Comparison of Intraoperative Blood Product Use During Heart Transplantation in Patients Bridged with Impella 5.5 versus Durable Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the intraoperative transfusion requirements differ based on the mechanical circulatory device used as a bridge to heart transplantation. DESIGN: A single-center retrospective analysis of intraoperative transfusion requirements in all patients undergoing heart or heart/kidney transplantation between November 2018 and July 2021 who were bridged with a temporary (Impella 5.5) or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD). SETTING: A tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three adult patients bridged to heart or heart/kidney transplantation with a temporary or durable LVAD between 2018 and 2021 INTERVENTIONS: Recording of baseline characteristics and intraoperative transfusion requirements, including packed red blood cells, fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate, autologous blood salvage, and platelets. The difference in cardiopulmonary bypass times, intensive care unit length of stay, and the vasoactive inotrope score following transplantation were also recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the volume of blood products transfused intraoperatively. Patients who underwent bridge to transplantation using the Impella 5.5 had statistically significant lower median transfusions of cryoprecipitate (155 mL versus 200 mL, p = 0.015), autologous blood salvage (675 mL versus 1,125 mL, p ≤ 0.01), and platelets (412 mL versus 675 mL, p ≤ 0.01). Additionally, there was a trend toward lower transfusion of intraoperative packed red blood cells (4.5 units versus 6.5 units, p = 0.29) and fresh frozen plasma (675 mL versus 800 mL, p = 0.11), but these were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest a reduction in certain intraoperative transfusion requirements in patients undergoing heart transplantation bridged with the Impella 5.5 versus durable left ventricular assist device.

Variation in Hemodynamic Assessment and Interpretation: A Call to Standardize the Right Heart Catheterization.

BACKGROUND: Invasive hemodynamic measurement via right heart catheterization has shown divergent data in its role in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) and cardiogenic shock. We hypothesized that variation in data acquisition technique and interpretation might contribute to these observations. We sought to assess differences in hemodynamic acquisition and interpretation by operator subspecialty as well as level of experience. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual-level responses to how physicians both collect and interpret hemodynamic data at the time of right heart catheterization was solicited via a survey distributed to international professional societies in HF and interventional cardiology. Data were stratified both by operator subspecialty (HF specialists or interventional cardiologists [IC]) and operator experience (early career [≤10 years from training] or late career [>10 years from training]) to determine variations in clinical practice. For the sensitivity analysis, we also look at differences in each subgroup. A total of 261 responses were received. There were 141 clinicians (52%) who self-identified as HF specialists, 99 (38%) identified as IC, and 20 (8%) identified as other. There were 142 early career providers (54%) and late career providers (119 [46%]). When recording hemodynamic values, there was considerable variation in practice patterns, regardless of subspecialty or level of experience for the majority of the intracardiac variables. There was no agreement or mild agreement among HF and IC as to when to record right atrial pressures or pulmonary capillary wedge pressures. HF cardiologists were more likely to routinely measure both Fick and thermodilution cardiac output compared with IC (51% vs 29%, P < .001), something mirrored in early career vs later career cardiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists between the acquisition and interpretation of right heart catheterization measurements between HF and IC, as well as those early and late in their careers. With the growth of the heart team approach to management of patients in cardiogenic shock, standardization of both assessment and management practices is needed.

Trends and predictors of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with advanced heart failure on left ventricular assist device from 2005 to 2014 in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Left ventricular assist devices are known to extend survival in patients with advanced heart failure; however, their association with intracranial hemorrhage is also well-known. We aimed to explore the risk trend and predictors of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with left ventricular assist devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included patients aged 18 years or older with left ventricular assist devices hospitalized in the US from 2005 to 2014 using the National Inpatient Sample. We computed the survey-weighted percentages with intracranial hemorrhage across the 10-year study period and assessed whether the proportions changed over time. Predictors of intracranial hemorrhage were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: Of 33,246 hospitalizations, 568 (1.7%) had intracranial hemorrhage. The number of left ventricular assist devices placements increased from 873 in 2005 to 5175 in 2014. However, the risk of intracranial hemorrhage remained largely unchanged (1.7% to 2.3%; linear trend, P = 0.604). The adjusted odds of intracranial hemorrhage were increased with the presence of one of the following variables: female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.03-2.43), history of ischemic stroke (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.86-5.28), or Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 3 or more (OR, 77.40; 95% CI, 10.03-597.60). CONCLUSIONS: Over the last decade, the risk of intracranial hemorrhage has remained relatively unchanged despite an increase in the use of left ventricular assist devices in patients with advanced heart failure. Women, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, and history of ischemic stroke were associated with higher odds of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with left ventricular assist devices.

Packing the donor heart: Is SherpaPak cold preservation technique safer compared to ice cold storage.

INTRODUCTION: The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of heart transplant patients whose donor hearts were preserved with the SherpaPak controlled cold organ system versus the conventional ice storage technique. METHODS: All patients undergoing heart transplantation at our center between January 2019 and April 2021 were divided into two groups according to the technique used during donor heart preservation and transport. The first group consisted of 34 SherpaPak controlled temperature preservation patients, and the second group consisted of 47 patients where the conventional three bags and ice technique was utilized during organ transportation. The two groups were compared based on demographics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups regarding Vasoactive Inotropic Score (VIS), Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD), and the need for a transient pacer. However, the VIS, PGD, and pacing trends were lower in the SherpaPak patients even though the total ischemic and cardiopulmonary bypass times were significantly longer. Furthermore, SherpaPak patients exhibited a shorter stay in the ICU with no severe PGD and mortality. CONCLUSION: The SherpaPak donor heart preservation provides safe outcomes in heart transplant patients. Further research is needed to utilize this method for longer durations of ischemic time and expand travel distances for organ transportation.

Controlled temperatures in cold preservation provides safe heart transplantation results.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the short-term outcomes of heart transplant patients who underwent SherpaPak™ donor organ preservation. METHOD: We prospectively collected the data of patients who underwent heart transplantation using SherpaPak™ system for donor organ transportation from February 2020 to March 2021. Donor and recipient demographic data, preoperative and postoperative echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters, total ischemic time and SherpaPak temperatures, vasoactive inotropic scores (VIS), primary graft dysfunction (PGD) status, intensive care unit stay, complications, and mortality during follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 39 consecutive heart transplant patients with SherpaPak system were included in the study. The mean donor age was 32.2 ± 6.7 (range: 16-46). The mean recipient age was 57.5 ± 12 (range: 19-73). The mean preoperative ejection fraction (EF) was 23.7 ± 15.4 (range: 5-75). All recipients underwent a standard bicaval technique for orthotopic heart implantation. The mean total ischemic time was 230.1 ± 41 (range: 149-342) min. The mean Sherpa temperature was 5.6 ± 0.8°C (range: 3.7-7.5). The mean VIS was 10.2 ± 6.5 (range: 2-32). The number of mild PGD was 5 (14.7%), and moderate PGD was 4 (11.8%). There was no severe PGD. The postoperative EF was 64.3 ± 5.5 (range: 50-78). Mean intubation time was 47.4 ± 64 (range: 8-312, median: 22) h. The mean time of intensive care unit stay was 6.3 ± 5 (range: 2-31, median: 5) days. Two patients required chest revision (5.8%), two patients had lung infection (5.8%). Two patients had a stroke (5.8%). There was no mortality. CONCLUSION: Using the SherpaPak system during heart transplantation is safe and not associated with significant recipient morbidity. None of the recipients experienced significant PGD and mortality.

The current state of artificial intelligence in cardiac transplantation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The field of heart transplantation is a complex practice that combines both science and art to optimize the quality and quantity of an organ transplant recipient's life span. In the current age of Transplant Medicine there are many limiting factors that prevent potentially usable organs to be transplanted in addition to the many unknown factors in assessing the risk of posttransplant complications in a proactive manner. This review focuses on the current state, and potential use, and implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in the field of heart transplantation. Furthermore, the utilization of predictive algorithms to assess donor quality, graft function, posttransplant complications and prediction of high-risk complications will be discussed. Artificial intelligence technologies in the pretransplant population is also explored. RECENT FINDINGS: Artificial intelligence process use has been increasing over the past decade. Early adoption in radiology and laboratory medicine have shown promise for future applications. Implementation of nascent technologies within the field of transplant medicine remains in its infancy. Cardiac and renal medicine have been recent focuses of large-scale artificial intelligence projects because of the wealth of data, the main limiting factor for producing accurate models. Understanding the true role of artificial intelligence in medicine is key - and has been divided into three areas of focus: data quality, interpretation, and clinical application. These areas allow the clinician to translate problems facing patients into algorithms utilized by data scientists to create solutions, which may provide in-depth analysis and detection of relationships not immediately clear. Although some published data has led to commercial products for cardiac, diabetic, and dermatologic applications -- widespread adoption remains limited to specialized centers. SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence applications with clinically relevant models in transplant medicine have the potential to optimize organ utilization, prediction of complications, and potential pretransplant management, which may mitigate the need for transplant. Further translational projects are under development at major centers, with proof of concepts demonstrating validity and safety in the clinical setting. Limiting factors of infrastructure, expertise, and data availability continue to be addressed. Ongoing efforts for commercialization and large-scale trials will provide a foundation for the development of artificial intelligence applications in transplant medicine.

Kidney transplantation on extracorporeal life support for primary cardiac allograft dysfunction.

Patients undergoing heart-kidney transplants who have primary graft dysfunction (PGD) of the heart are at risk of losing both organs, which may cause reluctance on the part of the transplant team to proceed with transplanting the kidney while the transplanted heart is being supported by mechanical device. We describe a case series in which 2 patients received kidney transplants while on veno-arterial ECMO support for PGD after heart transplant. Both patients are alive more than 1 year following transplant, with good cardiac and renal function and no signs of cardiac rejection. Kidney transplant surgery is safe for patients on veno-arterial ECMO support for cardiac PGD. It allows the heart recipient to receive a kidney from the same donor with both immunologic and survival advantages.

Perioperative predictors of permanent pacing and long-term dependence following tricuspid valve surgery: a multicentre analysis.

AIMS: Permanent pacemaker placement (PPM) is often required after valvular surgery and is especially common following tricuspid valve surgery [tricuspid valve repair or replacement (TVR)]. Literature suggests that surgical intervention for isolated tricuspid valve disease is becoming more prevalent. Predictors of PPM dependency following TVR are currently unknown and would be clinically useful from a prognostication standpoint. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a multicentre, retrospective study to assess perioperative factors of TVR that predispose to PPM placement and long-term PPM dependency from 2008 to 2014. Regression analysis was used to determine independent predictors of PPM implantation. A total of 237 patients (age 66 ± 15 years, 29% male) were studied, and the incidence of PPM placement following TVR was 27% (65/237). No significant differences were observed between those who received PPM and those who did not in age (P = 0.092), gender (P = 0.359), and co-morbidities. Regression analysis identified cross-clamp time >60 min (OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.3-12.9, P = 0.015) and concomitant mitral valve surgery (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.2-12.2, P = 0.026) as independent risk factors for PPM following TVR. Long-term PPM dependency data were only available in 28 patients who received PPM with 14 of these patients developing long-term dependence. The only statistically significant difference noted was an increased frequency of coronary artery disease in the long-term dependent group vs. the non-dependent group (64% vs. 14%, P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Cross-clamp time >60 min and concomitant mitral valve surgery were independent predictors of PPM implantation following TVR. Long-term PPM dependency is more prevalent after TVR than other types of valvular surgery.

Comparative Analysis of Coronavirus disease 2019 Vaccine Efficacy in Heart Transplant Recipients on Standardized Immunotherapy Regimens.

Objective: To assess the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection on heart transplant recipients requiring immunotherapy. To investigate the effectiveness of vaccination in immunosuppressed heart transplant recipients during the initial years of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to examine the timing of COVID-19 infections in heart transplant recipients' posttransplantation. Patients and Methods: International data on COVID-19 infection in immunosuppressed populations is limited. Heart transplant recipients requiring immunotherapy are at risk for increased complications with COVID-19 infection. The availability of vaccination and temporal trends in this population has not been well described. We report outcomes in immunosuppressed patients during the initial years of the COVID-19 pandemic from March 1, 2019, to October 31, 2021, at Mayo Clinic in Florida. Results: A total of 98 patients were reviewed, of which 49 were COVID-19-positive (CP), and 49 were negative (CN). The cohort was well matched, with a median age of 58 years (49-65 years) in both groups. Females consisted of 41% in the CP group and 18.4% in the CN group. Immunosuppression was not significantly different for CP or CN patients. The median time from transplant to CP was 384 days (237-677 days). The CN group's median follow-up after transplant was 947 days (737-1191 days). The CP hospitalization rate was 24% with only 1 death. More CP patients were vaccinated than the CN group (92% vs 78%, P=.025). Conclusion: Our study sheds light on COVID-19's effect on heart transplant recipients and vaccination in this population. Our findings suggest a potentially heightened infection risk within the first 1.5 years posttransplant, highlighting the need to optimize management strategies and vaccine efficacy in this vulnerable group.

The 90-Day Risk of Hospitalization in Heart Transplant Recipients After COVID-19 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Heart transplant recipients are at a high-risk of complications from the coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) infection. Heart transplant recipients are a special group of persistently immunosuppressed people, and COVID-19 may cause them to experience an unpredictable course of infection, with a risk of hospitalization occurring well beyond their initial infection period. The seriousness of COVID-19 disease in heart transplant recipients emphasizes how vital it is to refer patients promptly and early to specialized heart transplant centers. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all heart transplant recipients at a single center between March 2019 and October 2021. All recipients with positive nasopharyngeal reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction tests for COVID-19 were included in this study. After IRB approval, we obtained medical records and patient data from electronic medical records. RESULTS: This study followed 126 heart transplant patients from March 2019 to October 2021 of which only 49 had COVID-19 infections. The median age at infection was 58 years (49-65), with 41% female. Race distribution was as follows: 59% Caucasian and 39% African American. The median time from transplant to infection was 384 days (237-677). All infected patients had a 50% dose reduction in mycophenolate mofetil per institutional protocol. The majority of symptoms were cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, and fever. Among all patients with COVID-19, 45 (92%) were vaccinated. Of those vaccinated, 27 (60%) patients received Pfizer initial and booster doses, whereas 18 (40%) received Moderna initial and booster doses. Twelve patients (24%) were hospitalized within 90 days of infection, with only two requiring ICU level of care. The median duration of hospitalization was 5 days (4-9). Of the hospitalized patients, 11 (92%) were discharged, and 1 (8%) died in the hospital. Three of the four unvaccinated patients were hospitalized, and one died while hospitalized. The remaining 37 patients were managed as outpatients. CONCLUSION: Heart transplant recipients have an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 and developing severe symptoms due to multiple healthcare contacts, preexisting health conditions, and weakened immune systems. Our data highlight that most vaccinated patients do not require hospitalization within 90 days of infection, and those hospitalized have a high likelihood of survival without needing ICU care.

Case report: eosinophilic myocarditis in hypereosinophilic syndrome: a journey to heart transplantation.

Introduction: Hypereosinophilic Syndrome (HES) is a rare disorder characterized by persistent elevation of eosinophils, leading to multi-organ infiltration and damage. Eosinophilic Myocarditis (EM) is one of its severe complications contributing significantly to morbidity and mortality. Herein, we describe the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of EM, emphasizing the significance of early recognition and multidisciplinary management. Case presentation: A 51-year-old female with a history of EM, heart failure, and peripheral eosinophilia presented with NYHA class 3b symptoms. Laboratory findings revealed elevated peripheral eosinophil count, NT-Pro BNP, and characteristic electrocardiogram abnormalities. Imaging studies confirmed biventricular thrombi and myocardial abnormalities consistent with EM. Treatment involved Solu-Medrol for HES and heparin for ventricular thrombi, leading to initial clinical improvement. However, refractory heart failure necessitated urgent heart transplantation. Discussion: EM, an under-recognized complication of HES, poses diagnostic and management challenges. Management includes standard heart failure treatments, steroids, and emerging therapies like Mepolizumab. Early diagnosis and aggressive management are pivotal for improving outcomes in this rare and potentially fatal condition. Conclusion: Advancements in the detection of complications, surgical management, and therapeutic options have improved outcomes in HES. Ongoing research is essential to further understand and address the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of HES and EM.

Case Report: Unmasking sustainable left ventricular recovery in chronic heart failure with axillary temporary mechanical circulatory support.

Background: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS), temporary or durable, is essential in patients with acute heart failure presenting in cardiogenic shock (CS). MCS is fundamental in patients with advanced heart failure when used as a bridge to decision, transplant or left ventricular recovery. Limited data on acute-on-chronic heart failure (HF) patients exists in the era of axillary mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.5. We describe a case of chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy, HF-CS, in a patient who underwent Impella placement, medical optimization, and explant, now with sustained normalization in ejection fraction. Case summary: A Caucasian female in her 50 s was referred to our center for evaluation for advanced therapies, including transplantation or durable left ventricular assist device placement. Her initial ejection fraction was 30% with comorbidities including multivessel coronary artery disease revascularized with 3 vessel bypass grafting ten years prior, type 2 diabetes (A1c 8.6%), and peripheral vascular disease. During her evaluation, she had acute decompensation leading to cardiogenic shock and required hospitalization with inotrope initiation, which was unable to be weaned. She was approved for organ transplant and listed; however, she required escalation of support and eventual placement of right axillary Impella 5.5. While on Impella support, her vasoactive needs reduced, and she was found to have left ventricular recovery and tolerated the initiation of guideline medical therapy. After three weeks of support, the Impella was weaned and explanted, and the patient was discharged. She remains stable with a sustained ejection fraction of greater than 50% with NYHA class 1 functional status at follow-up. One year later, the patient showed sustained myocardial recovery with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Conclusion: Our case highlights a unique approach in patients with long-standing (>5 years) heart failure who may benefit from early consideration for axillary support and concomitant optimization with guideline-directed medical therapy to assess for explant and native heart recovery.

Stiff right atrial syndrome? A complex clinical case report utilizing multimodality imaging and invasive hemodynamics.

Background: Stiff left atrial syndrome is a well-established cause of heart failure symptoms. A parallel entity involving the right atrium (RA) has not previously been described. We present a case of refractory right heart failure (RHF) 12 years following orthotopic heart transplantation. Case summary: Patient underwent annuloplasty ring placement for severe tricuspid regurgitation in 2018 and kidney transplantation in 2020. The use of multimodality imaging and a multidisciplinary approach suggested a stiff RA as a potential etiology to refractory symptoms. Redo-heart and kidney transplantation in March 2021 led to the resolution of symptoms without recurrence. Discussion: We propose stiff right atrial syndrome that may need to be considered in the setting of refractory RHF primarily suggested by significant right atrial enlargement and restrictive physiology.

PREDICT HF: Risk stratification in advanced heart failure using novel hemodynamic parameters.

BACKGROUND: Invasive hemodynamics are fundamental in assessing patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Several novel hemodynamic parameters have been studied; however, the relative prognostic potential remains ill-defined. HYPOTHESIS: Advanced hemodynamic parameters provide additional prognostication beyond the standard hemodynamic assessment. METHODS: Patients from the PRognostic Evaluation During Invasive CaTheterization for Heart Failure (PREDICT-HF) registry who underwent right heart catheterization (RHC) were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was survival to orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or death within 6 months of RHC. RESULTS: Of 846 patients included, 176 (21%) met the primary endpoint. In a multivariate model that included traditional hemodynamic variables, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) (OR: 1.10, 1.04-1.15, p < .001), and cardiac index (CI) (OR: 0.86, 0.81-0.92, p < .001) were shown to be predictive of adverse outcomes. In a separate multivariate model that incorporated advanced hemodynamic parameters, cardiac power output (CPO) (OR: 0.76, 0.71-0.83, p < .001), aortic pulsatility index (API) (OR: 0.94, 0.91-0.96, p < .001), and pulmonary artery pulsatility index (OR: 1.02, 1.00-1.03, p .027) were all significantly associated with the primary outcome. Positively concordant API and CPO afforded the best freedom from the endpoint (94.7%), whilst negatively concordant API and CPO had the worst freedom from the endpoint (61.5%, p < .001). Those with discordant API and CPO had similar freedom from the endpoint. CONCLUSION: The advanced hemodynamic parameters API and CPO are independently associated with death or the need for OHT or LVAD within 6 months. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these parameters and elucidate their role in patients with advanced HF.

Percutaneous Axillary Left Ventricular Support as a Lifesaving Measure for Peripartum Cardiomyopathy Shock: A Case Report.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) affects women at the end of pregnancy or after delivery. Symptoms overlapping with pregnancy decrease the diagnostic yield of PPCM and can increase the rate of maternal mortality. As clinicians manage high-risk patients, it is crucial to understand the variable maternal physiology both during and after childbirth. Effective management of high-risk patients necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the variable maternal physiology during and after childbirth. The importance of prompt intervention with Impella CP (Cardiac Power) to treat acute cardiogenic shock stemming from PPCM after cesarean should be considered. Clinical outcomes can be improved by emphasizing the need for timely intervention and incorporating a comprehensive understanding of maternal physiology. The authors present a case of Impella CP use in PPCM shock as a means for emergent support after cesarean.

Revisiting Pulmonary Hypertension in the Era of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support - Literature Review and Case-Based Discussion.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is characterized by persistently increased pressure in the pulmonary arteries. New defining criteria for the different hemodynamic types of pulmonary hypertension (PH) that occur with left heart disease have been proposed by the task force on PH. After consideration of the changes in the general definition of PH in left heart disease, the proposed hemodynamic definition was: (1) isolated postcapillary PH: pulmonary artery wedge pressure >15 mm Hg and mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) >20 mm Hg and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) <3 Woods units (WU); and (2) combined post- and precapillary PH: pulmonary artery wedge pressure >15 mm Hg, mPAP >20 mm Hg, and PVR ≥3 WU. Secondary PH is initially reversible, but eventually, it can become fixed because of the remodeling process of the pulmonary vascular system. Limitations in defining both the time for and amount of reversibility lack clarity. We discuss a case of PH as a framework to better understand these key principles in addressing patients' candidacy for heart or heart-lung transplantation. METHODS: We performed a literature search for all available contemporary data with the following terms: "pulmonary hypertension," "reversal," "Impella 5.5," "temporary mechanical support," and "LVAD" using the National Library of Medicine - PubMed and PubMed Central between 2019 and 2023. A total of 14 published papers were found with these search. From these, 3 addressed the issue of PH and reversibility in the setting of LHD after durable LVAD placement. No papers were found using Impella 5.5 and PH during this timeframe. Given the paucity of data in the field regarding temporary mechanical circulatory support and pulmonary hypertension, we present a case-based discussion to guide the reader in understanding the potential impact of this method in patients with WHO Class 2 Pulmonary hypertension. CASE: A 49-year-old woman with a medical history of acute on chronic biventricular systolic and diastolic heart failure, American College of Cardiology stage D, Stevenson profile C, New York Heart Association class IV (ejection fraction 18%) secondary to nonischemic cardiomyopathy after cardiac resynchronization therapy, pulmonary hypertension, bilateral deep vein thrombosis, and segmental pulmonary embolism presented for heart transplant evaluation. Her cardiac output and central hemodynamics were measured, and she was found to have a pulmonary artery (PA) pressure of 78/38 with a mean PA pressure of 51, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) 30, transpulmonary pressure gradient (TPG) 21, thermodilution cardiac output (CO) 3.35 L/min, and cardiac input (CI) 1.75 L/min/m2. Her PVR was 6.2 WU. Provocative pharmacologic testing for reversibility of PH was performed using sodium nitroprusside, which resulted in a blood pressure of 83/57 (92), heart rate 92/min, and PA pressure of 71/31, with a mean PA pressure of 44 PCWP 22, TPG 22, CO 4.8 L/min, and CI of 2.48 L/min/m2 with a PVR of 4.5 WU. Following this, the patient underwent Impella 5.5 placement through the right axillary artery to optimize afterload reduction and improve end-organ perfusion. Post-Impella hemodynamics on milrinone 0.5 mcg/kg/min demonstrated the following: blood pressure 90/66 (74), heart rate 53/min, and PA pressure of 56/29, with a mean PA pressure of 38, PCWP 24, TPG 14, CO 6 L/min, and CI of 2.9 L/min/m2 with a PVR of 2.3 WU. CONCLUSION: Left ventricular assist device support with Impella 5.5 is associated with a reduction in mPAP and PVR over weeks to months and thus plays a crucial role as a bridge to transplant. Our case and this review highlights the characteristics of PH resulting from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and discusses the important clinical issues related to the treatment of these patients. We have shown that left ventricular assist device therapy with Impella 5.5 can effectively reduce left-sided filling pressures and lead to PH improvement. We demonstrate the potential benefits of Impella 5.5 in the management of patients with WHO 2 PH and cardiogenic shock with impaired hemodynamics.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation-Impella (ECPELLA) in a Patient With Recalcitrant Ventricular Tachycardia Undergoing Ablation.

In advanced heart failure, refractory hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia (VT) can be life-threatening. The utilization of short-term temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been described. Still, it is limited to the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella 2.5/CP (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA) which may only provide up to 1-2.5 L/min of added support. Escalation of MCS therapies should be considered. Referrals to advanced tertiary heart transplant centers should be done early to afford patients the best chance at an optimal outcome, with the option for heart transplant evaluation if needed. We present a case of recalcitrant hemodynamically unstable VT complicated by cardiac arrest, eventually undergoing successful VT ablation while supported on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and Impella 5.5 as a vent strategy in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-Impella (ECPELLA) configuration.

Donation after circulatory death: A transplant cardiologist's take on neuroprognostication.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is becoming increasingly utilized in heart transplantation and has the potential to further expand the donor pool. As transplant cardiologists gain more familiarity with DCD donor selection, there are many issues that lack consensus including how we incorporate the neurologic examination, how we measure functional warm ischemic time (fWIT), and what fWIT thresholds are acceptable. DCD donor selection calls for prognostication tools to help determine how quickly a donor may expire, and in current practice there is no standardization in how we make these predictions. Current scoring systems help to determine which donor may expire within a specified time window either require the temporary disconnection of ventilatory support or do not incorporate any neurologic examination or imaging. Moreover, the specified time windows differ from other DCD solid organ transplantation without standardization or strong scientific justification for these thresholds. In this perspective, we highlight the challenges faced by transplant cardiologists as they navigate the muddy waters of neuroprognostication in DCD cardiac donation. Given these difficulties, this is also a call to action for the creation of a more standardized approach to improve the DCD donor selection process for appropriate resource allocation and organ utilization.