Background In Spain, listing for high‐urgent heart transplantation is allowed for critically ill candidates not weanable from temporary mechanical circulatory support (T‐MCS). We sought to analyse the clinical outcomes of this strategy. Methods and results We conducted a case‐by‐case, retrospective review of clinical records of 291 adult patients listed for high‐urgent heart transplantation under temporary devices from 2010 to 2015 in 16 Spanish institutions. Survival after listing and adverse clinical events were studied. At the time of listing, 169 (58%) patients were supported on veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA‐ECMO), 70 (24%) on temporary left ventricular assist devices (T‐LVAD) and 52 (18%) on temporary biventricular assist devices (T‐BiVAD). Seven patients transitioned from VA‐ECMO to temporary ventricular assist devices while on the waiting list. Mean time on T‐MCS was 13.1 ± 12.6 days. Mean time from listing to transplantation was 7.6 ± 8.5 days. Overall, 230 (79%) patients were transplanted and 54 (18.6%) died during MCS. In‐hospital postoperative mortality after transplantation was 33.3%, 11.9% and 26.2% for patients bridged on VA‐ECMO, T‐LVAD and T‐BiVAD, respectively (P = 0.008). Overall survival from listing to hospital discharge was 54.4%, 78.6% and 55.8%, respectively (P = 0.002). T‐LVAD support was independently associated with a lower risk of death over the first year after listing (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.30–0.92). Patients treated with VA‐ECMO showed the highest incidence rate of adverse clinical events associated with T‐MCS. Conclusion Temporary devices may be used to bridge critically ill candidates directly to heart transplantation in a setting of short waiting list times, as is the case of Spain. In our series, bridging with T‐LVAD was associated with more favourable outcomes than bridging with T‐BiVAD or VA‐ECMO.

Background—: Postoperative outcomes of patients with advanced heart failure undergoing ventricular assist device implantation are strongly influenced by their preoperative Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profiles. We sought to investigate whether a similar association exists in patients undergoing emergency heart transplantation. Methods and Results—: By means of the Spanish National Heart Transplant Registry database, we identified 704 adult patients treated with emergency heart transplantation in 15 Spanish centers between 2000 and 2009. Post-transplant outcomes were analyzed pertaining to patient preoperative INTERMACS profiles, which were retrospectively assigned by 2 blinded cardiologists. Before transplantation, INTERMACS profile 1 (critical cardiogenic shock) was present in 207 patients, INTERMACS profile 2 (progressive decline) in 291, INTERMACS profile 3 (inotropic dependence) in 176, and INTERMACS profile 4 (resting symptoms) was present in 30 patients. In-hospital postoperative mortality rates were, respectively, 43%, 26.8%, and 18% in patients with profiles 1, 2, and 3 to 4 ( P <0.001). INTERMACS 1 patients also presented the highest incidence of primary graft failure (1: 31.3%, 2: 22.3%, 3–4: 21.8%; P =0.03) and postoperative need for dialysis (1: 33.2%, 2: 18.9%, 3–4: 21.5%; P <0.001). Adjusted odds-ratios for in-hospital postoperative mortality were 4.38 (95% confidence interval, 2.51–7.66) for profile 1 versus 3 to 4, 2.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.56–3.97) for profile 1 versus 2, and 1.76 (95% confidence interval, 1.02–3.03) for profile 2 versus 3 to 4. Long-term survival after hospital discharge was not influenced by preoperative INTERMACS profiles. Conclusions—: Preoperative INTERMACS profiles determine outcomes after emergency heart transplantation. Results call for a change in policies related to the management of heart transplant candidates presenting with INTERMACS profiles 1 and 2.