[HN Gopher] Man given genetically modified pig heart dies
___________________________________________________________________
Man given genetically modified pig heart dies
Author : otoolep
Score : 233 points
Date : 2022-03-09 15:39 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| krallja wrote:
| Man Given Genetically Modified Pig Heart Survives Two Months
| slowhand09 wrote:
| My friend was a member of the transplant team at Johns Hopkins.
| "They" said he was near multiple organ failure prior to the
| transplant. And he survived significantly longer than expected.
| Recovery under those circumstances was a very long shot already.
| Kudos to him for undergoing the procedure, and furthering the
| research. Condolences to he and his family.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| It's an amazing story of which your friend must be tremedously
| proud. Now that it's been done, no doubt the results will
| improve. What an amazing time to be alive seeing these leaps in
| medicine. I think the pandemic has, in part, really made
| biology and medicine super cool again.
| sonicggg wrote:
| Choosing a guy next to his deathbed is not the greatest PR
| move. People will associate the death to the transplant.
| harles wrote:
| I'm glad this team was more concerned about science and
| minimizing risk than PR. Hopefully negative press doesn't
| cause much of a hinderance.
| phkahler wrote:
| Well that really raises the question of what did he die from?
| If not from the heart, how do they proceed with the research?
| Gotta do the next one on a person whose not already nearly
| gone. That seems like a highly sensitive line, no doubt it's a
| big discussion to move it.
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| My uneducated guess:
|
| If he had survived for a long time, we would have known that
| it worked. He didn't survive, so we didn't learn much.
|
| If we try with enough people who are as critical as him,
| eventually one could survive and we would know that the
| procedure works for at least some people.
| Jabbles wrote:
| "What people die of" seems like the sort of question the
| medical community should be quite good at answering.
|
| People are waiting for human heart transplants and dying from
| the wait. I don't think there will be a shortage of patients
| who we can ethically treat whilst researching this new
| technique. It certainly isn't binary with a hard "sensitive
| line".
| gpm wrote:
| > "What people die of" seems like the sort of question the
| medical community should be quite good at answering.
|
| Does it? I'm definitely not a doctor, but it seems like a
| very difficult question to answer.
|
| Even with perfect information, it seems unlikely there is
| always a simple/single answer. I would naively expect
| things like (and I'm making a bit up here, because I'm
| really not a doctor) "not enough oxygen reached his cells,
| because his lungs were bad at refreshing the air in them,
| his heart was bad at pumping blood in circles, his veins
| and arteries were in bad shape due to diet, and he wasn't
| moving around much because he had a cold further reducing
| circulation".
|
| But also, we don't have perfect information. We have this
| set of measurements we could make without harming the
| patient, or consuming too much time on really expensive
| equipment like MRIs. Many of those measurements are no
| doubt themselves subject to some degree of interpretation
| error and confounding factors.
|
| Maybe I underestimate our doctors, or ovesestimate the
| problem, but it doesn't sound easy to me.
| data_acquired wrote:
| One of Atul Gawande's books (Complications) mentions that
| amongst deaths where an autopsy is done, the cause of
| death was misdiagnosed by the doctor about 40% of the
| time. Quote from book [Page 197, Chapter name : "Final
| Cut"] ---
|
| "How often do autopsies turn up a major misdiagnosis in
| the cause of death? I would have guessed this happened
| rarely, in 1 or 2 percent of cases at most. According to
| three studies done in 1998 and 1999, however, the figure
| is about 40 percent."
| rurp wrote:
| I think 100 years from now people will look back on our
| current medicine the same way we view medicine from 100
| years ago. There is some impressive progress, but we know
| less than we think we do and conduct a lot of wasteful
| and harmful procedures.
|
| It's disturbing to learn how thin the evidence is for a
| lot of modern medical operations. For example, the
| recommendations for certain cancer screenings have
| actually been reduced in recent years after it was found
| they were causing net harm.
| phkahler wrote:
| That's why I'm noticing studies that use "all cause
| mortality". In other words, some people receive X
| treatment and a similar control group does not. Then you
| look at how many died in each group _regardless of cause_
| because it 's just too difficult (and death is pretty
| much a binary measure). For example, cholesterol lowering
| drugs (I don't have a source) seem to have no impact on
| all-cause-mortality, suggesting a failure in our
| understanding.
| rurp wrote:
| Certain invasive cancer treatments can look a lot more
| effective than they really are, if all cause mortality
| isn't measured. It's possible to reduce the risk of a
| patient dying from the particular cancer they have while
| also lowering their overall life expectancy, since the
| procedure itself can be extremely harmful.
| cannaceo wrote:
| They're not. Attribution is difficult.
| subsubzero wrote:
| That was my biggest question too. patients die all the time
| after receiving a human organ transplant just due to the body
| being in a poor state and/or rejecting the organ. So it was
| either that case in which even if he received a human heart
| the same outcome of him dying would have happened. Or it was
| the pig heart that was the problem. Hopefully it can be
| determined which case happened, and I am glad he got to spend
| a few more months with his family.
| dheera wrote:
| Well also, condolences to Edward Shumaker, who he murdered, and
| Edward's family. [0]
|
| [0] https://www.wionews.com/world/patient-in-ground-breaking-
| hea...
| [deleted]
| verisimi wrote:
| heyoni wrote:
| Which is probably how they got approval to do a pig heart
| transplant in the first place since he would never get on the
| transplant list.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > Exactly what has happened since and the precise cause of Mr
| Bennett's death is not clear.
|
| Which is the most useful information (next to the actual end of a
| human life here).
|
| Did he die because the heart was ultimately rejected, or did he
| die from underlying complications that had made him ineligible
| for a human heart transplant in the first place?
|
| If the latter, I'd still call this whole story a significant
| success and a possible step on the road to providing more
| transplants for people worldwide who won't survive without a new
| heart.
| mateo1 wrote:
| Yeah, I hate the clickbaity choice of putting this information
| near the end of the article. This is bbc, I expect better.
| notadoc wrote:
| Porcine biologics have generally underperformed expectations,
| often with neutral clinical effectiveness.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| thehappypm wrote:
| dang wrote:
| Please don't break the site guidelines, regardless of how
| wrong another comment is or you feel it is.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Similarly, the first human heart transplant patient only lasted
| 18 days. It's proof of concept, not the final iteration.
| melling wrote:
| "Currently 17 people die every day in the US waiting for a
| transplant, with more than 100,000 reportedly on the waiting
| list."
|
| David Bennett was only 57. Heart disease, and related issues are
| a big problem.
|
| While I'm hopeful for this technology, I wish there was a way for
| people to see heart issues coming much earlier in life so they
| can attempt to treat, or delay, the problem.
| fredsmith219 wrote:
| Having trouble taking satisfactory breaths while laying flat?
| See a doctor. Feeling out of breath abnormally while working
| out? See a doctor. Got an Apple Watch? Just for kicks take your
| ekg. It is crude but can detect abnormal heart rhythms.
| MPSimmons wrote:
| You probably know this, but for anyone else reading - I have
| an Apple watch that has the EKG. It is a two-contact EKG, so
| it's limited in what it can see. It also requires you to
| actively look at it (you have to touch the crown while it's
| reading).
|
| It did successfully diagnose a bout of bigeminy that I had,
| but unfortunately my cardiologist didn't think it was
| important, and I ended up having a heart attack anyway. But I
| lived, and now I have a new cardiologist, so there's that.
| faeyanpiraat wrote:
| Isn't that something that you could sue for?
| als0 wrote:
| I do wonder how it must feel to be a doctor who is one
| bad call away from being sued or revoked.
| [deleted]
| kyleee wrote:
| what's the alternative in practice; having no recourse if
| a negligent doctor maims or kills you?
| cbg0 wrote:
| Is it just me or is this such a stereotypical American
| comment?
| frenchy wrote:
| Maybe in the US, probably not anywhere else. You'd have
| to prove actual negligence, and in this case, it's quite
| possible the doctor's decision was reasonable. Benign
| abnormal heart behavior is pretty common.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Not a lawyer so this is only anecdotal but It is actually
| very hard to sue a doctor unless its egregious to my
| understanding and your rewards are limited to the point
| where most lawyers are hesitant to take the case due to
| that. Have a family member that got a colonoscopy and the
| doctor commented after that there was a bit of a tough
| time getting it in but he just pushed a little harder and
| all was fine. That push actually perforated the bowel and
| he got sepsis and spent 3 weeks in the hospital and many
| months with a coloscopy bag. No lawyer would take the
| case.
| dt3ft wrote:
| Or, change the way they live, work less and enjoy what little
| life they have ahead?
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Well, we certainly do set up people for [heart] failure in
| our culture. Standard American diet is atrocious and I often
| day-dream about what it might take to transition to a culture
| around healthy, whole foods.
|
| It's hard to imagine. And looking at the westernizing diet of
| the rest of the world, maybe that's a ship that never sails
| back. Maybe tech breakthroughs are the only hope we have if
| major cultural reform around health and food never arrives.
| idontknowifican wrote:
| your view indicates a lack of empathy for folks that live
| differently than you
| DiffEq wrote:
| I don't mean to be callous by this comment but if you mean
| "live differently" as living unhealthy well I have a
| problem with this. People that live in unhealthy ways cause
| all sorts of grief to others as well as financial loss. It
| is not right that I have to pay for people that decide to
| essentially eat themselves to death; it is not right that
| my wife and I had to care for my mother for months because
| she decided to eat herself to death. Heart disease and
| diabetes are all too common "paid" for by others - they
| should choose differently and while we can't make them
| choose differently we should for sure tell them that their
| choices are not "o.k.".
| jpatt wrote:
| There are a whole host of heart diseases not spurred on
| by unhealthy living. Particularly diseases affecting
| younger folk who would inordinately benefit from a longer
| lifespan if we got better at transplanting.
|
| As a selfish example, I have ARVC. I was diagnosed at 24
| while training for my first marathon. Lifestyle
| treatments for my disease are to explicitly _avoid_
| exercise as it exacerbates the deterioration of my heart
| muscle. As I age, I expect to be at a much greater risk
| for the heart diseases that you would recommend "healthy
| living" for, as I will be categorically barred from one
| of the most important pillars of that, exercise.
|
| I realize we're talking about the margins here, but as a
| margin, I would _love_ more advancement in transplants.
| ejb999 wrote:
| I agree - people need to be able to be called out when
| they are making bad decisions - especially w/regards to
| their health, and they especially should be called out by
| their health care providers - many doctors these days
| won't even broach the subject of a patient's weight, for
| fear of offending them - and I have seen patients file
| formal complaints against doctors when the doctor notes
| in their chart that the patient 'is obese'. It is right
| to tell them they are obese and it is right to encourage
| people to live healthier - how can you be a health care
| provider and not be allowed to call out people who are
| eating themselves to death?
| mulmen wrote:
| Living is unhealthy. It's universally fatal. In a free
| society we (should) retain autonomy over our bodies. This
| isn't purely philosophical, it is practical. Who decides
| what is healthy? What if they are wrong?
|
| How many eggs should I eat today to meet your personal
| definition of healthy living? And what do I do when it
| differs from someone else?
| mrmuagi wrote:
| > Living is unhealthy.
|
| Tips fedora.
|
| In all seriousness, I think there's obvious medical
| definitions for unhealthy in regards to addictions,
| weight, etc. Let's not philosophize some libertarian
| defense of something that obviously restricts and
| constricts one's freedom -- the ability to move an inch
| without your joints buckling.
|
| I can sympathise with you if you have suffered from anti-
| fat bullying and adopt defensive attitudes in reaction --
| but what the hell am I reading.
| _jal wrote:
| Welcome to being an adult. People will do all sorts of
| things you think are not "OK", including people you're
| attached to. If you have kids, they will, too.
|
| How we choose to deal with watching people do things we
| think they shouldn't is a matter of character.
|
| I will say that I try hard to listen to people's
| criticism with an open mind, but people who badger me
| when they know I have considered their position, well, we
| tend to spend progressively less time together the more
| it happens. There's a difference between sharing
| information and punishing people for not complying, and I
| see no reason to accept punishment for something I don't
| intend to change about myself. A second-best fix for the
| problem, but better for everyone concerned.
| danielovichdk wrote:
| It's only one self that can determine if one self is in
| balance or not. Just like we can lie to ourselves telling
| "everything is alright" while in truth it's not really
| the case.
|
| But yes, as adults we can determine for ourselves. But
| it's a poor character trait not to be responsible for how
| you feel.
| [deleted]
| bob66 wrote:
| lostlogin wrote:
| How would you apply this to a child, or convey it to their
| parents?
|
| The procedure has a profound effect on the family that
| receives the heart and on the donor family. Hearing donor
| family members describe what it's like knowing their child's
| heart is still beating somewhere is something you don't
| forget.
| tommoor wrote:
| To everyone that reads this:
|
| If you've not had a checkup in the last year go and get one!
| It'll be included on your health insurance and the blood draw
| will include things like if you have high cholesterol.
| rmellow wrote:
| In the US I presume?
|
| Canadians have a harder time...
|
| In Canada/Ontario, you have to convince your doctor to give
| you a cholesterol test, e.g. family history. It won't be done
| preventively [1].
|
| Even if you manage to get tested, if you're under 40 the
| doctor won't care and there will be no followup.
|
| [1] https://exechealth.ca/ontario-drops-annual-physicals/
| testesttest wrote:
| A test in the US < $50 and is easy to schedule without
| having a doctor involved at LabCore or similar. Is that an
| option in CA?
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| In Quebec at least, a doctor's prescription is required
| for all blood tests even at private labs.
| rmellow wrote:
| There are private clinics one can become a member of, but
| this is extremely uncommon and most people don't know
| it's an option.
|
| Costs upwards of $3,000 annually.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| Meh. Might be an American thing, if you watch TV or news
| the images of persons will be constantly telling you to ask
| your doctor about this, consult a medical professional
| before this other activity they advertise, and oh you gotta
| see a dentist every six months. Just demand creation,
| better just to get a blood-pressure test when you do see a
| doctor and a cholesterol test based on the result.
| nradov wrote:
| Annual checkups are not justified from an evidence-based
| medicine perspective for most healthy adults. They don't
| produce better outcomes.
|
| https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-the-annual-physical-
| unne...
|
| Annual checkups aren't necessarily fully covered by health
| insurance plans. However, other preventative care services
| are.
|
| https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/preventive-care-
| benefits...
| robbiep wrote:
| There is no real medical need for an 'annual physical' it is
| a creation of the American medical-industrial complex and
| creates more problems than it solves.
|
| Having said that seeing a doctor occasionally for blood
| pressure etc is useful, but the interval for someone young
| and otherwise not experiencing any symptoms doesn't need to
| be annually
| mrmuagi wrote:
| Isn't there catch-it-early type diseases? Like breast
| cancer, testicular cancer, colon cancer, etc... that prove
| this wrong?
|
| The funny thing is, the older you get, you are likely to
| have some sort of symptom. Such is life.
|
| For blood pressure, I would expand and add general
| bloodwork for health conscious individuals or people with a
| family history for certain issues -- diabetes, liver,
| androgen, heart health markers.. Here in Canada you just
| need to mention you are interested for health reasons and a
| doctor refers you -- not sure how costly it is in USA --
| but apparently private clinics are a choice to build custom
| panels.
| franga2000 wrote:
| I've heard many experts talk about issues with "catching
| disease early", one being that what doctors find might
| have never developed far enough to cause harm and so the
| treatment might actually be more harmful.
|
| I don't want to risk trying to explain it from memory
| since I have zero medical knowledge, but there's a
| YouTube video by "MedlifeCrisis" about this that also has
| sources cited in the description. The title is something
| like "the problem with screening".
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| > one being that what doctors find might have never
| developed far enough to cause harm and so the treatment
| might actually be more harmful.
|
| This is not a reason to not screen regularly. If treating
| very early is the problem then you should still aim to
| detect it early and then closely monitor it until you
| have enough information to decide whether to act or not.
| There are many people that will simply not go in for
| testing until there is a major problem if you advise
| against regular testing. A close family member of mine
| just passed away recently because he didn't go in for
| regular testing and they caught the cancer way too late.
| robbiep wrote:
| For 'catch it early' you are talking screening. That's
| why there's cervical cancer screening (pap smear/the new
| cytology test), mammograms, faecal occult blood tests, in
| australia skin cancer screening, etc.
|
| And that's why people should have a regular doctor and
| that's why as you get older you see your doctor more
| frequently. But for young(ish) otherwise healthy people,
| the whole concept of something ther occurs annually
| doesnt make sense.
|
| In the other hand, since most screening and medical
| engagement is with females, you are left with lots of men
| who get into their 40s without ever having seen a doctor.
| So - if thats you - go and see one, build a relationship,
| and if everything is good ask when you need to come back
| for prostate screening, FOBT, cholesterol or anything
| else. All across the board is unnecessary.
|
| With regards to your last point, I'm all for devolving
| autonomy and power to the patient, but frankly across the
| board wide ranging blood testing (especially regularly)
| just doesn't make sense for a significant percentage of
| people, unless there is a high pre test probability or a
| significant family history. All blood results are managed
| at the 95% CI so if you go in and have 20+ blood tests
| then more than likely at least one is going to be out of
| order. All you need to do is visit the askdocs subreddit
| to see the immense anxiety and flow down effects that has
| on a population who have absolutely no way of
| understanding a slightly out of bounds result. Those
| private clinics trying to spin up and do 'wellness
| checks' are frankly in my opinion, and until the evidence
| proves otherwise, a parasite on the worried well
| WheatM wrote:
| pkaye wrote:
| > There is no real medical need for an 'annual physical' it
| is a creation of the American medical-industrial complex
| and creates more problems than it solves.
|
| What problems does it create? Isn't preventive care a good
| thing? Also Japan does annual physicals much more rigorous
| that in the US. I wish what is done in the US was more
| rigorous because it would have caught the autoimmune
| disease that caused my kidney failure. Unfortunately by the
| time there are visible symptoms, the damage cannot be
| reversed.
| retrac wrote:
| Medicine can hurt as well as heal. A concrete example.
| Many doctors will advise you not to get a full body MRI
| scan. You can pretty easily buy such a service, and hire
| some radiologists to pour over every cubic millimetre of
| your body. But it's a really bad idea.
|
| Because they will almost certainly find something
| ambiguous or troubling. And they're gonna biopsy. And
| then, well, maybe that's ambiguous. Another biopsy.
| You're terrified, the doctor's now worried about
| something they would never have known about otherwise,
| and maybe you have surgery to get it early. In the end
| the complications of all that quite potentially add up to
| a shorter life expectancy than simply not getting scanned
| in the first place. On average. Though of course, if you
| had a giant treatable tumour that shows up, well, you'd
| want the scan. But most people don't have one, and all
| those interventions can cause harm.
| Footkerchief wrote:
| The correct takeaway is to use information responsibly,
| not to deny yourself information.
| robbiep wrote:
| I agree in principle, but health literacy is so
| appallingly low - globally - that more often than not
| people are not equipped to deal with this information. As
| I said in an earlier post on this thread, look at the
| askdocs subreddit. 90% of the posts there are worried
| well asking for clarification of some unnecessary test
| they went and specifically asked a doctor for, the result
| of which they don't understand and which is causing a
| cascade of health anxiety.
|
| If every person understood enough to realise how many
| 'abnormalities' enough investigations would show up, and
| how in 99% of people they mean absolutely nothing, then
| it would be fine. But that's not our current situation.
| And if you're one of those people who are capable of
| parsing the dense health literature and understanding the
| implications (or not) of 'normal abnormal' findings, then
| go for it. But for the population as a whole? It's not
| viable or helpful
| colinmhayes wrote:
| People are too dumb to do that, even if they're actively
| trying to.
| MPSimmons wrote:
| There are a couple of orders of magnitude difference
| between findings from a full-body MRI and a routine
| labwork run.
| robbiep wrote:
| Preventative care is different from the concept of all
| round comprehensive annual physical as it has been
| propagated through the culture from the American
| experience (I practice in Australia, so am talking from
| what I see from time working there, and the trickle
| through effect culturally of Australians thinking this is
| something they 'have' to have).
|
| Preventative care consists of positive health messages
| (smoking cessation, moderate alcohol consumption, healthy
| diet, exercise), early identification of at risk
| individuals through family history, obesity, and then
| population wide cancer screening. Preventative care does
| not mean take a dozen tubes of blood and a pot of urine
| on every person every year.
|
| I'm really sorry to hear about your kidney failure
| thaway2839 wrote:
| Annual checkups are just that. 1) Body weight
| measurements. 2) The doctor talking to you about whether
| you have any medical or life concerns. 3) The doctor
| sharing advice on diet improvements, smoking
| improvements, exercise plans, including providing
| resources for them. 4) Recommended screenings based on
| age. 5) 1-2 vials of blood to get basic health
| information such as glucose levels, vitamin levels, etc.
| 6) Urine samples are only required if you're sexually
| active with multiple partners to screen for STDs and is
| completely optional.
|
| That's been my experience. Through the annual physical
| I've been able to handle several minor issues, which have
| materially improved my life, and identified a major
| diagnosis that goes undiagnosed in the majority of people
| throughout their lives, and leads to them living
| significantly worse lives than they would have otherwise.
| By identifying it early, I have a chance for a much
| better lifestyle, and reducing the odds of an early death
| greatly.
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _US man who got first pig heart transplant dies after 2 months_
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30615375 - March 2022 (3
| comments)
|
| _Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig's heart beating
| soundly_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30080472 - Jan
| 2022 (490 comments)
|
| _The doctor behind the first pig-to-human heart transplant_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30044630 - Jan 2022 (3
| comments)
|
| _In a First, Man Receives a Heart from a Genetically Altered
| Pig_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29900921 - Jan 2022
| (2 comments)
|
| _U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29882912 - Jan 2022 (701
| comments)
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| this is sad.
|
| it's kind of bizarre from a mile high view, but all so normal
| too, that no one comments on the sacrifice of a pig, i found
| myself observing.
| danielovichdk wrote:
| The pig i don't care about. But I would really really like to
| know if David Bennett lived his life being healthy and fit.
| [deleted]
| faeyanpiraat wrote:
| I would also be happy to go vegan, but I don't see a way to be
| healthy that way, so..
| ben_w wrote:
| If it's specifically pigs up for discussion, vegan and
| vegetarian are the same, and vegetarian is easier -- I'm
| vegetarian, and AFAIK there's no food made from pig's milk
| (certainly nothing I've seen in the local supermarket).
|
| But as for healthy? That's the easy part, there are so many
| healthy vegan options it's silly. Food cravings however,
| that's hard (and also _why_ I'm only vegetarian, not vegan --
| I'm looking forward to improvements to vegan cheese[0] in
| particular given everything else on sale around here now has
| good enough non-dairy alternatives -- though the other part
| is that I'm not hugely concerned about the ethics of free-
| range no-kill eggs).
|
| [0] smoked tofu slices is good for sandwiches, but it doesn't
| melt nicely on pasta
| missedthecue wrote:
| I think most take it as a given that human life > swine life
| jll29 wrote:
| May he rest in peace - he had some additional happy days from
| what it looks like, and he helped science advance a bit, kudos to
| him.
|
| What worried me was when I read he was "not eligible" to be a
| recipient of a human heart; I hope this is not just because he
| had a bad (or no) insurance.
| thechao wrote:
| He refused vaccination. Also, not the greatest human; but, he
| served his time, so I don't think that had an impact.
| conroydave wrote:
| top comment currently references he was near multiple organ
| failure prior to the transplant.
| faeyanpiraat wrote:
| Hopefully he had the opportunity to get out from the hospital
| in the meantime.
| Supermancho wrote:
| He lasted 2 months. For reference, artificial hearts generally do
| 130 days - (2018)
| https://syncardia.com/patients/media/blog/2018/08/seven-thin...
| with some notable outliers that live for years, and human to
| human transplant is about 9 years. Usually it's some related
| systemic problem that kills you under these conditions eg
| consistent brain clotting causing stroke or organ failure due to
| drug cocktails.
| ryeights wrote:
| Wow, that's not great. I take it these are meant to be used as
| a stopgap before an actual transplant?
| Stevvo wrote:
| Yea; it's a stopgap solution. The pump is in a backpack so
| it's not perfect for mobility.
| hwillis wrote:
| LVADs are implanted in your chest. Blood doesn't leave your
| body, but do they have external batteries. You have a wire
| coming out of your chest (or neck/head, sometimes) which is
| a constant infection worry. AFAIK the only external pumps
| are like, countertop kind of things.
|
| 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.
| faeyanpiraat wrote:
| Well, half of your hearth failing being "exceptionally
| unpleasant" is not a surprise.
|
| Anyways, wouldn't it be feasible to use wireless power
| transfer?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| throwthere wrote:
| Not always, some are"destination" therapy meaning no
| transplant planned in the immediate future.
|
| https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/17192-left-.
| ..
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That's an LVAD, though -- isn't that an entirely different
| beast than an artificial heart, with a different use case?
| throwthere wrote:
| Artificial heart is kind of a non-specific term. It
| covers anything from LVAD, LBAD and RVAD together, ECMO
| or biventrivular vad. So depends on what you're
| specifically referring to but lvad is the most common of
| those.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Fair enough. I'm in no way experienced in the medical
| field. I would have told you I thought an artificial
| heart was a complete heart replacement, just like a full
| transplant but with a mechanical device instead. TIL.
| hwillis wrote:
| It's still 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 in addition to the rest of your body
| slowly suffocating. 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 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_.
| sagarun wrote:
| LVAD goes for 5 years
| sebazzz wrote:
| > He had already been bedridden for six weeks leading up to the
| surgery, attached to a machine which was keeping him alive.
|
| Slightly less.
| momenti wrote:
| Heart transplant recipients survive 15 years on average:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_transplantation
| msrenee wrote:
| The Wikipedia page cites a documentary as the source, which
| may be correct, but doesn't seem like an appropriate source.
| Here's a paper that I skimmed the abstract of claiming ~9
| years:
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15280687/
| MPSimmons wrote:
| I don't know what the documentary source is, but this paper
| is from 2004, and it's likely that procedures have improved
| reliability since then.
| maewsa wrote:
| Documentary cited is from 2007 so that's a marked
| improvement for 2-3 years...
|
| I'd personally lean towards trusting published medical
| journal.
| sobren wrote:
| sonicggg wrote:
| To be honest, not sure why we spend so much resources on
| heart transplants. For the most part, the underlying
| condition that wrecked your old heart is probably still
| there. We should be putting more resources into preventative
| medicine.
| dekhn wrote:
| Artificial hearts are artificial hearts- mechanical plumbing.
| This is far more akin to human heart transplantation (which is
| a mature operation that has excellent outcomes).
| willis936 wrote:
| https://apnews.com/article/pig-heart-transplant-patient-dies...
|
| >Bennett's doctors said he had heart failure and an irregular
| heartbeat, plus a history of not complying with medical
| instructions.
|
| >Patients may see Bennett's death as suggesting a short life-
| expectancy from xenotransplantation, but the experience of one
| desperately ill person cannot predict how well this procedure
| ultimately will work, said ethics expert Karen Maschke of The
| Hastings Center. That will require careful studies of multiple
| patients with similar medical histories.
| [deleted]
| martini333 wrote:
| Sure. Everybody dies. He also lived way longer than expected with
| the big heart.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-09 23:00 UTC)