This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Freudenberger, R.S. Articles by Sonnenberg, F.A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Freudenberger, R.S. Articles by Sonnenberg, F.A. Related Collections Other Treatment CV surgery: transplantation, ventricular assistance, cardiomyopathy

(Circulation. 2006;114:I-62 – I-66.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.

Cardiac Transplantation and Surgery for Congestive Heart Failure

Optimal Medical Therapy Is Superior to Transplantation for the Treatment of Class I, II, and III Heart Failure

A Decision Analytic Approach

R.S. Freudenberger, MD; J. Kim, MD; I. Tawfik, MD; F.A. Sonnenberg, MD

From the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ; Yale University Medical School (J.K.), New Haven, Conn.

Correspondence to Ronald Freudenberger, Associate Professor of Medicine, Director, Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ. E-mail freuders{at}umdnj.edu

Background— The survival benefit of heart transplantation (HT) compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT) has never been tested.

Methods and Results— We created a decision analytic model that simulates a randomized clinical trial of OMT versus HT for each New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. The simulation calculates average life expectancy. The following assumptions were made for OMT annual mortality: class I no excess mortality from HF; class II and III based on MERIT-HF are 5.3% and 8.1%. Class IV is 12.8%, based on COPERNICUS. HT mortality rates were based on survival curves for HT 1982 to 2001. For classes I, II, and III, OMT demonstrated a life expectancy gain of 113 months (232±2.2 versus119±2.1), 38 months (152±2.1 versus 114±2.1), and 6 months (117±1.8 versus 111±2.2), respectively, over HT. Class IV favored HT with a life expectancy gain of 26 months (107±2.1 versus 81±1.4) over OMT. Sensitivity analysis revealed if improvement in OMT decreased mortality by 38% for class IV patients, OMT and HT would have equivalent life expectancies. If improvement in HT resulted in a 7% increase in post-HT survival, OMT and HT would be equivalent for class III patients. If improvement in HT resulted in a 30% increase in post-HT survival, OMT and HT would be equivalent for class II patients.

Conclusions— Our model predicts that currently, OMT is superior to HT for classes I, II, and III, but HT is superior for class IV. However, future advances in OMT or HT may change the relative benefits of these treatment modalities.

Key Words: decision analysis • heart failure • transplant