Hemodynamic Support With the Impella 5.5 Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support Device.

The Impella 5.5 is increasingly used as a bridge to recovery or heart replacement therapies despite lack of clinical trial evidence. We report real-world outcomes and hemodynamic effects of 150 consecutive patients from a single, high-volume center. Primary outcome was incidence of recovery, durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or heart transplant compared with incidence of death at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic trends and upgrade to veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support. The composite endpoint occurred in 59.3% and death in 18.8% of patients (incidence rate ratio: 8.1 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 5.4-12.2], p < 0.001). Decreases in pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (PADP) (p = 0.026), estimated pulmonary effective arterial elastance (Ea) (p < 0.001), and vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS) (p < 0.001) occurred during Impella 5.5 support. Pulmonary artery diastolic pressure correlated with estimated Ea (p < 0.001), suggesting improved right ventricle (RV) afterload with left ventricle (LV) unloading. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation upgrade occurred in 11.3% of patients who had higher baseline right atrial pressure (RAP) (16.0 [9.0-20.5] vs. 9.0 [7.0-12.0], p = 0.022), PADP (28.5 [25.0-31.0] vs. 23.0 [18.0-28.0], p = 0.011), and lower pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) (1.45 [0.82-3.45] vs. 2.5 [1.65-3.86], p = 0.029). Upgrade patients had higher repeated measures trends in RAP (p < 0.001) and PADP (p = 0.015). The Impella 5.5 improved hemodynamics and effectively bridged to recovery or heart replacement therapies. Co-existing RV dysfunction can be supported on Impella 5.5 with careful hemodynamic trend monitoring.

Outcomes and quality of life in patients receiving durable left ventricular assist device with biventricular support.

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring biventricular support (BIVAD) face higher morbidity than those undergoing durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation alone. The goal of the current study was to evaluate quality of life (QOL) of patients with LVAD therapy in the modern era, stratified by use of biventricular support. METHODS: All patients undergoing LVAD at our center were reviewed between October 2017 and September 2021. Patients were stratified by perioperative use of BIVAD. Patients were administered a telephone survey consisting of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12) as well as free-responses regarding satisfaction surrounding their operation. Outcomes included survival, KCCQ-12 metrics, and thematic analysis of free response questions. RESULTS: 92 patients were identified, of whom 26 (28%) received BIVAD support. BIVAD patients had more preoperative ECMO use (54% vs. 12%, p < 0.001) and lower INTERMACS scores (Category 1: 46% vs. 14%, p = 0.001). Three-year survival was 73.8% among LVAD-alone patients and 50.1% among BIVAD patients (log-rank p = 0.022). Median composite KCCQ-12 score was 78 (57-88). No differences in composite or any component scores were noted between groups. 76% of patients report they would be moderately or extremely like to go through surgery again if given repeat choice. The most common themes expressed were overall gratitude (24%) and disappointment with device-related restrictions (20%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients requiring BIVAD therapy have more advanced shock, longer associated hospital courses, and lower long-term survival. However, those that survive enjoy similar overall quality of life, and many endorse positive outlooks on their surgical course. Continued assessments of quality of life are important in providing patient-centered LVAD care.

Racial, Ethnic, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Inequities in Access to Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Background: Hospital admissions for cardiogenic shock have increased in the United States. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) can be used to acutely stabilize patients. We sought to evaluate the presence of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities in access to MCS in the United States among patients with cardiogenic shock. Methods: Medicare data were used to identify patients with cardiogenic shock admitted to hospitals with advanced tMCS (microaxial left ventricular assist device [mLVAD] or extracorporeal membranous oxygenation [ECMO]) capabilities within the 25 largest core-based statistical areas, all major metropolitan areas. We modeled the association between patient race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status and use of mLVAD or ECMO. Results: After adjusting for age and clinical comorbidities, dual eligibility for Medicaid was associated with a 19.9% (95% CI, 11.5%-27.4%) decrease in odds of receiving mLVAD in a patient with cardiogenic shock (P < .001). After adjusting for age, clinical comorbidities, and dual eligibility for Medicaid, Black race was associated with 36.7% (95% CI, 28.4%-44.2%) lower odds of receiving mLVAD in a patient with cardiogenic shock. Dual eligibility for Medicaid was associated with a 62.0% (95% CI, 60.8%-63.1%) decrease in odds of receiving ECMO in a patient with cardiogenic shock (P < .001). Black race was associated with 36.0% (95% CI, 16.6%-50.9%) lower odds of receiving ECMO in a patient with cardiogenic shock, after adjusting for Medicaid eligibility. Conclusions: We identified large and significant racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities in access to mLVAD and ECMO among patients presenting with cardiogenic shock to metropolitan hospitals with active advanced tMCS programs. These findings highlight systematic inequities in access to potentially lifesaving therapies.

Left ventricular unloading via percutaneous assist device during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest.

INTRODUCTION: A feared complication of an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is cardiac arrest (CA). Even if return of spontaneous circulation is achieved, cardiogenic shock (CS) is common. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) supports patients with CS and is often used in conjunction with an Impella device (2.5 and CP) to off-load the left ventricle, although limited evidence supports this approach. METHODS: The goal of this study was to determine whether a mortality difference was observed in VA-ECMO alone versus VA-ECMO with Impella (ECPELLA) in patients with CS from AMI and CA. A retrospective chart review of 50 patients with AMI-CS and CA and were supported with VA-ECMO (n = 34) or ECPELLA (n = 16) was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 6-months from VA-ECMO or Impella implantation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and complication rates between both cohorts and intensive care unit data. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar, except patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were more likely to be in the VA-ECMO group (p = 0.044). The ECPELLA cohort had significantly worse survival after VA-ECMO (SAVE) score (p = 0.032). Six-month all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the cohorts, even when adjusting for SAVE score. Secondary outcomes were notable for an increased rate of minor complications without an increased rate of major complications in the ECPELLA group. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials are needed to determine if a mortality difference exists between VA-ECMO and ECPELLA platforms in patients with AMI complicated by CA and CS.

Mortality and morbidity after combined heart and liver transplantation in the failing Fontan: An updated dual center retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: As the adult Fontan population with Fontan associated liver disease continues to increase, more patients are being referred for transplantation, including combined heart and liver transplantation. METHODS: We report updated mortality and morbidity outcomes after combined heart and liver transplant in a retrospective cohort series of 40 patients (age 14 to 49 years) with Fontan circulation across two centers from 2006-2022. RESULTS: The 30-day, 1-year, 5-year and 10-year survival rate was 90%, 80%, 73% and 73% respectively. Sixty percent of patients met a composite comorbidity of needing either post-transplant mechanical circulatory support, renal replacement therapy or tracheostomy. Cardiopulmonary bypass time > 283 min (4.7 h) and meeting the composite comorbidity were associated with mortality by Kaplan Meier analysis. CONCLUSION: Further study to mitigate early mortality and the above comorbidities as well as the high risk of bleeding and vasoplegia in this patient population is warranted.

Patient Characteristics and Early Clinical Outcomes With Impella 5.5: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Data regarding outcomes with Impella 5.5 are limited. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize patient and treatment characteristics and early clinical outcomes among patients supported by Impella 5.5. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from September 2019 to March 2023. Studies reporting outcomes in greater than or equal to 5 patients were included for review. Patient characteristics, treatment characteristics, and early clinical outcomes were extracted. Outcomes included adverse events, survival to hospital discharge, and 30 day survival. Random-effect models were used to estimate pooled effects for survival outcomes. Assessment for bias was performed using funnel plots and Egger's tests. Fifteen studies were included for qualitative review, representing 707 patients. Mean duration of support was 9.9 ± 8.2 days. On meta-analysis of 13 studies reporting survival outcomes, survival to hospital discharge was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58-78%), and 30 day survival was 65% (95% CI, 56-74%) among patients with Impella devices predominantly supported by Impella 5.5 (>60%). There was significant study heterogeneity for these outcomes. Among 294 patients with Impella 5.5 only, survival to discharge was 78% (95% CI, 72-82%) with no significant study heterogeneity. This data present early benchmarks for outcomes with Impella 5.5 as clinical experience with these devices accrues.

Extracorporeal Carbon Dioxide Removal to De-escalate Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Severe COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: In a subset of patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), there is a need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for pulmonary support. The primary extracorporeal support tool for severe COVID-19 ARDS is venovenous (VV) ECMO; however, after hypoxemic respiratory failure resolves, many patients experience refractory residual hypercarbic respiratory failure. Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) for isolated hypercarbic type II respiratory failure can be used in select cases to deescalate patients from VV ECMO while the lung recovers the ability to exchange CO2. The objective of this study was to describe the authors' experience in using ECCO2R as a bridge from VV ECMO. DESIGN: Hemolung Respiratory Assist System (RAS) is a commercially available (ECCO2R) device, and the United States Food and Drug Administration accelerated its use under its Emergency Use Authorization for the treatment of refractory hypercarbic respiratory failure in COVID-19-induced ARDS. This created an environment in which selected and targeted mechanical circulatory support therapy for refractory hypercarbic respiratory failure could be addressed. This retrospective study describes the application of Hemolung RAS as a VV ECMO deescalation platform to treat refractory hypercarbic respiratory failure after the resolution of hypoxemic COVID-19 ARDS. SETTING: A quaternary-care academic medical center, single institution. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with refractory hypercarbic respiratory failure after COVID-19 ARDS who were previously supported with VV ECMO. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were placed on ECCO2R after VV ECMO for COVID-19 ARDS. Seventeen patients successfully were transitioned to ECCO2R and then decannulated; 3 patients required reescalation to VV ECMO secondary to hypercapnic respiratory failure, and 1 patient died while on ECCO2R. Five (23.8%) of the 21 patients were transitioned off of VV ECMO to ECCO2R, with a compliance of <20 (mL/cmH2O). Of these patients, 3 with low compliance were reescalated to VV ECMO. CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal can be used to continue supportive methods for patients with refractory type 2 hypercarbic respiratory failure after COVID-19 ARDS for patients previously on VV ECMO. Patients with low compliance have a higher rate of reescalation to VV ECMO.

Center Volume Predicts Improved Early Outcomes in Multiorgan Heart Transplantation.

PURPOSE: Center volume is associated with improved survival after isolated heart transplant, but its impact on multiorgan heart transplant (MHT) outcomes is unknown. This study examines the impact of institutional MHT volume on MHT outcomes. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing first time MHT from 2011 to 2021 were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Transplant centers were annually classified as low-, medium-, or high-volume if they performed <3, 3 to 5, or ≥6 MHTs that year, respectively. Graft failure was defined as death, failure, or re-transplantation of any allograft. RESULTS: A total of 1860 MHTs were performed at 104 centers, including 482 (26%) at low-, 601 (32%) at medium-, and 777 (42%) at high-MHT volume centers. Noncardiac allografts included kidney (83%), liver (16%), and lung (2%). The proportion of MHTs performed at high-volume centers increased from 10% in 2011 to 62% in 2021. Recipient age, race, and body mass index did not vary by center volume (all P > .05). Patients at high-volume centers were more likely to be in the intensive care unit pre-transplant (58% vs 44%, P < .001) and have shorter waitlist times (47 vs 92 days, P < .001) than those at low-volume centers. 30-day graft survival was higher in combined medium- and high-volume compared with low-volume centers (95% vs 92%, P = .004). Increasing center MHT volume was protective against 30-day graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio 0.93 [0.88-0.98]) on multivariate Cox regression. CONCLUSIONS: Higher MHT volume is associated with improved early graft survival after MHT, which may justify centralizing the performance of MHTs to high-volume centers.

Lung transplant outcomes after acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring extracorporeal life support: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Lung transplant for acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was rare before 2020, but was rapidly adopted to rescue patients with COVID-19 with lung failure. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent lung transplant for COVID-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome, and to assess the impact of type and duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support on survival. METHODS: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we identified 311 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who underwent lung transplant from 2007 to 2022 and performed a retrospective analysis of the patients who required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation preoperatively, stratified by COVID-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome listing diagnoses. The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included the effect of type and duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on survival. RESULTS: During the study period, 236 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and preoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation underwent lung transplant; 181 patients had a listing diagnosis of COVID-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (77%), and 55 patients had a listing diagnosis of non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome (23%). Patients with COVID-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were older, were more likely to be female, had higher body mass index, and spent longer on the waitlist (all P < .02) than patients with non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome. The 2 groups had similar 1-year survival (85.8% vs 81.1%, P = .2) with no differences in postoperative complications. Patients with COVID-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome required longer times on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation pretransplant (P = .02), but duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support was not a predictor of 1-year survival (P = .2). CONCLUSIONS: Despite prolonged periods of pretransplant extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, selected patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome can undergo lung transplant safely with acceptable short-term outcomes. Appropriate selection criteria and long-term implications require further analysis.

Non-inferior outcomes in lower urgency patients transplanted with extended criteria donor hearts.

BACKGROUND: Recent work has suggested that outcomes among heart transplant patients listed at the lower-urgency (United Network for Organ Sharing Status 4 or 6) status may not be significantly impacted by donor comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to investigate outcomes of extended criteria donors (ECD) in lower versus higher urgency patients undergoing heart transplantation. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was queried for all adult patients undergoing heart transplantation from October 18, 2018 through December 31, 2021. Patients were stratified by degree of urgency (higher urgency: UNOS 1 or 2 vs lower urgency: UNOS 4 or 6) and receipt of ECD hearts, as defined by donor hearts failing to meet established acceptable use criteria. Outcomes were compared using propensity score matched cohorts. RESULTS: Among 9,160 patients included, 2,320 (25.4%) were low urgency. ECD hearts were used in 35.5% of higher urgency (HU) patients and 39.2% of lower urgency (LU) patients. While ECD hearts had an impact on survival among high-urgency patients (p < 0.01), there was no difference in 1- and 2-year survival (p > 0.05) found among low urgency patients receiving ECD versus standard hearts. Neither ECDs nor individual ECD criteria were independently associated with mortality in low urgency patients (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Post-transplant outcomes among low urgency patients are not adversely affected by receipt of ECD vs. standard hearts. Expanding the available donor pool by optimizing use of ECDs in this population may increase transplant frequency, decrease waitlist morbidity, and improve postoperative outcomes for the transplant community at large.

Heart Retransplantation Under the 2018 Adult Heart Allocation Policy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to characterize the impact of the 2018 adult heart allocation policy change on waiting list and posttransplant outcomes of heart retransplantation in the United States. METHODS: All adults listed for heart retransplantation from May 2015 to June 2022 were identified using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Patients were stratified into eras (era 1 and era 2) based on the heart allocation change on October 18, 2018. Competing risks regressions and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess differences across eras in waiting list outcomes and 1-year posttransplant survival, respectively. RESULTS: The analysis included 356 repeat heart transplant recipients, with 207 (58%) receiving retransplantation during era 2. Patients who received a retransplant in era 2 were more commonly bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (21% vs 8%, P < .01) and intra-aortic balloon pump (29% vs 13%, P < .001) and had a lower likelihood of death/deterioration on the waiting list (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.82) compared with those in era 1. Rates of 30-day mortality (7% vs 7%, P = .99) and 1-year survival (82% vs 87%, P = .27) were not significantly different among retransplantation recipients across eras. After adjustment, retransplantation in era 2 was not associated with an increased hazard of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.55-2.30). The gap in 1-year mortality between primary transplant and retransplant recipients increased from era 1 to 2. CONCLUSIONS: Heart retransplantation candidates have experienced improved waiting list outcomes after the 2018 adult heart allocation policy, without significant changes to posttransplant survival.

Lung transplantation for COVID-2019 respiratory failure in the United States: Outcomes 1-year posttransplant and the impact of preoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with end-stage respiratory failure after severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection may benefit from lung transplant; however, data on transplant outcomes and the impact of prolonged circulatory support before transplant in these patients are limited. METHODS: We assessed survival, postoperative complications, and the impact of pretransplant extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients undergoing lung transplant in the United States from August 2020 through March 2022 using records validated by United Network for Organ Sharing experts and extracted from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. RESULTS: In 305 patients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure and validated data, survival for up to 1-year posttransplant did not differ between 188 patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome and 117 patients with post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis (P = .8). Pretransplant ECMO support (median 66 days) was required in 191 patients (63%), and venovenous ECMO was used in 91.2% of patients. One-, 6-, and 12-month survival was not significantly different between patients requiring ECMO and patients without ECMO (95.8% vs 99.1%, 93.1% vs 96.4%, 84.8% vs 90.9%, P = .2) In addition, 1-year survival was similar in recipients requiring ECMO for COVID-19 lung failure and recipients requiring ECMO for non-COVID-19 restrictive lung failure (84.8% vs 78.0%, P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that lung transplant in patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure yields acceptable 1-year outcomes. Despite an often more complex postoperative course, prolonged ECMO pretransplant in well-selected patients was associated with adequate clinical and functional status.

Placement of Temporary Left Ventricular Assist Device Using Monitored Anesthesia Care and Regional Anesthesia.

Patients with advanced cardiogenic shock requiring mechanical circulatory support are uniquely susceptible to clinical deterioration. Limiting physiologic perturbations via avoidance of general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation by awake Impella 5.5 placement is safe and may represent a novel strategy in mechanical circulatory support initiation among patients in cardiogenic shock. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Effect of Anesthesia Induction on Cardiac Hemodynamics in Patients Undergoing Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: The EACH-LVAD Study.

Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction is common after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation leading to clinical right heart failure (RHF) associated with worsened survival and quality of life. It is likely that intraoperative events such as anesthesia induction play a role in the development or unmasking of RV dysfunction in addition to known effects from hemodynamic changes that occur after LVAD implantation. The EACH-LVAD Study is a prospective, single-center, single-arm, observational cohort study of adult patients with advanced heart failure undergoing durable LVAD implantation with standard anesthesia induction. Intraoperative RV hemodynamics via central venous pressure, mean pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary artery pulsatility index, and vasoactive-inotropic score (a simple weighted summation of standardized drug doses) and echocardiographic parameters (RV fractional area change, RV area in diastole, RV basal diameter, septum position, RV function, tricuspid regurgitation) were measured and compared at prespecified timepoints, including postinduction. Postoperative clinical RHF was determined based on published definitions. Forty-two patients receiving a first-time LVAD were included between September 2017 and March 2019. Propofol-based induction was used in 31 patients and etomidate-based induction in eight patients. A significant increase in central venous pressure (CVP; p < 0.001), mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP; p < 0.001), and vasoactive inotropic score (VIS; p < 0.001) with associated decrease in pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi; p < 0.001) was observed. Right ventricular function worsened throughout. Right heart failure occurred in 70% of patients. Propofol-based induction was not associated with a higher risk of RHF (relative risk [RR], 1.01 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.64-1.61]). The EACH-LVAD study demonstrates an effect of anesthesia induction on worsened RV hemodynamics and echocardiographic changes which may have an effect on the development of RHF.

Decreased survival of simultaneous heart-kidney transplant recipients in the new heart allocation era.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) modified their heart allocation policy to reduce waitlist mortality. The rates of simultaneous heart-kidney transplant (SHKT) have dramatically increased in recent years, despite increased rates of posttransplant renal failure in the new policy era. This study sought to investigate the impact of the new allocation system on waitlist and posttransplant outcomes of simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation. METHODS: Adult patients listed for SHKT between 2012 and 2021 were included. Patients were cross-validated across both Thoracic and Kidney UNOS databases to confirm accurate listing and transplant data. Patients were stratified according to listing era. The Fine and Gray model was used to assess waitlist outcomes and posttransplant renal graft function. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used to compare posttransplant survival. RESULTS: A total of 2,588 patients were included, of whom 1,406 (54.1%) were listed between 2012 and 2018 (era 1) and 1,182 (45.9%) between 2019 and 2021 (era 2). Era 2 was associated with increased likelihood of transplant (adjusted Sub-hazard ratios (aSHR): 1.52; p < 0.01) and decreased waitlist mortality (aSHR: 0.63; p < 0.01). Posttransplant survival at 2 years was decreased in era 2 (78.8% vs 86.9%; p < 0.01). Undersized hearts (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.02; p < 0.01), use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (HR: 2.67; p < 0.1), and transplants performed following the policy change (HR: 1.45; p = 0.03) were associated with increased mortality. Actuarial survival (combined waitlist and posttransplant) was significantly lower in the modern era (71.6% vs 62.2%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The allocation policy change has improved waitlist outcomes in patients listed for SHKT but potentially at the cost of worsened posttransplant outcomes.

Emerging Racial Differences in Heart Transplant Waitlist Outcomes for Patients on Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) is increasingly used for patients awaiting heart transplantation. Although examples of systemic inequity in cardiac care have been described, biases in tMCS use are not well characterized. This study explores the racial disparities in tMCS use and waitlist outcomes. The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify adults listed for first-time heart transplantation from 2015 to 2021. White and non-White patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, intra-aortic balloon pump, or temporary left ventricular assist device were identified. Waitlist outcomes of mortality, transplantation, and delisting were analyzed by race using competing risks regression. The effect of the new heart allocation system was also assessed. A total of 16,811 patients were included in this study, with 10,377 self-identifying as White and 6,434 as non-White. White patients were more often male, privately ensured, and had less co-morbidities (p <0.05). tMCS use was found to be significantly higher in non-White patients (p <0.001). Among those on tMCS, non-White patients were more likely to be delisted because of illness (subhazard ratio 1.34 [1.09 to 1.63]) and less likely to die while on the waitlist (subhazard ratio 0.76 [0.61 to 0.93]). This disparity was not present before the implementation of the new heart allocation system. tMCS use was proportional to the risk factors identified in the non-White cohort. After the implementation of the new heart allocation system, White patients were more likely to die, whereas non-White patients were more likely to be delisted. Further work is needed to determine the causes of and potential solutions for disparities in the waitlist outcomes.

Outcomes of COVID-19-Positive Donor Heart Transplantation in the United States.

Background Little is known regarding the impact of donor COVID-19 status on recipient outcomes after heart transplantation. In this study, we characterize outcomes of the first 110 heart transplants from organ donors positive for COVID-19 (COVID-19+) in the United States. Methods and Results Retrospective analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database was performed for single-organ adult heart transplants from January 2020 to March 2022. Donor COVID-19+ status was defined as a positive nucleic acid amplification, antigen, or other COVID-19 test within 7 days of transplant. Nearest-neighbor propensity score matching used to adjust for differences between recipients of COVID-19+ and nonpositive donor hearts. Overall, 7251 heart transplants were included in analysis, with 110 using COVID-19+ donor hearts. Recipients of COVID-19+ allografts were younger (54 [interquartile range, 41-61]) versus 57 [46-64] years; P=0.02) but had similar rates of female sex and non-White race compared with those receiving allografts from negative donors. Nearest-neighbor propensity score matching resulted in 100 well-matched pairs of recipients of COVID-19+ versus nonpositive donor organs. The 2 matched groups had similar median lengths of stay (15 [11-23] days versus 15 [13-23] days; P=0.40), rates of graft failure (1% versus 0%; P=0.99), 30-day death (3% versus 3%; P=0.99), and 3-month survival (88% versus 94%; P=0.23) compared with recipients of nonpositive donors. No deaths occurred due to COVID-19 infection among the 8 (7%) total deceased recipients of COVID-19+ allografts to date. Conclusions Short-term outcomes of heart transplant recipients receiving COVID-19+ donor organs are reassuring. However, continued monitoring for long-term survival and potential complications are warranted.

Comparison of Intraaortic Balloon Pump and Impella 5.5 as Heart Transplant Bridging Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Temporary mechanical circulatory support is increasingly utilized as a bridge to heart transplantation. The Impella 5.5 (Abiomed) has achieved anecdotal success as a bridge since receiving US Food and Drug Administration approval. The purpose of the current study was to compare waitlist and posttransplant outcomes of patients bridged with intraaortic balloon pumps (IABPs) to those receiving Impella 5.5 therapy. METHODS: Patients listed for heart transplantation between October 2018 and December 2021 who received IABP or Impella 5.5 at any time during waitlist course were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Propensity-matched groups of recipients with each device were created. Competing-risks regression for mortality, transplantation, and removal from waitlist for illness was performed according to the method of Fine and Gray. Posttransplant survival was censored at 2 years. RESULTS: Overall, 2936 patients were identified, of whom 2484 (85%) were supported with IABP and 452 (15%) received Impella 5.5. Patients with Impella 5.5 support had more functional impairment, higher wedge pressures, higher rates of preoperative diabetes and dialysis, and more ventilator support (all P < .05). Waitlist mortality was significantly worsened in the Impella group and transplantation was less frequent (P < .001). However, survival at 2 years after transplant was similar in both complete (90% vs 90%, P = .693) and propensity-matched cohorts (88% vs 83%, P = .874). CONCLUSIONS: Patients bridged with Impella 5.5 were sicker than IABP-bridged patients and less frequently transplanted; however, posttransplant outcomes were similar in propensity-matched cohorts. The role of these bridging strategies in patients listed for heart transplantation should be continually assessed with future allocation system changes.