Outcomes of Use of Inotropes at Waitlisting Through Heart Transplantation: The UNOS Experience

Background: Despite its use in patients awaiting heart transplant (HT), the impact of continuous inotropic support on short-term complications and long-term transplant outcomes remains unclear. This study evaluated inotrope use at the time of HT on perioperative complications and post-transplant survival, comparing outcomes at 30 days, 1 year, and 10 years with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) strategies including ECMO, IABP, and VADs. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the United Network for Organ sharing (UNOS) registry was performed, stratifying patients based on bridge strategy at the time of transplant: inotropes, ECMO, IABP, or VADs. Baseline characteristics, perioperative complications, and 30-day, 1-year, and 10-year post-transplant survival outcomes were analyzed across groups. Survival was assessed using Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Among the 11,801 heart transplant patients included, 9330 were on inotropes, 372 were on ECMO, 1072 received an IABP, and 1027 had VADs. Inotrope-bridged patients had significantly lower 30-day and 1-year mortality rates compared to the ECMO, IABP, and VAD groups. They also experienced reduced incidences of post-transplant dialysis and stroke. At 10 years, the inotrope group demonstrated superior long-term survival, with significantly lower mortality risk compared to ECMO (HR: 1.81; CI: 1.49–2.20, p < 0.001), IABP (HR: 1.19; CI: 1.06–1.32, p = 0.005), and VAD (HR: 1.18; CI: 1.10–1.27, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Continuous use of inotropes after waitlisting is associated with lower short, intermediate, and long-term mortality and does not lead to worse outcomes compared to ECMO, IABP, and VAD support. When mechanical support is not an option, inotropic therapy remains a viable and effective strategy.