"The most recent data of the registry of the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation indicates a current 1-year survival of 84.5% and a 5-year survival of 72.5%. This has significantly improved as compared to the 76.9% 1-year survival and 62.7% 5-year survival in the 1980s. The development of new immunosuppressive drugs which allow a variety of immunosuppressive regimens, tailored to the individual patient, has contributed to this success, since rejection and the adverse effects of immunosuppression could be better controlled. After 20 years, ca. 21% of patients are still alive, according to the international registry. In some experienced centers, long-term survival is reported to be even higher. The University Hospital Zurich has achieved a 20-year survival rate of 55.6%.
The improvement in outcome over the decades is related mainly to an increase in survival over the first year. After this period, the attrition rate of ca. 3-4% per year has remained similar over the different eras. This might be attributable to the fact that it was not possible to reduce the incidence of long-term complications after heart transplantation, such as chronic allograft vasculopathy (CAV) and malignancies, which account for ca. 35% of all deaths after 10 to 15 years."
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4387387/
I'd personally lean towards trusting published medical journal.
> Survival after heart transplantation is excellent, particularly if it is compared with the natural course of end-stage HF. The most recent data of the registry of the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation indicates a current 1-year survival of 84.5% and a 5-year survival of 72.5% (5). This has significantly improved as compared to the 76.9% 1-year survival and 62.7% 5-year survival in the 1980s. The development of new immunosuppressive drugs which allow a variety of immunosuppressive regimens, tailored to the individual patient, has contributed to this success, since rejection and the adverse effects of immunosuppression could be better controlled. After 20 years, ca. 21% of patients are still alive, according to the international registry (5). In some experienced centers, long-term survival is reported to be even higher (6-9). The University Hospital Zurich has achieved a 20-year survival rate of 55.6% (10).
>The improvement in outcome over the decades is related mainly to an increase in survival over the first year. After this period, the attrition rate of ca. 3-4% per year has remained similar over the different eras. This might be attributable to the fact that it was not possible to reduce the incidence of long-term complications after heart transplantation, such as chronic allograft vasculopathy (CAV) and malignancies, which account for ca. 35% of all deaths after 10 to 15 years (5).
For example, drunk driving or shootings aren't medical problems, but cause them
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/17192-left-...
The right ventricle is usually in much better shape so an LVAD can be almost like having a functioning transplant, except that there's a big wire going out of your chest/neck (which is a constant infection risk and can't really get wet) and you're now battery-powered.
Any kind of heart transplant comes with huge problems, even besides the immunosupressants etc. The nerves don't reconnect, so the heart doesn't respond to commands to speed up. It makes any kind of exertion difficult and unpleasant. Diet is critical, clots are a constant fear, etc. By the time you get a transplant you've usually spent a while with insufficient bloodflow, and your organs have been slowly dying.
It's nothing short of incredible that people can get 20+ years out of transplants. The deck is stacked against us hard.
They're ideally a stopgap, but even still it's typically a massive change in quality of life. The left ventricle is what feeds your entire body blood; the right ventricle only feeds the lungs. When the left ventricle fails, blood backs up and starts overflowing into the lung space. It's exceptionally unpleasant. The right ventricle is usually in much better shape so an LVAD can be almost like having a functioning transplant except for the risk of infection.
Anyways, wouldn't it be feasible to use wireless power transfer?
Implanting a couple medium-size batteries and the circuitry+magnet for wireless charging is pretty robust to failure, but consider actually making that decision for yourself. You're already accepting huge restrictions, so is the wire that much of an extra burden?
Realistically, if the LVAD loses power, you're dead. It's not like suffocating; without bloodflow (even blood without oxygen!) your brain will die in about two minutes. Chest compressions probably won't even help. You got the LVAD because your heart couldn't pump, and chest compressions will not force blood through the LVAD. Even if this happens in the emergency room your odds are not good. Cutting open a chest to hand-crank a human is not easy. Pulling an ECMO machine and inserting the massive catheters is not easy. You might die while the machine is still rolling towards you.
Slightly less.