-month survival: 0.00%(n=0) • 2009-2011
  2. 1-year survival: 0.00%(n=0) • 2009-2011
  3. 3-year survival: 0.00%(n=1) • 2006-2008
  4. n = number of patients
  5. **Surgeries before April 11, 2008, were performed at St. Luke’s Hospital in Jacksonville, FL.

National Average

  1. 1-month survival: 89.04%
  2. 1-year survival: 80.12%
  3. 3-year survival: 56.36%

Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, July 2012

  1. Minnesota

Saint Marys Hospital
(Mayo Clinic)

  1. 1-month survival: 100.00%(n=2) • 2009-2011
  2. 1-year survival: 100.00%(n=2) • 2009-2011
  3. 3-year survival: 100.00%(n=1) • 2006-2008
  4. n = number of patients

National Average

  1. 1-month survival: 89.04%
  2. 1-year survival: 80.12%
  3. 3-year survival: 56.36%

Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, July 2012

Heart-Lung Donor Organ (Graft) Survival — Adult

  1. Florida

Mayo Clinic Hospital**
(Jacksonville, FL)

  1. 1-month survival: 0.00%(n=0) • 2009-2011
  2. 1-year survival: 0.00%(n=0) • 2009-2011
  3. 3-year survival: 0.00%(n=1) • 2006-2008
  4. n = number of patients
  5. **Surgeries before April 11, 2008, were performed at St. Luke’s Hospital in Jacksonville, FL.

National Average

  1. 1-month survival: 89.04%
  2. 1-year survival: 80.02%
  3. 3-year survival: 57.93%

Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, July 2012

  1. Minnesota

Saint Marys Hospital
(Mayo Clinic)

  1. 1-month survival: 100.00%(n=2) • 2009-2011
  2. 1-year survival: 100.00%(n=2) • 2009-2011
  3. 3-year survival: 100.00%(n=1) • 2006-2008
  4. n = number of patients

National Average

  1. 1-month survival: 89.04%
  2. 1-year survival: 80.02%
  3. 3-year survival: 57.93%

Source: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, July 2012

 

Part Three

Research  on Heart Transplant (HT) and Alternative Solutions Indicated for Heart Failure (HF)

  • Center for Heart Failure @Cleveland Clinic, and

  • Transplant Center @Mayo Clinic

The Editorial decision to focus on Research on Heart Transplant (HT) and Alternative Solutions Indicated for Heart Failure (HF) is covered in 

Chapter 5

Invasive Procedures by Surgery versus Catheterization

and had yielded one Sub-Chapter (5.8)  The Human Heart & Heart-Lung Transplant. This Sub-Chapter deals with

  • Heart Failure – Organ Transplant: The Human Heart & Heart-Lung Transplant,
  • Implantable Assist Devices and the Artificial Heart,

This Chapter 5 is in Volume Three in a forthcoming three volume Series of e-Books on Cardiovascular Diseases

Cardiovascular Diseases: Causes, Risks and Management

The Center for Heart Failure @Cleveland Clinic’s, and the Transplant Center @Mayo Clinic’s Institutions Profiles, Procedures Outcomes and Selection of their Research are  now in: 

Volume Three

Management of Cardiovascular Diseases

Justin D. Pearlman MD ME PhD MA FACC, Editor

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence, Los Angeles

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Editor-in-Chief BioMed E-Book Series

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence, Boston

avivalev-ari@alum.berkeley.edu

5.8  The Human Heart & Heart-Lung Transplant, Implantable Assist Devices and the Artificial Heart

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

5.8.3 Mechanical Circulatory Assist Devices as a Bridge to Heart Transplantation or as “Destination Therapy“: Options for Patients in Advanced Heart Failure

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

5.8.4 Heart Transplantation: NHLBI’s Ten year Strategic Research Plan to Achieving Evidence-based Outcomes

Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

5.8.5 Orthotropic Heart Transplant (OHT): Effects of Autonomic Innervation / Denervation on Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Genesis and Maintenance

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

5.8.6 After Cardiac Transplantation: Sirolimus acts asimmunosuppressant Attenuates Allograft Vasculopathy

Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

5.8.7 Prognostic Marker Importance of Troponin I in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF)

Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

5.8.8 Alternative Models of Artificial Hearts PENDING 

Larry H. Bernstein, Justin D. Pearlman, and A. Lev-Ari

From other Sub-Chapters in Chapter 5:

5.6.1 The Cardio-Renal Syndrome (CRS) in Heart Failure (HF)

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

5.4.3 Heart Remodeling by Design – Implantable Synchronized Cardiac Assist Device:Abiomed’s Symphony | Comments

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: