Successful Pregnancy After Left Ventricular Assist Device Explantation for Myocardial Recovery.

A 36 year old woman with history of heart failure and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, with subsequent explantation after myocardial recovery, presented for management of preconception counseling and subsequent pregnancy. To our knowledge, this case represents the first documented successful pregnancy after LVAD explantation. Management details are provided, and relevant literature is reviewed.

New UNOS allocation system associated with no added benefit in waitlist outcomes and worse post-transplant survival in heart-kidney patients.

BACKGROUND: The 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart transplant policy change (PC) sought to improve waitlist risk stratification to decrease waitlist mortality and promote geographically broader sharing for high-acuity patients awaiting heart transplantation. Our analysis sought to determine the effect of the UNOS PC on outcomes in patients waiting for, or who have received, a heart-kidney transplantation. METHODS: We analyzed adult (≥18 years old), first-time, heart-only and heart-kidney transplant candidates and recipients from the UNOS Registry. Patients were divided into pre-PC (PRE: October 18, 2016-May 30, 2018) and post-PC (POST: October 18, 2018-May 30, 2020) groups for comparison. Competing risks analysis (subdistribution and cause-specific hazards analyses) was performed to assess for differences in waitlist death/deterioration or heart transplantation. One-year post-transplant survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox analyses. We included an interaction term (policy era × heart ± kidney) in our analyses to evaluate the effect of PC on outcomes in heart-kidney patients. RESULTS: One-year post-transplant survival was similar (p = 0.83) for PRE heart-kidney and heart-only recipients, but worse (p < 0.001) for POST heart-kidney vs heart-only recipients. There was a policy-era interaction between heart-kidney and heart-only recipients (HR 1.92[1.04,3.55], p = 0.038) indicating a detrimental effect of policy on 1-year survival in POST vs PRE heart-kidney recipients. No added beneficial effect of PC on waitlist outcomes in heart-kidney vs heart-only candidates was observed. CONCLUSIONS: There was no added policy-era benefit on waitlist outcomes for heart-kidney candidates when compared to heart-only candidates. POST heart-kidney recipients experienced worse 1-year survival compared to PRE heart-kidney recipients with no policy effect on heart-only recipients.

Effect of the UNOS policy change on rates of rejection, infection, and hospital readmission following heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The 2018 adult heart allocation policy sought to improve waitlist risk stratification, reduce waitlist mortality, and increase organ access. This system prioritized patients at greatest risk for waitlist mortality, especially individuals requiring temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS). Posttransplant complications are significantly higher in patients on tMCS before transplantation, and early posttransplant complications impact long-term mortality. We sought to determine if policy change affected early posttransplant complication rates of rejection, infection, and hospitalization. METHODS: We included all adult, heart-only, single-organ heart transplant recipients from the UNOS registry with pre-policy (PRE) individuals transplanted between November 1, 2016, and October 31, 2017, and post-policy (POST) between November 1, 2018, and October 31, 2019. We used a multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess the effect of policy change on posttransplant rejection, infection, and hospitalization. Two COVID-19 eras (2019-2020, 2020-2021) were included in our analysis. RESULTS: The majority of baseline characteristics were comparable between PRE and POST era recipients. The odds of treated rejection (p = 0.8), hospitalization (p = 0.69), and hospitalization due to rejection (p = 0.76) and infection (p = 0.66) were similar between PRE and POST eras; there was a trend towards reduced odds of rejection (p = 0.08). In both COVID eras, there was a clear reduction in rejection and treated rejection with no effect on hospitalization for rejection or infection. Odds of all-cause hospitalization was increased in both COVID eras. CONCLUSIONS: The UNOS policy change improves access to heart transplantation for higher acuity patients without increasing early posttransplant rates of treated rejection or hospitalization for rejection or infection, factors which portend risk for long-term posttransplant mortality.

UNOS policy change benefits high-priority patients without harming those at low priority.

The heart transplantation policy change (PC) has improved outcomes in high-acuity (Old 1A, New 1-3) patients, but the effect on low-priority (Old 1B/2, New 4-6) patients is unknown. We sought to determine if low-priority patient outcomes were compromised by benefits to high-priority patients by evaluating for interaction between PC and priority status (PS). We included adult first-time heart transplant candidates and recipients from the UNOS registry during a 19-month period before and after the PC. We compared clinical characteristics and performed competing risks and survival analyses stratified by PC and PS. There was a dependence of PC and PS on waitlist death/deterioration with an interaction sub-distribution hazard ratio (adjusted sdHR) of 0.59 (0.45-0.78), p-value < .001. There was a trend toward a benefit of PC on waitlist death/deterioration (adjusted sdHR: 0.86 [0.73-1.01]; p = .07) and an increase in heart transplantation (adjusted sdHR: 1.08 [1.02-1.14], p = .007) for low-priority patients. There was no difference in 1-year post-transplant survival (log-rank p = .22) when stratifying by PC and PS. PC did not negatively affect waitlisted or transplanted low-priority patients. High-priority, post-PC patients had a targeted reduction in waitlist death/deterioration and did not come at the expense of worse post-transplant survival.

Effect of UNOS policy change and exception status request on outcomes in patients bridged to heart transplant with an intra-aortic balloon pump.

BACKGROUND: Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) are used to bridge select end-stage heart disease patients to heart transplant (HT). IABP use and exception requests both increased dramatically after the UNOS policy change (PC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of PC and exception status requests on waitlist and post-transplant outcomes in patients bridged to HT with IABP support. METHODS: We analyzed adult, first-time, single-organ HT recipients from the UNOS Registry either on IABP at the time of registration for HT or at the time of HT. We compared waitlist and post-HT outcomes between patients from the PRE (October 18, 2016 to May 30, 2018) and POST (October 18, 2018 to May 30, 2020) eras using Kaplan-Meier curves and time-to-event analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1267 patients underwent HT from IABP (261 pre-policy/1006 post-policy). On multivariate analysis, PC was associated with an increase in HT (sub-distribution hazard ratio (sdHR): 2.15, p < .001) and decrease in death/deterioration (sdHR: 0.55, p = .011) on the waitlist with no effect on 1-year post-HT survival (p = .8). The exception status of patients undergoing HT was predominantly seen in the POST era (29%, 293/1006); only four patients in the PRE era. Exception requests in the POST era did not alter patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients bridged to heart transplant with an IABP, policy change is associated with decreased rates of death/deterioration and increased rates of heart transplantation on the waitlist without affecting 1-year post-transplant survival. While exception status use has markedly increased post-PC, it is not associated with patient outcomes.

Noninvasive methods to reduce cardiac complications postheart transplant.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Long-term success of heart transplantation is limited by allograft rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV). Classic management has relied on frequent invasive testing to screen for early features of rejection and CAV to allow for early treatment. In this review, we discuss new developments in the screening and prevention of allograft rejection and CAV. RECENT FINDINGS: Newer noninvasive screening techniques show excellent sensitivity and specificity for the detection of clinically significant rejection. New biomarkers and treatment targets continue to be identified and await further studies regarding their utility in preventing allograft vasculopathy. SUMMARY: Noninvasive imaging and biomarker testing continue to show promise as alternatives to invasive testing for allograft rejection. Continued validation of their effectiveness may lead to new surveillance protocols with reduced frequency of invasive testing. Furthermore, these noninvasive methods will allow for more personalized strategies to reduce the complications of long-term immunosuppression whereas continuing the decline in the overall rate of allograft rejection.