P50: Heart and Kidney Transplant and Recovery after Left Ventricular Assist Device and Intermittent Hemodialysis: Systematic Review and Individual-Participant-Data Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) who require chronic intermittent dialysis (iHD) are considered to have poor prognosis despite paucity of supportive evidence, most of which is limited to case reports and very small single-center cohorts. This systematic review and individual-participant-data meta-analysis aims to study the main outcomes of patients receiving iHD during durable LVAD support, including heart, kidney, and heart-kidney transplantation (HT, KT, HKT, respectively) and mortality. Methods: We retrieved citations from ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science through systematic searches. We selected cohort studies (with n ≥5) of patients who were started on iHD at any point during durable LVAD support, excluding patients who exclusively received continuous renal replacement therapy but no actual iHD. We conducted Kaplan-Meier survival estimations and graphs, and compared mortality data between groups using the Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test. P <.05 was considered statistically significant. We did not pursue inputations for missing data. Results: Six studies with a total of 64 patients met selection criteria. Their median age was 57.5 (46-64.5) years, 49 (76.6%) were men, 46 (86.8%) patients had a HeartMate (HM) 2, whereas 5 (9.4%) had a HM3, and 2 (3.8%) had an HVAD. Twenty-eight (66.7%) patients had LVADs as bridge to HT, and 14 (33.3%) as destination therapy. Only 26 (65%) were reported to have a history of CKD. Patients were initiated on iHD at a median of 18 (7-48) days after LVAD implantation, and remained on iHD for 68 (36-185) days. Eleven (17.2%) patients received HT, and at least 1 additional patient achieved myocardial recovery with LVAD explantation. Four (4.3%) patients became recipients of HKT, including one patient who had recovered enough of their renal function as to stop needing iHD prior to transplantation. Twenty-seven (42.2%) experienced renal recovery. Thirty-one (48.4%) patients died at 103 (64-308) days after initiation of iHD. According to Kaplan-Meier survival calculations, median survival was estimated at 153 (SE 217.5; CI 65-835) days (Figure 1). Survival after initiation of iHD was statistically significantly longer for patients who received HT (mortality: 2 [6.4%] vs 16 [11.6%]; p=.0346; median survival: 1972 [SE 98.8; 799-] days vs 93 [SE 10.3; CI 57-404] days), as evidenced in Figure 2. Survival comparisons between groups stratified based on other outcomes (HKT, renal recovery, composite HKT/renal recovery) did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: The 18.8% of patients who achieved dual heart and kidney recovery and/or transplantation after being supported with LVAD and iHD experienced a significantly longer median survival. Only one patient experienced dual heart-kidney recovery. Larger contemporary multicenter cohort studies are warranted on this topic.Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate (for the whole sample)Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate According to Heart Transplant Status
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".