In the era of outpatient ventricular assist devices, is it time to reconsider the practice of bridging older children to transplant on outpatient inotropes?

Objective Ventricular assist devices (VADs) and inotropes are feasible modalities to bridge children to heart transplant (HT) in outpatient settings. However, it is unclear which modality yields superior clinical status at HT and posttransplant survival. Methods The United Network for Organ Sharing was used to identify patients aged 18 years or younger, weighing >25 kg, from 2012 to 2022 who were outpatients at HT (n = 835). Patients were grouped by bridging modality at HT: VAD (n = 235 [28%]), inotropes (n = 176 [21%]), or neither (no support) (n = 424 [50%]). Results VAD patients were of similar age (P = .260) but heavier (P = .007) and more likely to have dilated cardiomyopathy (P < .001) than their inotrope counterparts. VAD patients had similar clinical status at HT but superior functional status (performance scale >70%) (59% vs 31%) (P < .001). Overall posttransplant survival in VAD patients (1-year and 5-year survival, 97% and 88%, respectively) was comparable to patients with no support (93% and 87%, respectively) (P = .090) and those on inotropes (98% and 83%, respectively) (P = .089). One-year conditional survival was superior for VAD vs inotrope (2-year and 6-year survival, 96% and 91%, respectively vs 97% and 79%, respectively) (P = .030) and 5-year conditional survival for VAD patients was superior to inotrope (7-year and 10-year survival, 100% and 100%, respectively vs 100% and 88%, respectively) (P = .022) and no support (100% and 83%, respectively) (P = .011). Conclusions Consistent with prior studies, short-term outcomes for pediatric patients bridged to HT in the outpatient setting with VAD or inotropes is excellent. However, compared with outpatients bridged to HT on inotropes, outpatient VAD support allowed for better functional status at HT and superior late posttransplant survival.