Increasing Utilization of Extended Criteria Donor Hearts for Transplantation: The OCS Heart EXPAND Trial.

BACKGROUND: Extended criteria donor (ECD) hearts available with donation after brain death (DBD) are underutilized for transplantation due to limitations of cold storage. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated use of an extracorporeal perfusion system on donor heart utilization and post-transplant outcomes in ECD DBD hearts. METHODS: In this prospective, single-arm, multicenter study, adult heart transplant recipients received ECD hearts using an extracorporeal perfusion system if hearts met study criteria. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day survival and absence of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD). Secondary outcomes were donor heart utilization rate, 30-day survival, and incidence of severe PGD. The safety outcome was the mean number of heart graft-related serious adverse events within 30 days. Additional outcomes included survival through 2 years benchmarked to concurrent nonrandomized control subjects. RESULTS: A total of 173 ECD DBD hearts were perfused; 150 (87%) were successfully transplanted; 23 (13%) did not meet study transplantation criteria. At 30 days, 92% of patients had survived and had no severe PGD. The 30-day survival was 97%, and the incidence of severe PGD was 6.7%. The mean number of heart graft-related serious adverse events within 30 days was 0.17 (95% CI: 0.11-0.23). Patient survival was 93%, 89%, and 86% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, and was comparable with concurrent nonrandomized control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Use of an extracorporeal perfusion system resulted in successfully transplanting 87% of donor hearts with excellent patient survival to 2 years post-transplant and low rates of severe PGD. The ability to safely use ECD DBD hearts could substantially increase the number of heart transplants and expand access to patients in need. (International EXPAND Heart Pivotal Trial [EXPANDHeart]; NCT02323321; Heart EXPAND Continued Access Protocol; NCT03835754).

Heart transplantation in patients from socioeconomically distressed communities.

BACKGROUND: Studies examining heart transplantation disparities have focused on individual factors such as race or insurance status. We characterized the impact of a composite community socioeconomic disadvantage index on heart transplantation outcomes. METHODS: From the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR), we identified 49,340 primary, isolated adult heart transplant candidates and 32,494 recipients (2005-2020). Zip code-level socioeconomic disadvantage was characterized using the Distressed Community Index (DCI: 0-most prosperous, 100-most distressed) based on education, poverty, unemployment, housing vacancies, median income, and business growth. Patients from distressed communities (DCI ≥ 80) were compared to all others. RESULTS: Patients from distressed communities were more often non-white, less educated, and had public insurance (all p < 0.01). Distressed patients were more likely to require ventricular assist devices at listing (29.4 vs 27.1%) and before transplant (44.8 vs 42.0%, both p < 0.001), and they underwent transplants at lower-volume centers (23 vs 26 cases/year, p < 0.01). Distressed patients had higher 1-year waitlist mortality or deterioration (12.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.6-13.0] vs 10.9% [95% CI 10.5-11.3]) and inferior 5-year survival (75.3% [95% CI 74.0-76.5] vs 79.5% [95% CI 79.0-80.0]) (both p < 0.001). After adjustment, living in a distressed community was independently associated with an increased risk of waitlist mortality or deterioration hazard ratio (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.18) and post-transplant mortality (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Patients from socioeconomically distressed communities have worse waitlist and post-transplant mortality. These findings should not be used to limit access to heart transplantation, but rather highlight the need for further studies to elucidate mechanisms underlying the impact of community-level socioeconomic disparity.

Transplantation Outcomes with Donor Hearts after Circulatory Death.

BACKGROUND: Data showing the efficacy and safety of the transplantation of hearts obtained from donors after circulatory death as compared with hearts obtained from donors after brain death are limited. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, noninferiority trial in which adult candidates for heart transplantation were assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive a heart after the circulatory death of the donor or a heart from a donor after brain death if that heart was available first (circulatory-death group) or to receive only a heart that had been preserved with the use of traditional cold storage after the brain death of the donor (brain-death group). The primary end point was the risk-adjusted survival at 6 months in the as-treated circulatory-death group as compared with the brain-death group. The primary safety end point was serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients underwent transplantation; 90 (assigned to the circulatory-death group) received a heart donated after circulatory death and 90 (regardless of group assignment) received a heart donated after brain death. A total of 166 transplant recipients were included in the as-treated primary analysis (80 who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor and 86 who received a heart from a brain-death donor). The risk-adjusted 6-month survival in the as-treated population was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88 to 99) among recipients of a heart from a circulatory-death donor, as compared with 90% (95% CI, 84 to 97) among recipients of a heart from a brain-death donor (least-squares mean difference, -3 percentage points; 90% CI, -10 to 3; P<0.001 for noninferiority [margin, 20 percentage points]). There were no substantial between-group differences in the mean per-patient number of serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, risk-adjusted survival at 6 months after transplantation with a donor heart that had been reanimated and assessed with the use of extracorporeal nonischemic perfusion after circulatory death was not inferior to that after standard-care transplantation with a donor heart that had been preserved with the use of cold storage after brain death. (Funded by TransMedics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03831048.).

Successful Reuse of a Donor Heart.

At a time when transplantable organs are in a shortage, few cases have noted the reuse of donor hearts in a second recipient in an effort to expand the donor network. Here, we present a case in which an O Rh-positive donor heart was first transplanted into a B Rh-positive recipient and later successfully retransplanted into a second O Rh-positive recipient 10 days after the initial transplant at the same medical center. On postoperative day 1, the first recipient, a 21-year-old man with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, sustained a devastating cerebrovascular accident with progression to brain death. With preserved left ventricle and mildly depressed right ventricle function, the heart was allocated to the second recipient, a 63-year-old male patient with familial restrictive cardiomyopathy. The bicaval technique was used, and the total ischemic time was 100 minutes. His postoperative course was uncomplicated with no evidence of rejection on 3 endomyocardial biopsies. Follow-up transthoracic echocardiogram revealed a left ventricular ejection fraction of 60% to 70%. Seven months posttransplant, the second recipient was doing well with appropriate left and right ventricular function. With careful organ selection, short ischemic time, and proper postoperative care, retransplant of donor hearts may be an option for select patients in need of heart transplant.

Three year post heart transplant outcomes of desensitized durable mechanical circulatory support patients.

BACKGROUND: The risks and benefits of desensitization therapy (DST) in highly sensitized mechanical circulatory support (MCS) patients are not well known. We investigated 3 year post-transplant outcomes of desensitized durable MCS patients. METHODS: Among 689 consecutively enrolled heart transplantation recipients between 2010 and 2016, we categorized them into Group A (desensitized MCS patients, n = 21), Group B (desensitized non-MCS patients, n = 28) and Group C (all nondesensitized patients, n = 640). Post-transplant outcomes included the incidence of primary graft dysfunction, 3-year survival, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events, any treated rejection, acute cellular rejection, antibody mediated rejection (AMR) and infectious complications. RESULTS: The types of DST in Groups A and B were similar and included combinations of rituximab/intravenous immunoglobulin and plasmapheresis/bortezomib. Group A, compared with Group B, showed significantly higher pre-DST panel reactive antibody (PRA) (92.2 ± 9.8 vs. 83.3 ± 15.6, P = 0.007) and higher PRA reduction after DST (-22.2 ± 26.9 vs. -6.3 ± 7.5, P = 0.015). Groups A and C showed comparable primary graft dysfunction, 3-year survival, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events, any treated rejection, acute cellular rejection, and AMR. Although statistically not significant, Group A showed numerically higher 3-year freedom from AMR than Group B. Infectious complications were similar in both Groups A and B. CONCLUSIONS: DST for MCS patients showed significant PRA reduction, resulting in an expansion of the donor pool. The post-transplant outcome of desensitized MCS patients showed comparable clinical outcomes to non-desensitized control patients in the same study period, revealing the safety and efficacy of DST.

Simultaneous heart-kidney transplant in patients with borderline estimated glomerular filtration rate without dialysis dependency.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate patient selection for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation (sHK) in patients with moderate renal dysfunction remains challenging. METHODS: From the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2003-2020), we identified 5678 adults with an estimated pre-transplant glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between 30 and 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 and no pre-transplant dialysis. Patients undergoing sHK (n = 293) were compared with those undergoing heart transplantation alone (n = 5385) using 1:3 propensity score matching. RESULTS: The sHK utilization rate increased from 1.8% in 2003 to 12.2% in 2020 (p < .001). After matching, 1 and 5-year survival was 87.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83.3-91.0) and 80.0% (95% CI 74.2-84.6) after sHK, and 87.3% (95% CI 85.2-89.1) and 71.8% (95% CI 68.4-74.9) after heart transplant alone (p = .04). In the subgroup analysis, sHK was associated with a 5-year survival benefit only in patients with 30 < eGFR ≤ 35 mL/min/1.73 m2 (p = .05) but not in those with 35 < eGFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (p = .45). Patients who underwent heart transplants alone also had a higher incidence of becoming chronic dialysis-dependent after transplant within 5-year follow-up (10.2%, 95% CI 8.0-12.6 vs. 3.8%, 95% CI 1.7-7.1, p = .004). The 5-year incidence of subsequent kidney waitlisting and transplants after heart transplants alone was 5.6% and 1.9%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Among propensity-matched patients without pre-transplant dialysis, compared to heart transplants alone, sHK had improved 5-year survival in those with 30 < eGFR ≤ 35 but not in those with 35 < eGFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 . One-year survival was similar irrespective of eGFR. Receiving a kidney after a heart transplant alone is rare under the current allocation system.

Heart retransplant recipients with renal dysfunction benefit from simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Given ongoing donor shortages, appropriate patient selection for dual-organ transplantation is critical. We evaluated outcomes of heart retransplant with simultaneous kidney transplant (HRT-KT) vs isolated heart retransplant (HRT) across varying levels of renal dysfunction. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database identified 1189 adult patients undergoing heart retransplantation between 2005 and 2020. Recipients undergoing HRT-KT (n = 251) were compared to those undergoing HRT (n = 938). The primary outcome was 5-year survival; subgroup analyses and multivariable adjustment were performed utilizing the following 3 estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) groups: <30 ml/min/1.73m2, 30-45 ml/min/1.73m2, and >45 ml/min/1.73m2. RESULTS: HRT-KT recipients were older and had longer waitlist times, longer inter-transplant periods, and lower eGFR levels. HRT-KT recipients were less likely to require pretransplant ventilator (1.2% vs 9.0%, p < 0.001) or ECMO (2.0% vs 8.3%, p < 0.001) support but were more likely to have severe functional limitation (63.4% vs 52.6%, p = 0.001). After retransplantation, HRT-KT recipients had less treated acute rejection (5.2% vs 9.3%, p = 0.02) and more dialysis requirement (29.1% vs 20.2%, p < 0.001) before discharge. Survival at 5-years was 69.1% after HRT and 80.5% after HRT-KT (p < 0.001). After adjustment, HRT-KT was associated with improved 5-year survival among recipients with eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73m2 (HR:0.42, 95% CI: 0.26-0.67) and 30 to 45 ml/min/1.73m2 (HR:0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.65), but not among those with eGFR>45 ml/min/1.73sm2 (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.30-1.54). CONCLUSION: Simultaneous kidney transplantation is associated with improved survival following heart retransplantation in patients with eGFR <45 ml/min/1.73m2 and should be strongly considered to optimize organ allocation stewardship.

The impact of thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion on early outcomes in donation after circulatory death lung transplantation.

Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion has emerged as an alternative method to procure donation after circulatory death (DCD) hearts, but its impact on concomitantly procured lung allografts remains unclear. The United Network for Organ Sharing database identified 627 DCD donors whose hearts were procured (211 in situ perfused, 416 directly procured) between December 2019 to December 2022. Lung utilization rates were 14.9% (63/422) for in situ perfused donors and 13.8% (115/832) for directly procured donors (p = 0.80). Following transplantation, lung recipients from in situ perfused donors required numerically lower rates of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (7.7% vs 17.0%, p = 0.26) and mechanical ventilation (34.6% vs 47.2%, p = 0.29) at 72 hours. Six-month post-transplant survival was similar between groups (85.7% vs 89.1%, p = 0.67). These results suggest that the use of thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion in DCD heart procurement may not adversely impact recipients of concomitantly procured lung allografts.

Donation after circulatory death heart procurement strategy impacts utilization and outcomes of concurrently procured abdominal organs.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart procurement techniques on the utilization and outcomes of concurrently procured DCD livers and kidneys remains unclear. METHODS: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we identified 246 DCD donors whose heart was procured using direct procurement and ex-situ machine perfusion and 128 DCD donors whose heart was procured using in-situ thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (12/2019-03/2022). We evaluated the transplantation rate of concurrently procured DCD livers and kidneys (defined as the number of organs transplanted/total number of organs available for procurement) and their post-transplant outcomes. RESULTS: The transplantation rate of concurrently procured DCD livers was higher with in-situ perfusion compared to direct procurement (67.1% vs 56.5%, p = 0.045). After excluding pediatric, multiorgan, and repeat transplant recipients, there was no difference in 6-month liver graft failure rate (direct procurement 0.9% vs in-situ perfusion 0%, p > 0.99). Recipients of kidneys procured with in-situ perfusion had less delayed graft function (11.3% vs 41.5%, p < 0.0001) shorter length of stay, and lower serum creatinine at discharge (both p < 0.05). Six-month recipient survival in the direct procurement and in-situ perfusion group were similar after DCD liver and kidney transplantation (p = 0.24 and 0.79 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to direct procurement, DCD heart procurement with in-situ thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion was associated with increased utilization of DCD livers and a lower incidence of delayed graft function in concurrently procured DCD kidneys. Broader implementation of DCD heart transplantation must maximize the transplant potential of concurrently procured abdominal organs and ensure their successful outcomes.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes.

Patients with cardiogenic shock may require stabilization with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) to assess candidacy for definitive therapy, including heart transplantation (HTx) or durable MCS, and/or maintain stability while on the HTx waiting list. We describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock who underwent intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) vs. Impella [Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA] placement at a high-volume advanced heart failure center. We assessed patients ≥ 18 years who received IABP or Impella support for cardiogenic shock from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021. Ninety patients were included, 59 (65.6%) with IABP and 31 (34.4%) with Impella. Impella was used more frequently in less stable patients, as evidenced by higher inotrope scores, greater ventilator support, and worse renal function. While patients on Impella support had higher in-hospital mortality, despite the worse cardiogenic shock in patients for whom clinicians chose Impella support, over 75% were successfully stabilized to recovery or transplantation. Clinicians elect Impella support over IABP for less stable patients, though a high proportion are successfully stabilized. These findings demonstrate the heterogeneity of the cardiogenic shock patient population and may inform future trials to assess the role of different tMCS devices.

Heart transplantation for COVID-19 myopathy in the United States.

Evidence on characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing heart transplantation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated cardiomyopathy is limited to case reports. Of all 6,332 patients aged ≥18 years undergoing heart transplantation from July 2020 through May 2022 in the United Network for Organ Sharing database, 12 (0.2%) patients had COVID-19 myocarditis and 98 (1.6%) patients with the same level of care had non-COVID-19 myocarditis. Their median age was 49 (range 19-74) years. All patients were hospitalized in the intensive care unit and 92.7% (n = 102) were on life support prior to transplantation. No patients with COVID-19 myocarditis required ventilation while waitlisted. Survival free from graft failure was 100% among COVID-19 patients and 88.5% among non-COVID-19 patients at a median of 257 (range 0-427) days post-transplant. These findings indicate that transplantation is rarely performed for COVID-19 related cardiomyopathy in the United States, yet early outcomes appear favorable in select patients.

Evaluating age-based eligibility thresholds for heart re-transplantation - an analysis of the united network for organ sharing database.

BACKGROUND: Risk-adjusted survival after late heart re-transplantation may be comparable to primary transplant, but the efficacy of re-transplantation in older candidates is not established. We evaluated outcomes after heart re-transplantation in recipients > 60 years. METHODS: We identified 1026 adult patients undergoing isolated heart re-transplantation between 2003 and 2020 from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Older recipients (> 60 years, n=177) were compared to younger recipients (≤ 60 years, n=849). Five and ten-year post-transplant survival was estimated using the Kalpan-Meier method and adjusted with multivariable Cox models. RESULTS: Older recipients were more likely to be male and have diabetes or previous malignancies with higher baseline creatinine. They also more frequently required pre-transplant ECMO (11.9% vs. 6.8%, p=0.02) and received re-transplantation due to primary graft failure (13.6% vs. 8.5%, p=0.03). After the transplant, older recipients had a higher incidence of stroke (6.8% vs. 2.6%, p=0.01) and dialysis requirements (20.3% vs. 13.2%) before discharge (both p<0.05), and more frequently died from malignancy-related causes (16.3% vs. 3.9%, p<0.001). After adjustment, recipient age >60 was associated with an increased risk of both 5-year (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02-2.01, p=0.04) and 10-year mortality (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.20-2.45, p=0.003). Restricted cubic spline showed a non-linear relationship between recipient age and 10-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Heart re-transplantation in recipients > 60 years has inferior outcomes compared to younger recipients. Strict patient selection and close follow-up are warranted to ensure the appropriate utilization of donor hearts and to improve long-term outcomes.

Experience With SynCardia Total Artificial Heart as a Bridge to Transplantation in 100 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The SynCardia temporary total artificial heart (TAH-t) is an effective bridge to transplantation for patients with severe biventricular failure. However, granular single-center data from high-volume centers are lacking. We report our experience with the first 100 TAH-t recipients. METHODS: A prospective institutional database was used to identify 100 patients who underwent 101 TAH-t implantations between 2012 and 2022. Patients were stratified and compared according to Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile 1 vs 2 or greater. Median follow-up on device support was 94 days (interquartile range, 33-276), and median follow-up after transplantation was 4.6 years (interquartile range, 2.1-6.0). RESULTS: Overall, 61 patients (61%) were successfully bridged to transplantation and 39 (39%) died on TAH-t support. Successful bridge rates between INTERMACS profile 1 and INTERMACS profile 2 or greater patients were similar (55.6% [95% CI, 40.4%-68.3%] vs 67.4% [95% CI, 50.5%-79.6%], respectively; P = .50). The most common adverse events (rates per 100 patient-months) on TAH-t support included infection (15.8), ischemic stroke (4.6), reoperation for mediastinal bleeding (3.5), and gastrointestinal bleeding requiring intervention (4.3). The most common cause of death on TAH-t support was multisystem organ failure (n = 20, 52.6%). Thirty-day survival after transplantation was 96.7%; survival at 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years after transplantation was 95.1% (95% CI, 85.4%-98.4%), 86.6% (95% CI, 74.9%-93.0%), and 77.5% (95% CI, 64.2%-86.3%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptable outcomes can be achieved in the highest acuity patients using the TAH-t as a bridge to heart transplantation.

The impact of the United Network of Organ Sharing allocation change on waitlist trajectories of inpatients listed with inotropic support: A single-center analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation scheme prior to October 18, 2018, heart transplant (HTx) candidates with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS), or pulmonary artery (PA) catheter inotropic support all received Status 1A priority. In revised scheme, patients with PA catheter and inotropic support are Status 3 after those on ECMO (Status 1) or temporary MCS (Status 2). We examined the impact of the allocation change on HTx candidates listed Status 1A versus Status 3 at a high-volume transplant center. METHODS: Between January 2017 and January 2021, 75 patients were listed with a PA catheter and inotropic support prior to the allocation change (Era 1) and 48 were listed after (Era 2). Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared for these 123 patients. RESULTS: Heart transplant (HTx) candidates in Era 2 had higher median inotrope doses at listing. There was no significant difference in inpatient wait list days (12 vs. 20 days, P = .15), transition to temporary MCS (33.3% vs. 22.7%, P = .15), or wait list mortality (6.3% vs. 4.0%, P = .68). There was also no significant difference in survival to transplantation (91.7% vs. 94.7%, P = .71). There were no differences in post-transplant outcomes including 1-year survival (88.6% vs. 93.0%, P = .38). CONCLUSION: At a high-volume transplant center, the UNOS allocation change did not result in increased wait list time, use of temporary MCS, or mortality on the waitlist or post-transplant for candidates on inotropic support with continuous hemodynamic monitoring.

Trainee experience on ischemic times and outcomes following orthotopic heart transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the association of surgical training on outcomes following orthotopic heart transplantation in all levels of cardiothoracic surgery fellows. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on all heart transplants at a single institution from 2011 to 2020. Transplants performed using organ preservation systems (n = 10) or with significant missing data were excluded (n = 37), resulting in 154 transplants performed by faculty surgeons and 799 total transplants performed by first-year Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education fellows (n = 73), second-year Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education fellows (n = 124), or non-Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education fellows (n = 602) in a transplantation and mechanical circulatory support fellowship. Primary outcome was warm ischemic time analyzed by year of fellowship. Additional secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, primary graft dysfunction, reoperation for bleeding, and 5-year survival. Median follow-up was 3 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.0-5.5 years) and 100% complete. RESULTS: The median number of transplants performed was 30 (IQR, 19.5-51.8) during the study period performed by 22 trainees. Baseline transplant characteristics performed were similar amongst the trainee years, although the first-year Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education fellows approached significantly fewer re-do transplants (1.4% vs 8.1% and 4.3%; P = .07). Warm ischemic time was lower in the first-year fellows (49 minutes; IQR, 42-63 minutes) versus second-year fellows (56.5 minutes; IQR, 45.5-69 minutes) and mechanical circulatory support/transplant fellows (56 minutes; IQR, 46-67 minutes) (P = .028). Crossclamp time was also lower in the first-year fellows than in second-year and mechanical circulatory support/transplant fellows, respectively (79 minutes; IQR, 65-100 minutes vs 147 minutes; IQR, 125-176 minutes and 143 minutes; IQR, 119-175 minutes) (P = .008). Secondary outcomes, including 30-day mortality (4.1% [n = 3] vs 2.4% [n = 3] vs 2.7% [n = 16]; P = .76), primary graft dysfunction (5.5% [n = 4] vs 4.0% [n = 5] vs 4.3% [n = 26]; P = .88), reoperation for bleeding (2.7% [n = 2] vs 4.8% [n = 6] vs 4.2% [n = 25]; P = .78), and 5-year survival (82.2%; 95% CI, 66.7%-84.9% vs 77.3%; 95% CI, 66.7%-84.9% vs 79.3%; 95% CI, 74.9%-83.1%; P = .84) were comparable in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort of nearly 800 operations demonstrates that orthotopic heart transplantation may be performed by cardiac fellowship trainees all levels of training with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes.

Temporary Left Ventricular Support Device as a Bridge to Heart-Liver or Heart-Kidney Transplant: Pushing the Boundaries of Temporary Support.

In patients with severe cardiogenic shock, temporary mechanical circulatory support has become a viable strategy to bridge patients to heart transplantation. However, end-stage heart failure is often associated with progressive organ dysfunction of the liver or kidney. This can require a dual organ transplant for definitive management (combined heart-liver [HL] or heart-kidney [HK] transplantation). We evaluated temporary mechanical support to bridge patients to HL or HK transplant at a single, high-volume center. All patients who underwent Impella 5.0 placement from January 2014 to October 2018 were identified. From this dataset, patients who underwent placement as a bridge to dual organ transplant were selected, as were those who underwent Impella as a bridge to isolated heart transplant. Over the 5 years of evaluation, 104 patients underwent Impella 5.0 placement. Of these, 14.3% (n = 15) were identified as potential dual organ recipients (11 HK, 4 HL). In total, 80% (12/15) successfully underwent dual organ transplant (8 HK, 4 HL), with a 1-year survival of 100% in both transplanted groups. Among patients undergoing Impella 5.0 placement as a bridge to isolated heart transplant (n = 33), 78.8% (26) were successfully bridged, and 1-year survival was 92% after transplantation. Impella 5.0 is a viable bridge to dual organ transplantation and should be considered as a management strategy in these complex patients at experienced institutions.

Heart transplantation using donation after circulatory death in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Heart donation after circulatory death was recently reintroduced in the United States with hopes of increasing donor heart availability. We examined its national use and outcomes. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify validated adult patients undergoing heart transplantation using donation after circulatory death donors (n = 266) and donation after brain death donors (n = 5998) between December 1, 2019, and December 31, 2021, after excluding heart-lung transplants. Propensity score matching was used to create more balanced groups for comparison. RESULTS: The monthly percentage of donation after circulatory death heart transplant increased from 2.5% in December 2019 to 6.8% in December 2021 (P < .001). Twenty-two centers performed donation after circulatory death heart transplants, ranging from 1 to 75 transplants per center. Four centers performed 70% of the national volume. Recipients of donation after circulatory death hearts were more likely to be clinically stable (80.4% vs 41.1% in status 3-6, P < .001), to have type O blood (58.3% vs 39.9%, P < .001), and to wait longer after listing (55, interquartile range, 15-180 days vs 32, interquartile range, 9-160 days, P = .003). Six-month survival was 92.1% (95% confidence interval, 91.3-92.8) after donation after brain death heart transplants and 92.6% (95% confidence interval, 88.1-95.4) after donation after circulatory death heart transplants (hazard ratio, 0.94, 95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.54, P = .79). Outcomes in propensity-matched patients were similar except for higher rates of treated acute rejection in donation after circulatory death transplants before discharge (14.4% vs 8.8%, P = .01). In donation after circulatory death heart recipients, outcomes did not differ based on the procurement technique (normothermic regional perfusion vs direct procurement and perfusion). CONCLUSIONS: Heart transplantation with donation after circulatory death donors has short-term survival comparable to donation after brain death transplants. Broader implementation could substantially increase donor organ availability.

Management of Rheumatic Mitral Stenosis With Annular Calcification During HeartMate 3 Implantation.

There is a lack of data-driven consensus on the treatment of mitral stenosis at the time of left ventricular assist device implantation. The presence of severe mitral annular calcification further complicates mitral valve intervention. This case report presents a 72-year-old woman with severe mitral stenosis and severe annular calcification with end-stage ischemic cardiomyopathy who underwent HeartMate 3 (Abbott Cardiovascular) implantation. The mitral valve pathology was successfully managed with concomitant open balloon valvuloplasty and surgical commissurotomy on a fibrillating heart without aortic cross-clamp. This approach avoided the need for mitral valve replacement and the potential risks associated with annular decalcification and reconstruction. Longer follow-up is needed to determine its effectiveness over time.

Heart Transplantation With Older Donors: Should There Be an Age Cutoff?

PURPOSE: Heart transplantation remains limited by donor availability. Currently, only some programs accept older donors, and their use remains contentious. We compared outcomes of heart transplant recipients who received donor hearts ≥55 years with those who received donor hearts <55 years. METHODS: Records of first-time adult heart transplant recipients between 2010 and 2019 were reviewed. Endpoints included 30-day and 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival; freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy; freedom from nonfatal major adverse cardiac events; and freedom from any rejections. The effect of donor age ≥55 years was analyzed with Cox proportional hazards modeling, 1:2 propensity score matching, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients received donor hearts ≥55 years and 766 received donor hearts <55 years. In the unmatched cohort, there was no significant difference in survival between the 2 groups at 30 days (93.9% vs 97.3%, P = .127), 1 year (87.9% vs 91.6%, P = .325), 3 years (86.4% vs 86.5%, P = .888), or 5 years (78.8% vs 83.8%, P = .497). The ≥55 years group had a significantly lower freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy and fatal major adverse cardiac events. In propensity-matched patients, recipients of donors ≥55 years had similar survival and freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy but significantly lower 1-year (76.7% vs 88.3%, P = .026), 3-year (68.3% vs 84.2%, P = .010), and 5-year (63.3% vs 83.3%, P = .002) freedom from nonfatal major adverse cardiac events when compared to recipients of younger donors. CONCLUSIONS: Carefully selected older donors can be considered for a carefully selected group of recipients with acceptable outcomes.

Characteristics and outcomes of heart transplant recipients with a pretransplant history of malignancy.

We aimed to investigate the characteristics and outcomes of HTx recipients with a history of pretransplant malignancy (PTM). Among 1062 HTx recipients between 1997 and 2013, 73 (7.1%) patients had PTMs (77 cancer cases). We analyzed post-HTx outcome, recurrence of PTM, and development of de novo malignancies. Post-HTx outcome included overall survival, 10-year survival, 10-year freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), non-fatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), any treated rejection (ATR), acute cellular rejection (ACR), and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Four most common PTMs were lymphoproliferative disorders (18.2%), prostate cancers (18.2%), non-melanoma skin cancers (18.2%), and breast cancers (13.0%). Median time from PTM and HTx was 9.0 years. During a median follow-up of 8.6 years after HTx, patients with PTM, compared to those without, showed significantly higher incidence of posttransplant malignancies (43.8% vs. 20.8%, p < .001) including 9.6% (n = 7) of PTM recurrences. However, patients with PTM, compared to those without, showed comparable overall survival, 10-year survival, 10-year freedom from CAV, NF-MACE, ATR, ACR, and AMR. Therefore, a history of PTM should not disqualify patients from HTx listing, while further research is necessary for early detection of posttransplant malignancies in these patients.