ライフサイエンスコーパス: LVAD

1 LVAD implantation resulted in a remarkable decrease in h

2 LVAD patients had significant improvement in 3 of 5 Euro

3 LVAD patients undergoing an invasive hemodynamic ramp te

4 LVAD patients with Ang-2 levels above the mean (12.32 ng

5 LVAD patients, in whom hemodynamics were optimized, had

6 LVAD speed was optimized using a ramp test, targeting th

7 LVAD speed was optimized with an aggressive pharmacologi

8 LVAD support caused significant degradation of high-mole

9 LVAD support causes pathologic degradation of von Willeb

10 LVAD therapy resulted in improvement of patient health s

11 year in Ontario, 20.2 in New York; P<0.001); LVAD (0.3 in Ontario versus 1.3 in New York; P<0.001); a

12 ean age 74.6 versus 74.5 years; P=0.61): 136 LVAD recipients from Ontario and 686 from New York (age,

13 the incidence of controller DM between the 2 LVADs.

14 Infection of 3 or all 4 LVAD components showed a trend toward lower survival tha

15 Infection of 3 or all 4 LVAD components showed a trend towards lower survival vs

16 patterns of infectious involvement of the 4 LVAD components: driveline entry point (77% of cases), s

17 patterns of infectious involvement of the 4 LVAD components: driveline entry point (77% of patients)

18 Among 63 LVAD patients (60+/-12 years old and 25 female [40%]), 2

19 p supported with a continuous-flow LVAD (n=9 LVAD, n=11 control).

20 A total of 96 LVAD recipients were included in this study.

21 are minimal data on device acceptance after LVAD implant, and on its relationship with patient-repor

22 Respiratory failure both before and after LVAD implantation identifies an advanced heart failure p

23 nts despite favorable glycemic control after LVAD implantation.

24 male) underwent ramp testing 236 days after LVAD implantation, and 54 (61%) had optimized hemodynami

25 a 27% reduction in the hazard of death after LVAD (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interv

26 a 22% reduction in the hazard of death after LVAD (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interv

27 remodeling, there were no differences after LVAD use in capillary density (0.78 +/- 0.1% vs. 0.9 +/-

28 orse outcomes than patients without DM after LVAD implantation and whether LVAD support resulted in a

29 nsideration for transplant eligibility after LVAD placement.

30 nd 54 (61%) had optimized hemodynamics after LVAD speed adjustment.

31 l vascularity was significantly higher after LVAD support versus controls (5.2+/-1.0% versus 2.1+/-0.

32 The need for RVAD implantation after LVAD is associated with indices of global illness severi

33 ide levels all significantly increased after LVAD implantation (median values from implantation to 3

34 ion of the first signs of inflammation after LVAD implantation.

35 omen had increased inpatient mortality after LVAD implantation compared with men in the pulsatile-flo

36 nerating study suggests that mortality after LVAD placement is impacted by caregiver understanding of

37 CRT was programmed off after LVAD implant in 44 patients.

38 n were powerful predictors of outcomes after LVAD implantation in this data set.

39 y suggests that turning off CRT pacing after LVAD implantation in patients with previous CRT pacing d

40 cacy of and optimal device programming after LVAD implantation.

41 n preoperative PDE5i use and early RHF after LVAD is unknown.

42 tive pro-fibrotic macrophage signaling after LVAD use.

43 uscle mean Hounsfield unit on survival after LVAD implantation.

44 ctronic device detection and therapies after LVAD implantation.

45 ity decreased for both sexes over time after LVAD, with a sharp fall in 2008 to 2009.

46 y poor quality of life during the year after LVAD.

47 ctively collected data were reviewed for all LVAD device malfunctions (DMs) occurring in rotary LVADs

48 RS-predicted versus observed survival in all LVAD patients (n=111) using Cox modeling, receiver-opera

49 ant improvement in cardiac function allowing LVAD removal; however, the rate of this is generally con

50 Although LVADs are being increasingly utilized for patients with

51 Among LVAD patients, the HMRS had marginal discrimination and

52 The risk of death for an LVAD patient was also significantly lower among those wh

53 iver conflict over the decision to pursue an LVAD was highly correlated in this sample, with greater

54 were significantly more likely to receive an LVAD as destination therapy, P<0.001.

55 well as outcomes conditional on receiving an LVAD, for the sociodemographic groups of interest.

56 udy evaluated whether patients undergoing an LVAD bridge-to-recovery protocol can achieve cardiac and

57 Among patients with an LVAD, we aimed to (1) longitudinally compare CysC-eGFR a

58 y postoperative outcomes in patients with an LVAD.

59 milies about expectations about life with an LVAD.

60 bnormal intestinal vascular architecture and LVAD-associated vWF degradation were consistent findings

61 ding the associations between caregivers and LVAD patients, as well as interventions that may improve

62 rsus observed survival (overall survival and LVAD-free survival) in the optimal medical management ar

63 estimated the risk of clinical worsening and LVAD implantation.

64 s turn off the left ventricular (LV) lead at LVAD implant.

65 nor hearts as well as R and nonresponders at LVAD implantation (pre-LVAD) and transplantation (post-L

66 l risk factors were significantly younger at LVAD implant, less likely to be White, and less likely t

67 ructure and design of commercially available LVADs are briefly reviewed, as well as clinical indicati

68 Before LVAD, age was 35.1+/-10.8 years, 67.5% were men, heart f

69 used off-label to reduce RV afterload before LVAD implantation, but the association between preoperat

70 sma samples were obtained from humans before LVAD implantation and during LVAD support (n=41).

71 omographies performed in the 3 months before LVAD implantation (n=143).

72 eral challenges remain to be overcome before LVADs will be considered as the therapy of choice for al

73 metabolism may be a mechanistic link between LVAD support, abnormal angiogenesis, gastrointestinal an

74 had higher rates of ischemic cardiomyopathy, LVAD implantation as destination therapy, and increased

75 after (87+/-6%) versus before (54+/-14%) CF-LVAD intervention in ICM patients, whereas sodium nitrop

76 zed in patients with or without RRT after CF-LVAD implantation.

77 othelial function would be impaired after CF-LVAD intervention.

78 re similar before and 219+/-37 days after CF-LVAD support.

79 were significant predictors of RRT after CF-LVAD support.

80 nsecutive patients underwent contemporary CF-LVAD implantation at the Columbia University Medical Cen

81 uous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) circulatory support.

82 uous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) patients.

83 elial function is not impaired by durable CF-LVAD support and in ICM patients appears to be improved.

84 The authors reviewed HeartMate II CF-LVAD recipients between January 2009 and July 2016.

85 a protective effect of developing GIBs in CF-LVAD patients, with a dose threshold of >5 mg of daily l

86 ar apical core, which was removed for the CF-LVAD implantation.

87 n adjacent region of myocardium after the CF-LVAD intervention (n=6 ICM, 5 non-ICM).

88 pling and functional recovery during chronic LVAD unloading.

89 duals in patient-caregiver dyads considering LVAD were estimated in a specific type of structural equ

90 to pursue a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) commits loved ones to major caregiving responsibil

91 tinuous flow Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) implant vary: some centers continue CRT while othe

92 early after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation but subsequently declines.

93 Timing of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in advanced heart failure patients no

94 s undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is not well understood, especially si

95 f DM on post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation outcomes is unclear.

96 pies such as left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation require intricate follow-up and compl

97 tality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

98 us flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

99 severity of left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) infection may facilitate therapeutic decision maki

100 severity of left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) infection may facilitate therapeutic decision maki

101 pport with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is an established treatment for patients with adva

102 Reports of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) malfunction have focused on pump thrombosis.

103 a subset of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients can achieve significant improvement of th

104 outcomes for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients remains unclear.

105 commonly in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients, and increased right ventricular (RV) a

106 imization of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) speed and direct medical therapy.

107 tinuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support.

108 tinuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) surgery.

109 Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy improves myocardial function, but few pati

110 Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy improves the hemodynamics of advanced hear

111 Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy is an increasingly viable alternative for

112 Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) unloading and hemodynamic support in patients with

113 percutaneous left ventricular assist device (LVAD) was also identified in this population.

114 selected for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) were more likely to be alive at 1 year on original

115 pair (EVAR), left ventricular assist device (LVAD), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)

116 ]) following left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-induced mechanical unloading.

117 age HF after left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-induced remodeling to identify mechanisms impeding

118 mation after left ventricle assisted device (LVAD) implantation for patients suffering from heart fai

119 val while on left ventricular assist device (LVADs) support and after HT.

120 antation of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) has become clinical routine.

121 inuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and is caused by arteriovenous malformations.

122 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the managem

123 nloading by left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has been demonstrated in subgroups of patients wi

124 s receiving left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has decoupling of their diastolic pulmonary arter

125 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been used as an effective therapeutic option

126 inuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have revolutionized advanced heart failure care.

127 e number of Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVADs) implanted each year is rising.

128 (BTT) with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is a mainstay of therapy for heart failure in pat

129 microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) provide greater hemodynamic support as compared w

130 ith durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), 177 (0.7%) with ECMO, 203 (0.8%) with TCS-VAD, 4

131 s including left ventricular assist devices (LVADs).

132 Durable LVAD and cardiac transplantation were performed in 11.7%

133 was 90 +/- 0.4% and 77 +/- 0.7% for durable LVAD, 84 +/- 3% and 71 +/- 4% for all TCS-VAD types, 79

134 sisted Circulatory Support requiring durable LVAD between 2008 and 2017 were included.

135 Durable LVADs included 108 Heartmate II (HM II) and 105 HeartWar

136 m humans before LVAD implantation and during LVAD support (n=41).

137 transplant outcomes that was not seen during LVAD support before HT.

138 ed significantly higher utilization of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR in New York compared to Ontario.

139 cteristics and utilization patterns of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR in Ontario, Canada, and New York State, U

140 We compared socio-demographics of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR recipients in Ontario and New York.

141 ta to identify all adults who received EVAR, LVAD, or TAVR in Ontario and New York between 2012 and 2

142 tly higher in healthy controls and explanted LVAD patients compared with other patients (healthy 5.35

143 was found to be noninferior to an axial-flow LVAD with respect to survival free from disabling stroke

144 a small, intrapericardial, centrifugal-flow LVAD was found to be noninferior to an axial-flow LVAD w

145 tory Support) who received a continuous flow LVAD after 2012.

146 ing off CRT pacing following continuous flow LVAD implantation.

147 Of 11 544 continuous flow LVAD recipients, 1199 (10.4%) received preoperative PDE5

148 , and sheep supported with a continuous-flow LVAD (n=9 LVAD, n=11 control).

149 6 362 patients who underwent continuous-flow LVAD placement, 906 (5.5%) required preimplant intubatio

150 A total of 15 403 continuous-flow LVAD recipients were included.

151 vascularity develops during continuous-flow LVAD support.

152 patients-18 implanted with a continuous-flow LVAD, 16 patients with LVAD explanted (recovered patient

153 , and sheep supported with a continuous-flow LVAD.

154 ple species supported with a continuous-flow LVAD.

155 ients implanted with durable continuous-flow LVADs as bridge to transplant, destination therapy, or b

156 ed in cohorts implanted with continuous-flow LVADs exclusively and exhibit modest discrimination.

157 ed in cohorts implanted with continuous-flow LVADs exclusively.

158 port who were implanted with continuous-flow LVADs from 2008 to 2016.

159 METHODS AND A single-center continuous flow-LVAD database (n=354) was used to identify patients with

160 Of 9976 patients undergoing continuous-flow-LVAD implantation, 386 patients (3.9%) required an RVAD

161 upport who underwent primary continuous-flow-LVAD surgery were examined for concurrent or subsequent

162 FR is likely due to muscle wasting following LVAD surgery.

163 social workers' psychosocial assessments for LVAD patients and (2) determine how these attributes ass

164 TAVR, 45.9% versus 51.8%; P<0.001), but for LVAD the percentage female was similar (21.3% versus 20.

165 Adults who met contemporary criteria for LVAD implantation for permanent use were eligible to par

166 nts not on inotropes who met indications for LVAD implantation, comparing the effectiveness of HeartM

167 aphic disparities in access and outcomes for LVAD implantation.

168 t the time of study enrollment when a formal LVAD evaluation was initiated, 162 patient-caregiver dya

169 porary weans (of 3 planned assessments) from LVAD support within 6 months of randomization.

170 After explantation survival free from LVAD or transplantation was 90% at 1-year and 77% at 2 a

171 ied without treatment and 2 were weaned from LVAD.

172 portion of successful temporary weaning from LVAD support over 6 months was 61% in the MPC group and

173 We investigated the effects of HR-guided LVAD management.

174 entricular assist device implantation (HFrEF(LVAD), n=4).

175 ic cardiomyopathy receiving the Heartmate II LVAD were enrolled from 6 centers.

176 nsion was not associated with an increase in LVAD implantation.

177 nsion was not associated with an increase in LVAD rates.

178 nce of achieving hemodynamic optimization in LVAD patients.

179 randomized, pilot study compared outcomes in LVAD patients using an HR-guided (HR group) versus a sta

180 ce should be explored to improve outcomes in LVAD recipients.

181 ization reduces hospital readmission rate in LVAD patients.

182 Trends in LVAD utilization and post-LVAD inpatient mortality were

183 ore, we sought to explore temporal trends in LVAD utilization and post-LVAD mortality by sex.

184 Compared with patients receiving an isolated LVAD, patients requiring RVAD had decreased 1- and 6-mon

185 the progress made toward achieving lifelong LVAD support and the challenges that remain.

186 an follow-up was 2.4 +/- 2.0 years, and mean LVAD support time was 1.7 +/- 1.4 years.

187 ated with use of an intravascular microaxial LVAD (45.0%) vs with an IABP (34.1% [absolute risk diffe

188 tal major bleeding (intravascular microaxial LVAD [31.3%] vs IABP [16.0%]; absolute risk difference,

189 to 2017, use of an intravascular microaxial LVAD compared with IABP was associated with higher adjus

190 mes associated with intravascular microaxial LVAD use in clinical practice.

191 ort, categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD use only, IABP only, other (such as use of a percut

192 tients with AMI, an intravascular microaxial LVAD was used in 6.2% of patients, and IABP was used in

193 tients receiving an intravascular microaxial LVAD were matched with those receiving IABP on demograph

194 ded by hemodynamics was associated with more LVAD speed and medication adjustments and a nonsignifica

195 We compared a newer LVAD design (a small intrapericardial centrifugal-flow d

196 .53; P=0.005) and increased risk of nonfatal LVAD-related complications, including a composite of str

197 area under the curve=0.71; P<0.001) but not LVAD-free survival (hazard ratio=1.41; P=0.097; ROC area

198 ts (3.9%) required an RVAD within 14 days of LVAD surgery.

199 end point of RVAD or death within 14 days of LVAD were assessed with stepwise logistic regression.

200 bsequent RVAD implantation within 14 days of LVAD.

201 dy (18)F-FDG PET/CT identifies the extent of LVAD infection and predicts adverse outcome.

202 ecutive adults who underwent implantation of LVAD from 2007 to 2016.

203 unction, could produce a higher incidence of LVAD explantation.

204 ts were propensity matched for likelihood of LVAD at the time of HT.

205 enrolled; 54 underwent 8.0 +/- 1.2 months of LVAD unloading.

206 HR group patients had double the number of LVAD speed changes (1.68 versus 0.84 changes/patient, P=

207 eighborhood income and access to/outcomes of LVAD implantation.

208 ontinue to represent a smaller proportion of LVAD recipients-25.8% in 2004 to 21.9% in 2016 (P for tr

209 nitoring protocol resulted in a high rate of LVAD explantation and was feasible and reproducible with

210 in the clinical experience with low rates of LVAD removal due to lack of myocardial recovery.

211 ignificance of arrhythmias in the setting of LVAD support.

212 ticenter prospective study, this strategy of LVAD support combined with a standardized pharmacologica

213 In this randomized pilot study of LVAD patient management we demonstrated the feasibility

214 An intact t-system at the time of LVAD implantation may constitute a precondition and pred

215 receptor-sarcolemma distances at the time of LVAD implantation predicted high post-LVAD left ventricu

216 th acceptable quality of life at the time of LVAD implantation.

217 r than tricuspid valve repair at the time of LVAD.

218 sion making concerning the use and timing of LVAD therapy in heart failure patients who are symptom l

219 ents at different rates based on the type of LVAD.

220 ined for the main components of each type of LVAD.

221 We identified 3 types of LVAD-related blood flow obstruction, and developed an al

222 Although utilization of LVAD therapy increased over time for both sexes, LVAD im

223 s with chronic HF undergoing implantation of LVADs.

224 ect were used to quantify odds of receipt of LVADs, as well as outcomes conditional on receiving an L

225 anges in VWF reactivity found in patients on LVAD support.

226 After adjusting for time on LVAD, for every 1 cm(2)/m(2) decrease in pectoralis musc

227 investigated whether a protocol of optimized LVAD mechanical unloading, combined with standardized sp

228 ted for heart failure, cardiogenic shock, or LVAD implantation from 2012 to 2015.

229 e calibration for survival but overestimated LVAD-free survival.

230 intra-aortic balloon pump, and percutaneous LVAD), in-hospital mortality, and resource utilization.

231 intra-aortic balloon pump, and percutaneous LVAD).

232 3.1%; intra-aortic balloon pump/percutaneous LVAD was used in 57.9%, of which 30.3% were placed conco

233 There were no differences in post LVAD atrial arrhythmias (AA) (Adjusted OR = 0.45 [0.18-1

234 cally, our previous work demonstrated a post-LVAD dissociation of glycolysis and oxidative-phosphoryl

235 Trends in LVAD utilization and post-LVAD inpatient mortality were compared by sex and device

236 temporal trends in LVAD utilization and post-LVAD mortality by sex.

237 mprove access to advanced therapies and post-LVAD outcomes.

238 ndex, there was a 4% decrease in 30-day post-LVAD sCr (95% CI, 1%-6%, P=0.004).

239 ted tomography performed within 40 days post-LVAD were studied.

240 retrospective cohort, for every 5 days post-LVAD, a 6% decrease in pectoralis muscle index was obser

241 , sCr-eGFR significantly improved early post-LVAD and subsequently declined, whereas CysC-eGFR remain

242 enefit from biventricular support early post-LVAD implantation.

243 ime of LVAD implantation predicted high post-LVAD left ventricular ejection fractions (P<0.01) and ej

244 atile-flow device era, women had higher post-LVAD mortality and increased complications.

245 hate pathway and 1-carbon metabolism in post-LVAD R (post-R) as compared with post-LVAD nonresponders

246 independently associated with increased post-LVAD inpatient mortality beyond adjustment for demograph

247 1.5 and 6.3+/-1.4 after 3 and 12 months post-LVAD, respectively; P<0.0001) and a significant reductio

248 plant PDE5i therapy had higher rates of post-LVAD RHF.

249 se attributes associated with patients' post-LVAD placement mortality and Interagency Registry for Me

250 crimination and underestimated survival post-LVAD implantation.

251 ntation (pre-LVAD) and transplantation (post-LVAD).

252 n post-LVAD R (post-R) as compared with post-LVAD nonresponders (post-NR).

253 ease in hemoglobin A1c levels (7.4+/-1.9 pre-LVAD versus 6.0+/-1.5 and 6.3+/-1.4 after 3 and 12 month

254 and nonresponders at LVAD implantation (pre-LVAD) and transplantation (post-LVAD).

255 or (64.9% vs 44.5%, p = 0.023), and more pre-LVAD ventricular arrhythmias (VA) (77% vs 60%, p = 0.048

256 Ejection fraction in patients with pre-LVAD ryanodine receptor-sarcolemma distances >1 microm d

257 cidence of cardiac recovery with an a priori LVAD implantation strategy of bridge-to-recovery (BTR) a

258 te to conflict around the decision to pursue LVAD remains largely unexplored.

259 .17 [0.11-0.25]) were less likely to receive LVADs than the privately insured, and patients in low-in

260 .74 [0.64-0.87]) were less likely to receive LVADs than whites.

261 atients were included; 3972 (0.43%) received LVADs.

262 Among those who received LVADs, women (aOR, 1.78 [1.38-2.30]), patients of unknow

263 ar echocardiograms were performed at reduced LVAD speed (6000 rpm, no net flow) to test underlying my

264 evice malfunctions (DMs) occurring in rotary LVADs implanted at a single center between April 2004 an

265 Methods: Fifty-seven LVAD-carrying patients received 85 whole-body (18)F-FDG

266 therapy increased over time for both sexes, LVAD implantation remains stably lower in women, which m

267 These are the first direct evidence that LVAD support causes gastrointestinal angiodysplasia.

268 It has been speculated that LVAD support itself may cause angiodysplasia.

269 In the LVAD cohort, the HMRS had marginal discrimination at 3 (

270 In the LVAD explanted group, 38% of the patients achieved peak

271 rior to and >/=90 days post-placement in the LVAD group.

272 ts (n = 8) and healthy donors (n = 8) in the LVAD study (NCT02174133, NCT01799005).

273 d by echocardiography during turndown of the LVAD.

274 sufficiently to allow explantation of their LVAD can even achieve cardiac and physical functional ca

275 We further analyzed whether access to LVAD improved in states that did versus did not expand M

276 ent patients compared with those assigned to LVAD (58+/-7% versus 82+/-5%; P=0.004).

277 S) to 101 consecutive patients presenting to LVAD clinic.

278 superior to ECMO (p = 0.019) and similar to LVAD (p = 0.380).

279 h TCS-VAD is superior to ECMO and similar to LVAD in a national database.

280 ents with advanced heart failure, undergoing LVAD implant, at 19 North American centers (July 2015-Au

281 n advanced heart failure patients undergoing LVAD implantation.

282 models for RVF in adult patients undergoing LVAD implantation.

283 ardium was obtained from subjects undergoing LVAD placement and/or heart transplantation.

284 o platelets and subendothelial collagen upon LVAD implantation, leading to the term acquired von Will

285 5.35 +/- 0.95 W; explanted 3.45 +/- 0.72 W; LVAD implanted 2.37 +/- 0.68 W; and HTx 1.31 +/- 0.31 W;

286 thout DM after LVAD implantation and whether LVAD support resulted in a better control of DM.

287 th right heart catheterization, during which LVAD speeds were adjusted.

288 io of 1-year mortality for patients BTT with LVAD compared with those with medical management across

289 tudy were to evaluate the impact of BTT with LVAD on posttransplantation survival, to describe differ

290 Patients were censored for death with LVAD at the time of transplant or the last day of the st

291 ischarge until the earliest among death with LVAD, transplant, or the last day of the study (December

292 Bridge to HT with LVAD, although necessary because of organ scarcity and c

293 le quality of life was also more likely with LVAD versus optimal medical management if baseline VAS w

294 tive multicenter cohort of 295 patients with LVAD and pre-existing CRT was studied.

295 sychosocial risk factors among patients with LVAD and their impact on postimplant outcomes using the

296 ith a continuous-flow LVAD, 16 patients with LVAD explanted (recovered patients), and 24 heart transp

297 Patients with LVAD implantation from 2004 to 2016 were identified usin

298 AND In this prospective study, patients with LVADs underwent routine invasive hemodynamic ramp testin

299 ociated with worse outcomes in patients with LVADs.

300 rtality between those with and those without LVAD at the time of HT.