# Percutaneous Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support as a Bridge to Heart Transplantation in the Current UNOS Allocation System

## TL;DR

Using the Impella 5.5 device as a bridge to heart transplant significantly improved outcomes compared to traditional LVADs, including faster wait times and higher transplant success.

## Contribution

Demonstrates the effectiveness of Impella 5.5 as a bridge to heart transplantation under the current UNOS allocation system.

## Key findings

- Patients with Impella 5.5 had a 100% transplant success rate compared to 70% with LVADs.
- Impella users had a median wait time of 32 days versus 696 days for LVAD users.
- Impella support was associated with lower postoperative vasoactive requirements and no deaths while waiting for transplant.

## Abstract

Background: Progressive heart failure cardiogenic shock (HFCS) often requires escalation to temporary or durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to transplant (BTT). Following the 2018 UNOS allocation changes, our center revised its BTT strategy to optimize support and shorten wait times. At our institution, the Impella 5.5 with SmartAssist via the axillary approach was selectively used for patients who remained refractory to guideline-directed medical therapy, failed single-inotrope therapy, and were not considered suitable durable LVAD candidates by our multidisciplinary heart team. We compared transplant-related outcomes of BTT patients supported with Impella 5.5 versus durable LVAD. Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all heart and heart/kidney transplant candidates at Mayo Clinic Florida from October 2018 to February 2021. INTERMACS profile, baseline characteristics, and perioperative data were collected at the time of device implantation and throughout the transplant hospitalization. Results: A total of 87 heart and 4 heart–kidney transplants were completed. Forty-five patients (49%) required MCS as BTT: 27 (60%) with a durable LVAD and 18 (40%) with an Impella 5.5. All eighteen patients with Impella 5.5 as BTT (100%) were transplanted compared to nineteen patients with durable LVAD (70%), p = 0.001. The median time from listing to transplant was substantially shorter with Impella (32 vs. 696 days, p < 0.001), and this difference persisted across INTERMACS profiles. UNOS status at transplant was more urgent for Impella than LVAD (p < 0.001). Transplant surgery following Impella support required shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (181 vs. 219 min, p < 0.001) and resulted in lower postoperative vasoactive-inotropic requirements (7.9 vs. 13, p = 0.003). No patients in the Impella group died or were delisted while awaiting transplant, whereas 5 LVAD patients (26%) died or were removed due to LVAD complications (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our data demonstrates that the use of the Impella 5.5 as BTT was associated with significantly shorter waitlist time, higher transplantation rates, reduced perioperative morbidity, and lower postoperative vasoactive support compared with durable LVAD as BTT. These benefits were achieved despite a higher severity of illness at transplantation in the Impella cohort.