Strategic Implementation of a New Robotic Mitral Repair Program: Early Experience and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous reported benefits of robotic mitral repair, the absolute number of procedures performed remain low in part to uncertainties about the necessary steps to launch a program. In this report, we describe our early outcomes and strategy with launching a successful new robotic mitral repair program. METHODS: Our multimodal strategic plan emphasized team education, hands-on technical preparation, stepwise advancement, and careful patient selection. Consultant service analytics and team debriefings allowed for iterative improvements. RESULTS: Between March 2022 through February 2024, 50 patients underwent robotic mitral repair at our institution. Average age at time of operation was 62 with an STS risk score of 0.58. Successful repairs were performed in 98% of patients. There was one conversion to sternotomy. There were no deaths and minimal perioperative morbidity. On both predischarge and follow-up echocardiography, no patients had greater than mild mitral regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Our work provides a model for establishing a successful robotic mitral program. An upfront emphasis on team education, careful preparation, proper patient selection, and feedback-driven improvements can accelerate the attainment of standards set by high-volume centers.

Systems issues limiting acute fracture care delivery at a tertiary care hospital in Northern Tanzania.

Introduction: sub-Saharan Africa experiences a significant musculoskeletal trauma burden. Among patients who receive surgical treatment, there have been no reports as to how often surgical care is determined to be "adequate" or, if "inadequate", then what hospital and orthopaedic specialty-specific systems limitations might be prohibitive. Methods: data from patients presenting to the orthopaedic trauma service at a tertiary care center in sub-Saharan Africa were prospectively collected over a 6-week period and then retrospectively reviewed to determine whether the surgical treatment was "adequate" (or otherwise, "inadequate") according to the principle of restoring length, alignment, and rotation. Exclusion criteria included insufficient clinical information; isolated spinal injury; infection; cases involving only removal of hardware; soft-tissue procedures; tumor cases; and medical (non-surgical) conditions. Results: 112 cases were included for analysis. Surgery was indicated in 106 of 112 cases (94.6%), and of those, surgery was performed in 62 cases (58.4%). Among patients who underwent surgery with available post-operative imaging (n=56), surgical treatment was "inadequate" in 24 cases (42.9%). The most common reasons treatment was deemed "inadequate" included unavailability of appropriate implants (n=16), unavailability of intraoperative fluoroscopy (n=10) and incomplete intraoperative evaluation of injury (n=5). Conclusion: several systems limitations prevent the delivery of adequate surgical treatment in patients with acute orthopaedic traumatic injuries, including lack of intraoperative fluoroscopy and lack of implant availability. This study will serve as a useful baseline for ongoing efforts seeking to improve orthopaedic specialty resource availability and facilitate more effective fracture care in this region.

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.

Outcomes and quality of life in patients receiving mitral surgery for asymptomatic disease.

Objectives: We sought to characterize the demographics, outcomes, and quality of life of asymptomatic patients undergoing mitral valve surgery at our center over a 10-year period. Methods: Adults undergoing mitral surgery were retrospectively reviewed between 2010 and 2019. Patients were included if deemed asymptomatic by review of referring cardiologist and surgeon consultation. Patients were administered a telephone survey consisting of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire as well as free-response regarding satisfaction surrounding their operation. Outcomes included survival, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire metrics, and thematic analysis of free response questions. Results: A total of 145 patients were identified who were deemed asymptomatic. Their average age was 60.3 ± 12.1 years, and 71% were male. No patients had endocarditis, and 34% had decreased ejection fraction (<60%). Repair was achieved in 95% of patients. Median length of stay was 6 (5-8) days. Ten-year survival was 91%, with no differences noted by ejection fraction. Composite Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score was 100 (96-100). The lowest component score was "Quality of Life," with 22% of patients reporting being "mostly satisfied" with present cardiac status. Most common themes expressed were gratitude with surgery results (58%), satisfaction with being able to stay active (23%), and happiness with early disease treatment (21%). Only 1 patient (0.7%) expressed regret with surgery choice. Conclusions: Mitral surgery for asymptomatic disease can be performed with good long-term outcomes in select patients, and the majority experience excellent quality of life and satisfaction with current health. Continued assessments of quality of life are important in evaluating outcomes of mitral surgery as indications grow.

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.

Short stature is a risk factor for heart transplant morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Short stature is associated with mortality after cardiac surgery and may increase size mismatch risk among transplant recipients. Yet, stature's impact on heart transplant outcomes is not well-characterized. METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was queried for data on all adult heart transplants in the United States from 2000 to 2022. Recipients were stratified into five cohorts by sex-corrected stature. Morbidity was assessed with Kruskal-Wallis and chi-squared tests. Mortality was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimation. Risk factors for mortality were assessed with multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Among 43,420 transplant recipients, 5321 (12.2%) had short stature (females >4'11″ & ≤5'1″; males >5'4″ & ≤5'7″) and 765 (1.8%) had very short stature (females ≤4'11″; males ≤5'4″). Very short stature patients had higher waitlist status (1A and 1), more congenital heart disease, and received more oversized donor hearts than other cohorts (all p < 0.05). Very short stature patients had decreased 30-day, 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival (94.6%, 84.3%, 69.3% and 52.5%, respectively, all p < 0.001), but less acute rejection (p = 0.005) and comparable stroke rates (p = 0.107). On multivariable regression adjusting for congenital heart disease and oversized donor hearts, very short and short stature were associated with 10-year mortality (hazard ratios: 1.40 and 1.12, respectively, both p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Short stature confers increased mortality risk for heart transplant recipients and merits inclusion in prognostic models.

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.

Impella 5.5 as a bridge to heart transplantation: Waitlist outcomes in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing allocation policy change has led to a significant increase in the use of mechanical circulatory support devices in patients listed for orthotopic heart transplantation. However, there has been a paucity of data regarding the newest generation Impella 5.5, which received FDA approval in 2019. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried for all adults awaiting orthotopic heart transplantation who received Impella 5.5 support during their listing period. Waitlist, device, and early post-transplant outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 464 patients received Impella 5.5 support during their listing period with a median waitlist time of 19 days. Among them, 402 (87%) patients were ultimately transplanted, with 378 (81%) being directly bridged to transplant with the device. Waitlist death (7%) and clinical deterioration (5%) were the most common reasons for waitlist removal. Device complications and failure were uncommon (<5%). The most common post-transplant complication was acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (16%). Survival at 1-year post-transplant survival was 89.5%. CONCLUSION: Since its approval, the Impella 5.5 has been increasingly used as a bridge to transplant. This analysis demonstrates robust waitlist and post-transplant outcomes with minimal device-related and postoperative complications.

Prosthesis Choice in Dialysis Patients Undergoing Mitral Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Patients with renal disease on dialysis have significant comorbidity limiting life expectancy; however, these patients may experience accelerated prosthetic valve degeneration. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of prosthesis choice on outcomes in dialysis patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR) at our high-volume academic center. METHODS: Adults undergoing MVR were retrospectively reviewed between January 2002 and November 2019. Patients were included if they had documented renal failure and dialysis requirements before presentation. Patients were stratified by mechanical vs bioprosthetic prosthesis. Death and recurrent severe valve failure (3+ or greater) or redo mitral operation were used as primary outcomes. RESULTS: There were 177 dialysis patients identified who underwent MVR. Of these, 118 (66.7%) received bioprosthetic valves, whereas 59 (33.3%) received mechanical valves. Those who received mechanical valves were younger (48 vs 61 years; P < .001) and had less diabetes (32% vs 51%; P = .019). Prevalence of endocarditis and atrial fibrillation was similar. Postoperative length of stay was not different between groups. Risk-adjusted hazard for 5-year mortality was similar between groups (P = .668). Early mortality was high, with both groups having <50% actuarial survival at 2 years. No differences were noted in rates of structural valve deterioration or reintervention. More stroke events were noted on follow-up in patients receiving mechanical valves (15% vs 6%; P = .041). Endocarditis was the leading reason for reintervention; 4 patients received repeated surgery for bioprosthetic valve failure. CONCLUSIONS: MVR in dialysis patients carries significant morbidity and increased midterm mortality. Decreased life expectancy should be considered in the tailoring of prosthesis choice to dialysis-dependent patients.

Extended Support With the Impella 5.5: Transplant, ECMO, and Complications.

We report midterm results of Impella 5.5 use with focus placed on bridge-outcomes, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) transition, complications, and risk factors for mortality. A retrospective review of patients implanted with the Impella 5.5 at our medical center was conducted. Forty patients were included with varying bridge strategies. Sixteen (40%) patients were supported for <14 days, 13 (32.5%) for 14-30 days, and 11 (27.5%) for >30 days. Thirty day mortality was 22.5% (9/40). Twenty-five (62.5%) were successfully bridged to transplant or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), while four (10.0%) recovered without the need for any further cardiac support. Five of 11 (60%) patients initially supported with VA-ECMO were either transitioned to durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD; n = 3, 27.3%), transplanted (n = 1, 9.1%), or recovered (n = 1, 9.1%). Of nine patients with >moderate right ventricle (RV) dysfunction, five (55.6%) were successfully bridged to transplant or LVAD. Five (12.5%) patients required interval cannulation to VA-ECMO, often in the setting of RV dysfunction, and all (100%) were successfully transplanted. Lower pulmonary artery (PA) systolic pressure ( P = 0.029), among other factors, was associated with mortality. In summary, the Impella 5.5 may be able to effectively stabilize patients in refractory left ventricular predominant cardiogenic shock for extended durations, allowing time for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and transplant evaluations.

Use of extended criteria donor hearts in combined heart-kidney transplant confers greater risk of mortality.

BACKGROUND: Extended criteria donors (ECD) hearts have demonstrated acceptable outcomes in select populations. However, their use in patients undergoing simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation (SHKT) has not been explored. This study is assessed the effect of ECD hearts in patients undergoing SHKT vs isolated heart transplants (IHT). METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was queried for all adult patients undergoing IHT and SHKT. Patients were stratified by receipt of ECD heart, defined as donor hearts failing to meet established acceptable use criteria. Interaction effects between ECDs and simultaneous kidney transplants were generated. Postoperative outcomes, risk factors, and patient/graft survival were compared across cohorts using Fine-Gray, Kaplan Meier, and Cox Proportional Hazards analyses. RESULTS: Among 26,207 patients included, 1,766 (7%) underwent SHKT. ECD hearts were used in 25% of both IHT and SHKT cohorts. Five-year survival among SHKT/ECD patients (67.3%) was reduced (p < 0.01) compared to SHKT/SDC (80.3%), IHT/ECD (78.1%) and IHT/SCD (80.0%) groups. Among SHKT patients, use of ECD hearts was associated with increased risk (SHR: 1.48; p < 0.01) of renal graft failure compared to SCD hearts. Among SHKT patients, receipt of an ECD heart, and individual ECD criteria (coronary disease and size mismatch >20%), predicted mortality. The interaction effect of receiving both ECD and SHKT predicted mortality and graft failure (HR 1.43; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing SHKT with an ECD heart face greater risks of mortality and graft failure in comparison to those undergoing IHT with ECD hearts. Careful selection of donor organs should be applied to this high-risk cohort.

Higher Rates of Dialysis and Subsequent Mortality in the New Allocation Era for Heart Transplants.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, a United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) policy change increased prioritization of patients bridged with temporary mechanical circulatory support devices, such as venoarterial ECMO, for cardiac transplantation. Considering increased waitlist acuity, we sought to characterize whether this was associated with an increased risk for development of postoperative acute renal failure requiring dialysis (AKI-D) and risk of death after transplantation. METHODS: Dialysis-naive adults receiving single-organ heart transplant between November 2009 and February 2020 were stratified by receipt of AKI-D. Era 1 and era 2 were defined by the periods of UNOS allocation before and after policy change, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine risk factors for AKI-D. Rates of AKI-D were compared by propensity score-matched cohorts. Survival was compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A total of 20 698 patients were included. Venoarterial ECMO use significantly increased in era 2 (5.6% vs 0.58%; P < .01). Overall prevalence of AKI-D was greater in era 2 (13.5% vs 10.2%; P < .01). Use of preoperative ECMO, intra-aortic balloon pump, and ventilators and longer ischemia times were identified as independent risk factors for development of AKI-D. Five- and 10-year survival rates were significantly decreased for patients with AKI-D. There was no short-term survival difference of patients with AKI-D between era 2 and the more contemporary era 1. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in whom AKI-D develops after transplantation have significantly worse short- and long-term outcomes. Preoperative use of ECMO, preoperative ventilator support, and longer ischemia times are risk factors for development of AKI-D, and their prevalence has increased since the allocation policy change.

Modern outcomes of heart-lung transplantation: assessing the impact of the updated US allocation system.

OBJECTIVES: In 2018, the United Network for Organ Sharing modified their heart allocation policy to reduce waitlist mortality and prioritize patients with the greatest acuity. Considering declining rates of combined heart-lung transplantation, this study sought to investigate the impact of the new allocation system on waitlist and post-transplant outcomes of patients listed for combined heart-lung transplantation. METHODS: Adult patients listed for combined heart-lung transplant between 2012 and 2021 were included. Patients were stratified according to listing era. Competing risk regression was used to assess waitlist outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to establish risk factors for post-transplant mortality. RESULTS: A total of 511 patients were included, of whom 295 (57.8%) were listed in era 1 and 216 (42.2%) in era 2. Era 2 was associated with increased likelihood of transplant (adjusted standard hazard ratio (aSHR): 1.60 [1.23-2.07]; P < 0.01) and decreased waitlist mortality (aSHR: 0.43 [0.25-0.73]; P < 0.01). Despite longer ischaemic times and increased use of preoperative veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in era 2, early post-transplant survival was equivalent. Predicted heart mass ratio <0.8 (Hazard ratio (HR); 3.24; P = 0.01), ventilator support (HR: 3.83; P < 0.01) and greater ischaemic times (HR: 1.80; P < 0.01) independently predicted the mortality. Procedures at high centre volumes (HR: 0.36; P = 0.04) were associated with decreased mortality. Use of ECMO was not predictive of mortality in the modern era. CONCLUSIONS: The allocation policy change has led to improvements in waitlist outcomes in patients listed for heart-lung transplantation. Despite increased ischaemic times and use of ECMO, early post-transplant survival was equivalent.

Lack of volume-outcome association in ECMO bridge to heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. As the 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation policy change elevated waitlist status for patients receiving mechanical circulatory support (MCS), we aimed to determine if a center's annual heart transplant volume was associated with ECMO-support duration and posttransplant outcomes. METHODS: Adults heart transplant candidates between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2021, were isolated in the UNOS database. VA-ECMO use was identified at the time of listing for transplant. Average annual transplant volume was calculated by the center, with stratification as high (≥20 cardiac transplants, high volume center [HVC]) or low (<20 cardiac transplants, low volume center [LVC]) volume centers. Results are reported as mean (interquartile range) or n (%). RESULTS: In total, 543 patients at HVCs and 275 at LVCs were listed for transplant supported with VA-ECMO. Those listed at HVCs were more likely to be supported by intra-aortic balloon pump (103 [19%] vs. 32 [11.6%], p = .008) and inotropes (267 [49.2%] vs. 106 [38.5%], p = .004) at time of listing. Patients at HVCs received ECMO support for 6 [4-9] days, compared to 8 [4-15] days at low-volume centers (p = .030), and but were cannulated a similar time before listing (2 [1-5] vs. 3 [1-7] days, p = .517). There were no differences in rates of transplant (p = .2126), waitlist mortality (p = .8645), delisting due to clinical deterioration (p = .8419), or recovery (p = .1773) between groups. Among transplanted patients, there were no differences in support duration (6 [4-8] vs. 6 [4-10], p = .187), or time from registration to transplant (5 [2-20] vs. 7 [3-22] days, p = .560). Posttransplant survival did not vary (p = .293). CONCLUSIONS: LVCs can successfully bridge patients to transplant with VA-ECMO and achieve comparable outcomes to HVCs.

A Systematic Review of Propensity Score Matching in the Orthopedic Literature.

Background: Propensity score matching (PSM) is a statistical technique used to reduce bias in observational studies by controlling for measured confounders. Given its complexity and popularity, it is imperative that researchers comprehensively report their methodologies to ensure accurate interpretation and reproducibility. Purpose: This systematic review sought to define how often PSM has been used in recent orthopedic research and to describe how such studies reported their methods. Secondary aims included analyzing study reproducibility, bibliometric factors associated with reproducibility, and associations between methodology and the reporting of statistically significant results. Methods: PubMed and Embase databases were queried for studies containing "propensity score" and "match*" published in 20 orthopedic journals prior to 2020. All studies meeting inclusion criteria were used for trend analysis. Articles published between 2017 and 2019 were used for analysis of reporting quality and reproducibility. Results: In all, 261 studies were included for trend analysis, and 162 studies underwent full-text review. The proportion of orthopedic studies using PSM significantly increased over time. Seventy-one (41%) articles did not provide justification for covariate selection. The majority of studies illustrated covariate balance through P values. We found that 19% of the studies were fully reproducible. Most studies failed to report the use of replacement (67.3%) or independent or paired statistical methods (34.0%). Studies reporting standardized mean differences to illustrate covariate balance were less likely to report statistically significant results. Conclusion: Despite the increased use of PSM in orthopedic research, observational studies employing PSM have largely failed to adequately report their methodology.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for Pediatric Cleft Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Perform a systematic review assessing the efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for cleft palate repair. Primary outcomes included hospital length of stay, readmission rates, and postoperative narcotic use. Secondary outcomes included complications, time to initial postoperative oral intake, and pain scores. DATA SOURCES: Cohort and randomized studies of ERAS protocols pertaining to cleft palate repair were identified by systematic review of Medline, Scopus, Embase, and grey literature. REVIEW METHODS: Data extracted included patient demographics, clinical care protocols, complication rates, postoperative narcotic use, time to initial postoperative oral intake, hospital length of stay, family satisfaction, and 30-day readmission. Meta-analysis was used to compare outcomes between patients enrolled in ERAS protocols versus those in conventional care pathways. RESULTS: Eight hundred sixty-five articles were screened, and 5 studies met full inclusion criteria. A total of 425 patients were included. Patients in ERAS protocols saw a mean reduction of - 23.96 hours in length of stay compared to controls (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 26.4, - 20.6). Patients in ERAS protocols also had decreased total morphine consumption (mean difference [MD]: - 3.88 mg; CI: - 4.31, - 3.45), and decreased time to first initial feed compared to controls (MD: - 3.88 hours; CI: - 4.3, - 3.5). There was no difference in readmission rates or complication rates between ERAS and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS protocols have seen limited use in pediatric patients. The present study sought to assess the impact of ERAS protocols following primary palatoplasty. Our results indicate decreased hospital length of stay, postoperative opioid consumption, and time to feeding, without increasing readmission rates or complication rates.