Early Outcomes in Patients With LVAD Undergoing Heart Transplant via Use of the SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System.

BACKGROUND: Heart transplant (HT) in recipients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is associated with poor early post-HT outcomes, including primary graft dysfunction (PGD). As complicated heart explants in recipients with LVADs may produce longer ischemic times, innovations in donor heart preservation may yield improved post-HT outcomes. The SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System is an organ preservation technology that maintains donor heart temperatures between 4 °C and 8 °C, which may minimize ischemic and cold-induced graft injuries. This analysis sought to identify whether the use of SherpaPak versus traditional cold storage was associated with differential outcomes among patients with durable LVAD undergoing HT. METHODS: Global Utilization and Registry Database for Improved Heart Preservation-Heart (NCT04141605) is a multicenter registry assessing post-HT outcomes comparing 2 methods of donor heart preservation: SherpaPak versus traditional cold storage. A retrospective review of all patients with durable LVAD who underwent HT was performed. Outcomes assessed included rates of PGD, post-HT mechanical circulatory support use, and 30-day and 1-year survival. RESULTS: SherpaPak (n=149) and traditional cold storage (n=178) patients had similar baseline characteristics. SherpaPak use was associated with reduced PGD (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.99]; P=0.045) and severe PGD (adjusted odds ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.75]; P=0.009), despite an increased total ischemic time in the SherpaPak group. Propensity matched analysis also noted a trend toward reduced intensive care unit (SherpaPak 7.5±6.4 days versus traditional cold storage 11.3±18.8 days; P=0.09) and hospital (SherpaPak 20.5±11.9 days versus traditional cold storage 28.7±37.0 days; P=0.06) lengths of stay. The 30-day and 1-year survival was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: SherpaPak use was associated with improved early post-HT outcomes among patients with LVAD undergoing HT. This innovation in preservation technology may be an option for HT candidates at increased risk for PGD. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04141605.

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).

Acute rejection in donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplants.

BACKGROUND: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplantation has promising early survival, but the effects on rejection remain unclear. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for adult heart transplants from December 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. Multiorgan transplants and loss to follow-up were excluded. The primary outcome was acute rejection, comparing DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) transplants. RESULTS: A total of 292 DCD and 5,582 DBD transplants met study criteria. Most DCD transplants were transplanted at status 3-4 (61.0%) compared to 58.6% of DBD recipients at status 1-2. DCD recipients were less likely to be hospitalized at transplant (26.7% vs 58.3%, p < 0.001) and to require intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP; 9.6% vs 28.9%, p < 0.001), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO; 0.3% vs 5.9%, p < 0.001) or temporary left ventricular assist device (LVAD; 1.0% vs 2.7%, p < 0.001). DCD recipients were more likely to have acute rejection prior to discharge (23.3% vs 18.4%, p = 0.044) and to be hospitalized for rejection (23.4% vs 11.4%, p = 0.003) at a median follow-up of 15 months; the latter remained significant after propensity matching. On multivariable logistic regression, DCD donation was an independent predictor of acute rejection (odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-2.15, p = 0.048) and hospitalization for rejection (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.06-3.70, p = 0.026). On center-specific subgroup analysis, DCD recipients continued to have higher rates of hospitalization for rejection (23.4% vs 13.8%, p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: DCD recipients are more likely to experience acute rejection. Early survival is similar between DCD and DBD recipients, but long-term implications of increased early rejection in DCD recipients require further investigation.

Donation after circulatory death significantly reduces waitlist times while not changing post-heart transplant outcomes: A United Network for Organ Sharing Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, several centers in the United States have begun performing donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplants (HTs) in adults. We sought to characterize the recent use of DCD HT, waitlist time, and outcomes compared to donation after brain death (DBD). METHODS: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, 10,402 adult (aged >18 years) HT recipients from January 2019 to June 2022 were identified: 425 (4%) were DCD and 9,977 (96%) were DBD recipients. Posttransplant outcomes in matched and unmatched cohorts and waitlist times were compared between groups. RESULTS: DCD and DBD recipients had similar age (57 years for both, p = 0.791). DCD recipients were more likely White (67% vs 60%, p = 0.002), on left ventricular assist device (LVAD; 40% vs 32%, p < 0.001), and listed as status 4 to 6 (60% vs 24%, p < 0.001); however, less likely to require inotropes (22% vs 40%, p < 0.001) and preoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.9% vs 6%, p < 0.001). DCD donors were younger (29 vs 32 years, p < 0.001) and had less renal dysfunction (15% vs 39%, p < 0.001), diabetes (1.9% vs 3.8%, p = 0.050), or hypertension (9.9% vs 16%, p = 0.001). In matched and unmatched cohorts, early survival was similar (p = 0.22). Adjusted waitlist time was shorter in DCD group (21 vs 31 days, p < 0.001) compared to DBD cohort and 5-fold shorter (DCD: 22 days vs DBD: 115 days, p < 0.001) for candidates in status 4 to 6, which was 60% of DCD cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The community is using DCD mostly for those recipients who are expected to have extended waitlist times (e.g., durable LVADs, status >4). DCD recipients had similar posttransplant early survival and shorter adjusted waitlist time compared to DBD group. Given this early success, efforts should be made to expand the donor pool using DCD, especially for traditionally disadvantaged recipients on the waitlist.

A Paradigm Shift in Heart Preservation: Improved Post-transplant Outcomes in Recipients of Donor Hearts Preserved With the SherpaPak System.

Traditional ice storage has been the historic standard for preserving donor's hearts. However, this approach provides variability in cooling, increasing risks of freezing injury. To date, no preservation technology has been reported to improve survival after transplantation. The Paragonix SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System (SCTS) is a controlled hypothermic technology clinically used since 2018. Real-world evidence on clinical benefits of SCTS compared to conventional ice cold storage (ICS) was evaluated. Between October 2015 and January 2022, 569 US adults receiving donor hearts preserved and transported either in SCTS (n = 255) or ICS (n = 314) were analyzed from the Global Utilization And Registry Database for Improved heArt preservatioN (GUARDIAN-Heart) registry. Propensity matching and a subgroup analysis of >240 minutes ischemic time were performed to evaluate comparative outcomes. Overall, the SCTS cohort had significantly lower rates of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) ( p = 0.03). When propensity matched, SCTS had improving 1-year survival ( p = 0.10), significantly lower rates of severe PGD ( p = 0.011), and lower overall post-transplant MCS utilization ( p = 0.098). For patients with ischemic times >4 hours, the SCTS cohort had reduced post-transplant MCS utilization ( p = 0.01), reduced incidence of severe PGD ( p = 0.005), and improved 30-day survival ( p = 0.02). A multivariate analysis of independent risk factors revealed that compared to SCTS, use of ice results in a 3.4-fold greater chance of severe PGD ( p = 0.014). Utilization of SCTS is associated with a trend toward increased post-transplant survival and significantly lower severe PGD and MCS utilization. These findings fundamentally challenge the decades-long status quo of transporting donor hearts using ice.

The effect of warm ischemia and donor ejection fraction on 30-day mortality after donation after circulatory death heart transplantation: A national database analysis.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor hearts recovered using the direct procurement and perfusion method experience variable durations of warm ischemia at the time of procurement (WIP). We used the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database to assess the effect of WIP on 30-day mortality after DCD heart transplantation. The analysis evaluated outcomes in 237 recipients of DCD heart transplantation, demonstrating an optimal WIP cut point of <36 minutes. Multivariable logistic regression modeling identified donor left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <60% as an independent predictor of 30-day mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting 30-day mortality based on WIP ≥36 minutes and donor LVEF <60% was 0.90. Based on these findings, we do not recommend proceeding with DCD heart transplantation for patients with WIP ≥36 minutes, particularly in donors with LVEF <60%.

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.).

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).

Nighttime dexmedetomidine for delirium prevention in non-mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery (MINDDS): A single-centre, parallel-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled superiority trial.

Background: The delirium-sparing effect of nighttime dexmedetomidine has not been studied after surgery. We hypothesised that a nighttime dose of dexmedetomidine would reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium as compared to placebo. Methods: This single-centre, parallel-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled superiority trial evaluated whether a short nighttime dose of intravenous dexmedetomidine (1 µg/kg over 40 min) would reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium in patients 60 years of age or older undergoing elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomised to receive dexmedetomidine or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was delirium on postoperative day one. Secondary outcomes included delirium within three days of surgery, 30-, 90-, and 180-day abbreviated Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, Patient Reported Outcome Measures Information System quality of life scores, and all-cause mortality. The study was registered as NCT02856594 on ClinicalTrials.gov on August 5, 2016, before the enrolment of any participants. Findings: Of 469 patients that underwent randomisation to placebo (n = 235) or dexmedetomidine (n = 234), 75 met a prespecified drop criterion before the study intervention. Thus, 394 participants (188 dexmedetomidine; 206 placebo) were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat cohort (median age 69 [IQR 64, 74] years; 73.1% male [n = 288]; 26·9% female [n = 106]). Postoperative delirium status on day one was missing for 30 (7.6%) patients. Among those in whom it could be assessed, the primary outcome occurred in 5 of 175 patients (2.9%) in the dexmedetomidine group and 16 of 189 patients (8.5%) in the placebo group (OR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.10-0.83; P = 0.029). A non-significant but higher proportion of participants experienced delirium within three days postoperatively in the placebo group (25/177; 14.1%) compared to the dexmedetomidine group (14/160; 8.8%; OR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.28-1.15). No significant differences between groups were observed in secondary outcomes or safety. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that in elderly cardiac surgery patients with a low baseline risk of postoperative delirium and extubated within 12 h of ICU admission, a short nighttime dose of dexmedetomidine decreased the incidence of delirium on postoperative day one. Although non-statistically significant, our findings also suggested a clinical meaningful difference in the three-day incidence of postoperative delirium. Funding: National Institute on Aging (R01AG053582).

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs 2022 Annual Report: Focus on the 2018 Heart Transplant Allocation System.

The 13th annual report from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (Intermacs) highlights outcomes for 27,314 patients receiving continuous-flow durable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) during the last decade (2012-2021). In 2021, 2464 primary LVADs were implanted, representing a 23.5% reduction in the annual volume compared with peak implantation in 2019 and an ongoing trend from the prior year. This decline is likely a reflection of the untoward effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the change in the United States heart transplant allocation system in 2018. The last several years have been characterized by a shift in device indication and type, with 81.1% of patients now implanted as destination therapy and 92.7% receiving an LVAD with full magnetic levitation in 2021. However, despite an older, more ill population being increasingly supported preimplant with temporary circulatory devices in the recent (2017-2021) vs prior (2012-2016) eras, the 1- and 5-year survival continues to improve, at 83.0% and 51.9%, respectively. The adverse events profile has also improved, with a significant reduction in stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, and hospital readmissions. Finally, we examined the impact of the change in the heart transplant allocation system in 2018 on LVAD candidacy, implant strategy, and outcomes. In the competing-outcomes analysis, the proportion of transplant-eligible patients receiving a transplant has declined from 56.5% to 46.0% at 3 years, whereas the proportion remaining alive with ongoing support has improved from 24.1% to 38.1% at 3 years, underscoring the durability of the currently available technology.

Racial Disparities in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Mortality Are Present in Heart Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated the devastating effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on vulnerable populations. Although they receive close follow-up, heart transplant recipients represent a particularly vulnerable population, given long-term immunosuppression and comorbid conditions. We sought to investigate the association between race/ethnicity and the probability of death due to COVID-19 in adult heart transplant recipients in the United States. METHODS: Adult isolated heart transplant recipients were identified using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. Recipients who were described as deceased or lost to follow-up before January 2020 were excluded. Recipients were stratified into 4 cohorts by race/ethnicity. The primary outcome of interest was death due to COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 22 157 adult recipients were identified. During the course of follow-up, 153 recipients had COVID-19 reported as the primary cause of death. COVID-19 mortality was significantly different between race/ethnicity cohorts (Black, n = 34 [0.79%]; Hispanic, n = 23 [1.33%]; White, n = 92 [0.60%]; other, n = 4 [0.44%]; P = .007). COVID-19 was listed as a contributing cause of mortality in 0.12% of Black, 0.23% of Hispanic, 0.04% of White, and 0.33% of other recipients (P = .002). No significant difference in non-COVID mortality or all-cause mortality was observed. After multivariable adjustment, Black (hazard ratio, 2.78 [1.40-5.52]; P = .003) and Hispanic (hazard ratio, 3.92 [1.88-8.16]; P < .001) recipients were at higher risk of death due to COVID-19 compared with White recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with White recipients, Black and Hispanic recipients experienced higher rates of COVID-19 mortality after transplantation. These findings suggest that racial/ethnic disparities of COVID-19 mortality in the general population persist in adult heart transplant recipients.

Prediction of operative mortality for patients undergoing cardiac surgical procedures without established risk scores.

OBJECTIVE: Current cardiac surgery risk models do not address a substantial fraction of procedures. We sought to create models to predict the risk of operative mortality for an expanded set of cases. METHODS: Four supervised machine learning models were trained using preoperative variables present in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) data set of the Massachusetts General Hospital to predict and classify operative mortality in procedures without STS risk scores. A total of 424 (5.5%) mortality events occurred out of 7745 cases. Models included logistic regression with elastic net regularization (LogReg), support vector machine, random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosted trees (XGBoost). Model discrimination was assessed via area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and calibration was assessed via calibration slope and expected-to-observed event ratio. External validation was performed using STS data sets from Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) and the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH). RESULTS: Models performed comparably with the highest mean AUC of 0.83 (RF) and expected-to-observed event ratio of 1.00. On external validation, the AUC was 0.81 in BWH (RF) and 0.79 in JHH (LogReg/RF). Models trained and applied on the same institution's data achieved AUCs of 0.81 (BWH: LogReg/RF/XGBoost) and 0.82 (JHH: LogReg/RF/XGBoost). CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning models trained on preoperative patient data can predict operative mortality at a high level of accuracy for cardiac surgical procedures without established risk scores. Such procedures comprise 23% of all cardiac surgical procedures nationwide. This work also highlights the value of using local institutional data to train new prediction models that account for institution-specific practices.

Hemodynamic and Clinical Performance of Hearts Donated After Circulatory Death.

BACKGROUND: Donor organ demand continues to outpace supply in heart transplantation. Utilization of donation after circulatory death (DCD) hearts could significantly increase heart donor availability for patients with advanced heart failure. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to describe hemodynamic and clinical profiles of DCD hearts in comparison to standard of care (SOC) hearts donated after brain death (DBD). METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study of consecutive heart transplant recipients analyzed right heart catheterization measurements, inotrope scores, echocardiograms, and clinical outcomes between DCD and DBD heart recipients. RESULTS: Between April 2016 and February 2022, 47 DCD and 166 SOC hearts were transplanted. Median time from DCD consent to transplant was significantly shorter compared with SOC waiting list time (17 days [6-28 days] vs 70 days [23-240 days]; P < 0.001). Right heart function was significantly impaired in DCD recipients compared with SOC recipients 1 week post-transplant (higher median right atrial pressure (10 mm Hg [8-13 mm Hg] vs 7 mm Hg [5-11 mm Hg]; P < 0.001), higher right atrial pressure to pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio (0.64 [0.54-0.82] vs 0.57 [0.43-0.73]; P = 0.016), and lower pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (1.66 [1.27-2.50] vs 2.52 [1.63-3.82]; P < 0.001), but was similar between groups by 3 weeks post-transplant. DCD and SOC recipient mortality was similar at 30 days (DCD 0 vs SOC 2%; P = 0.29) and 1 year post-transplant (DCD 3% vs SOC 8%; P = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: DCD heart utilization is associated with transient post-transplant right heart dysfunction and short-term clinical outcomes otherwise similar to transplantation using DBD hearts.

Rationale and Design of the Randomized Controlled Trial of New Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin for Post Cardiac Surgery Atrial Fibrillation: The NEW-AF Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This manuscript describes the rationale and design of a randomized, controlled trial comparing outcomes with Warfarin vs Novel Oral Anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy in patients with new onset atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. BACKGROUND: New onset atrial fibrillation commonly occurs after cardiac surgery and is associated with increased rates of stroke and mortality. in nonsurgical patients with atrial fibrillation, NOACs have been shown to confer equivalent benefits for stroke prevention with less bleeding risk and less tedious monitoring requirements compared with Warfarin. However, NOAC use has yet to be adopted widely in cardiac surgery patients. METHODS: The NEW-AF study has been designed as a pragmatic, prospective, randomized controlled trial that will compare financial, convenience and safety outcomes for patients with new onset atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery that are treated with NOACs versus Warfarin. RESULTS: Study results may contribute to optimizing the options for stroke prophylaxis in cardiac surgery patients and catalyze more widespread application of NOAC therapy in this patient population. CONCLUSIONS: The study is ongoing and actively enrolling at the time of the publication. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov under registration number NCT03702582.

Trends in the use of hepatitis C viremic donor hearts.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in utilization of hearts from hepatitis C virus (HCV) viremic donors for transplantation, a strategy to expand organ availability. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry was queried for adult patients undergoing heart transplantation between 2015 and 2019. We excluded multiorgan transplants, incomplete data, and loss to follow-up. Nucleic acid testing (NAT) defined HCV status. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, a total of 11,393 adults underwent heart transplantation: 326 from HCV NAT+ donors and 11,067 from NAT- donors. The use of NAT+ hearts increased from 1 in 2015 to 137 in 2018 against a static number of NAT- organs. The use of NAT+ hearts varied significantly across regions and individual centers. More than 75% of NAT+ hearts were transplanted in the Northeast region, leading to further travel (mean, 299 miles vs 173 miles for NAT- transplantations; P < .001), with longer ischemic times (mean: 3.52 hours vs 3.10 hours; P < .001). More than one-half of NAT+ transplantations were performed by 5 individual centers, and a single institution accounted for >20% of all transplantations from viremic donors. Survival in the 2 groups did not differ by Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = .240), and multivariable regression showed no differences in acute rejection (P = .455) or 30-day mortality (P = .490). Of the 326 recipients of NAT+ hearts, 38 seroconverted and 14 became viremic within 1 year. Survival was 100% in the viremic patients and 97.4% in seroconverted patients at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Heart transplantation from HCV viremic donors continues to increase but varies significantly across UNOS regions and individual centers. Short-term outcomes are comparable, but effects of seroconversion and long-term outcomes remain unclear.

How to Turn It Down: The Evidence and Opinions Behind Adult Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Weaning.

Adequate and durable recovery in patients supported with venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be challenging to predict. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation weaning is the process by which the ECMO flows are decreased to assess if a patient is ready for decannulation. The optimal strategies for deciding who to wean and how to wean VA ECMO remain undefined. A retrospective literature review was performed to understand the evidence supporting current practices in ECMO weaning and in particular patient selection and methods. Most published work and expert opinions agree that once the underlying process has resolved, the minimum required physiologic parameters for weaning from ECMO include: hemodynamic stability and cardiac pulsatility, adequate lung function to support oxygenation and ventilation, and evidence of recovered end organ function. Echocardiography is universally used to assess cardiac function during the weaning process. Currently, there is no consensus regarding who is eligible to wean or how to wean ECMO in adults. We have reviewed the literature to summarize the evidence and expert opinions behind VA ECMO weaning, and give an example of the protocol used at our center. We believe this protocol optimizes patient selection for weaning and helps to predict successful decannulation.