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.

Left atrial appendage closure during mitral repair in patients without atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: Routine left atrial appendage closure during mitral repair in patients without atrial fibrillation (AF) is controversial. We aimed to compare the incidence of stroke after mitral repair in patients without recent AF according to left atrial appendage closure. METHODS: An institutional registry identified 764 consecutive patients without recent AF, endocarditis, prior appendage closure, or stroke undergoing isolated robotic mitral repair between 2005 and 2020. Left atrial appendages were closed via left atriotomy using a double-layer continuous suture in 5.3% (15 out of 284) patients before 2014, versus 86.7% (416 out of 480) after 2014. The cumulative incidence of stroke (including transient ischemic attack) was determined using statewide hospital data. Median follow-up was 4.5 years (range, 0-16.6 years). RESULTS: Patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure were older (63 vs 57.5 years, P < .001), with higher prevalence of remote AF requiring cryomaze (9%, n = 40 vs 1%, n = 3, P < .001). After appendage closure there were fewer reoperations for bleeding (0.7% [n = 3] vs 3% [n = 10]; P = .02), and more AF (31.8% [n = 137] vs 25.2% [n = 84]; P = .047). Two-year freedom from >2+ mitral regurgitation was 97%. Six strokes and 1 transient ischemic attack occurred after appendage closure compared with 14 and 5 in patients without (P = .002), associated with a significant difference in 8-year cumulative incidence of stroke/transient ischemic attack (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.14-0.85; P = .02). This difference persisted in the sensitivity analysis, excluding patients undergoing concomitant cryomaze procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Routine left atrial appendage closure during mitral repair in patients without recent AF appears safe and was associated with a lower risk of subsequent stroke/transient ischemic attack.

Improved clinical outcomes associated with the Impella 5.5 compared to the Impella 5.0 in contemporary cardiogenic shock and heart failure patients.

A redesigned surgically implanted heart pump incorporates several design changes from the prior device generation, but no published comparative data demonstrate if these changes translate to improved outcomes. We retrospectively compared clinical characteristics and outcomes, drawn from an FDA-mandated QA database, for contemporary patients treated with the Impella 5.5 or Impella 5.0 for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS), cardiomyopathy, or postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS). A total of 1238 patients at 290 US sites were included for analysis. Patients receiving the Impella 5.5 had significantly higher survival through explant (i.e., successfully weaned or bridged to heart replacement therapy) than those receiving the Impella 5.0 in all 3 settings: AMICS (70.5% vs 56.8%; p = 0.005), cardiomyopathy (88.1% vs 76.9%; p = 0.001), and PCCS (76.1% vs 55.7%; p = 0.003). Duration of support was significantly longer for Impella 5.5 patients with AMICS (9.2 vs 6.1 days; p = 0.008) and cardiomyopathy (10.7 vs 8.1 days; p < 0.001).

Robot-Assisted Resection of Left Ventricular Papillary Fibroelastoma Arising From the Mitral Chordal Apparatus.

The application of robot-assisted thoracoscopy to cardiac surgery affords an opportunity to leverage the exceptional intraoperative exposure, visualization, and dexterity of the robotic platform. Here, we report the case of a 72-year-old woman who presented to our institution for evaluation of a left ventricular mass that was identified following workup for an embolic event. We present an intraoperative video that provides technical details of the robot-assisted resection of the lesion, which was found to be a left ventricular papillary fibroelastoma arising from the mitral chordal apparatus. This case highlights the advantages provided by the robotic platform, which permitted complete, minimally invasive surgical excision of the lesion while minimizing the burden of surgical trauma.

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 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.

Robotic degenerative mitral repair: Factors associated with intraoperative revision and impact of mild residual regurgitation.

OBJECTIVES: National registry data show wide variability in degenerative mitral repair rates and infrequent use of intraoperative repair revision to eliminate residual mitral regurgitation (MR). The consequence of uncorrected mild residual MR is also not clear. We identified factors associated with intraoperative revision of degenerative mitral repair and evaluated long-term effects of intraoperative mild residual MR. METHODS: A prospective institutional registry of 858 patients with degenerative MR undergoing robotic mitral surgery was linked to statewide databases. Univariate logistic regression identified factors associated with intraoperative repair revision. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and adjusted with Cox regression. Late freedom from more-than-moderate MR or reintervention was estimated with death as a competing risk. RESULTS: Repair rate was 99.3%. Repair was revised intraoperatively in 19 patients and was associated with anterior or bileaflet prolapse, adjunctive repair techniques, and annuloplasty band size (all P < .05). Intraoperative repair revision did not result in increased postoperative complications. Intraoperative mild residual MR (n = 111) was independently associated with inferior 8-year survival (hazard ratio, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.33-6.23), worse freedom from more than moderate MR (hazard ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.60-7.00), and worse freedom from mitral reintervention (hazard ratio, 6.40; 95% CI, 2.19-18.72) (all P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A near 100% repair rate with acceptable durability may be achieved safely with intraoperative revision of postrepair residual MR. Mild residual MR was independently associated with reduced survival, worse freedom from more-than-moderate MR, and worse freedom from mitral reintervention at 8-year follow-up.

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.

Characteristics, outcomes, and predictors of de novo malignancy after heart transplantation.

Background: Post-transplant malignancy (PTM) causes long-term morbidity and mortality in heart transplant (HTx) recipients. However, the detailed characteristics or predictors of PTM are not well-known. We evaluated the incidence, characteristics, long-term outcomes, and predictors of de novo PTM using a single center large-volume database. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the types and characteristics of de novo PTM in 989 patients who underwent HTx. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used for the PTM prediction model. Results: Two hundred and six patients (20.8%) had de novo PTMs (241 cancers) during a median follow-up of 11.5 years. PTM patients were older than non-PTM patients, received immunosuppressive therapy for a longer period, and were more likely to be male and white. Skin cancers were the most frequent types of malignancy (60.6%) followed by prostate (9.5%), lung (7.1%), and breast (4.1%) cancers. Although most cancers (88.8%) were surgically resected at initial presentation, about half (47.3%) recurred or progressed. Patients with skin cancer and non-skin cancer had significantly lower overall survival (P < 0.001) than patients without cancer. Older age (P < 0.001), white race (P = 0.001), and longer time receiving immunosuppressive therapy (P < 0.001) were independent predictors for PTM. Conclusion: Older age, white race, and longer administration of immunosuppressive therapies were independent risk factors for PTM, which was associated with increased mortality. Further research is necessary for the prevention and early detection of PTM in HTx recipients.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to durable mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cardiogenic shock may require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) prior to durable mechanical circulatory support (dMCS) or heart transplantation (HTx). METHODS: We investigated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of adult patients with ECMO support as bridge to dMCS or HTx between 1/1/13 and 12/31/20. RESULTS: Of 57 patients who underwent bridging ECMO, 41 (72%) received dMCS (approximately half with biventricular support) and 16 (28%) underwent HTx, 13 (81%) after the 2018 UNOS allocation system change. ECMO → HTx patients had shorter ventilatory time (3.5 vs 7.5 days; p = 0.018), ICU stay (6 vs 18 days; p = 0.001), and less need for inpatient rehabilitation (18.8% vs 57.5%; p = 0.016). The 1-year survival post HTx was 81.3% in the ECMO → HTx group and 86.4% in the ECMO → dMCS group (p = 0.11). For those patients in the ECMO → dMCS group who did not undergo HTx, 1-year survival was significantly lower, 31.6% (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients on ECMO who undergo HTx, with or without dMCS bridge, have acceptable post-HTx survival. These findings suggest that HTx from ECMO is a viable option for carefully selected patients deemed acceptable to proceed with definitive advanced therapies, especially in the era of the new UNOS allocation system.

Heart transplant recipient 1-year outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic initially brought forth considerable challenges to the field of heart transplantation. To prevent the spread of the virus and protect immunocompromised recipients, our center made the following modifications to post-transplant outpatient management: eliminating early coronary angiograms, video visits for postoperative months 7, 9, and 11, and home blood draws for immunosuppression adjustments. To assess if these changes have impacted patient outcomes, the current study examines 1-year outcomes for patients transplanted during the pandemic. Between March and September 2020, we assessed 50 heart transplant patients transplanted during the pandemic. These patients were compared to patients who were transplanted during the same months between 2011 and 2019 (n = 482). Endpoints included subsequent 1-year survival, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy, any-treated rejection, acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), and hospital and ICU length of stay. Patients transplanted during the pandemic had similar 1-year endpoints compared to those of patients transplanted from years prior apart from 1-year freedom from NF-MACE which was significantly higher for patients transplanted during the pandemic. Despite necessary changes being made to outpatient management of heart transplant recipients, heart transplantation continues to be safe and effective with similar 1-year outcomes to years prior.

Long-term outcomes after heart transplantation using ex vivo allograft perfusion in standard risk donors: A single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: The Organ Care System (OCS) is an ex vivo perfusion platform for donor heart preservation. Short/mid-term post-transplant outcomes after its use are comparable to standard cold storage (CS). We evaluated long-term outcomes following its use. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2013, 38 patients from a single center were randomized as a part of the PROCEED II trial to receive allografts preserved with CS (n = 19) or OCS (n = 19). Endpoints included 8-year survival, survival free from graft-related deaths, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), non-fatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), and rejections. RESULTS: Eight-year survival was 57.9% in the OCS group and 73.7% in the CS group (p = .24). Freedom from CAV was 89.5% in the OCS group and 67.8% in the CS group (p = .13). Freedom from NF-MACE was 89.5% in the OCS group and 67.5% in the CS group (p = .14). Eight-year survival free from graft-related death was equivalent between the two groups (84.2% vs. 84.2%, p = .93). No differences in rejection episodes were observed (all p > .5). CONCLUSIONS: In select patients receiving OCS preserved allografts, late post-transplant survival trended lower than those transplanted with an allograft preserved with CS. This is based on a small single-center series, and larger numbers are needed to confirm these findings.