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 Outcomes in Severe Primary Graft Dysfunction After Heart Transplantation Following Donation After Circulatory Death Compared With Donation After Brain Death.

BACKGROUND: Primary graft dysfunction (PGD), the leading cause of early mortality after heart transplantation, is more common following donation after circulatory death (DCD) than donation after brain death (DBD). We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study to compare the incidence, severity and outcomes of patients experiencing PGD after DCD compared to DBD heart transplantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Medical records were reviewed for all adult heart transplant recipients at our institution between March 2016 and December 2021. PGD was diagnosed within 24 hours after transplant according to modified International Society for Heart and Lung Transplant criteria. A total of 459 patients underwent isolated heart transplantation during the study period, 65 (14%) following DCD and 394 (86%) following DBD. The incidence of moderate or severe PGD in DCD and DBD recipients was 34% and 23%, respectively (P = 0.070). DCD recipients were more likely to experience severe biventricular PGD than DBD recipients (19% vs 7.4%; P = 0.004). Among patients with severe PGD, DCD recipients experienced shorter median (Q1, Q3) duration of post-transplant mechanical circulatory support (6 [4, 7] vs 9 [5, 14] days; P = 0.039), shorter median post-transplant hospital length of stay (17 [15, 29] vs 52 [26, 83] days; P = 0.004), and similar 60-day survival rates (100% [95% CI: 76.8%-100%] vs 80.0% [63.1%-91.6%]; P = 0.17) and overall survival (log-rank; P = 0.078) compared with DBD recipients. CONCLUSIONS: DCD heart transplant recipients were more likely to experience severe, biventricular PGD than DBD recipients. Despite this, DCD recipients with severe PGD spent fewer days on mechanical circulatory support and in the hospital than similar DBD patients. These findings suggest that patterns of graft dysfunction and recovery may differ between donor types, and they support the expansion of the heart-donor pool with DCD.

Donation After Circulatory Death in Heart Transplantation: History, Outcomes, Clinical Challenges, and Opportunities to Expand the Donor Pool.

Heart transplantation remains the gold-standard therapy for end-stage heart failure; the expected median survival range is 12-13 years. More than 30,000 heart transplants have been performed globally in the past decade alone. With advances in medical and surgical therapies for heart failure, including durable left ventricular assist devices, an increasing number of patients are living with end-stage disease. Last year alone, more than 2500 patients were added to the heart-transplant waitlist in the United States. Despite recent efforts to expand the donor pool, including an increase in transplantation of hepatitis C-positive and extended-criteria donors, supply continues to fall short of demand. Donation after circulatory death (DCD), defined by irreversible cardiopulmonary arrest rather than donor brain death, is widely used in other solid-organ transplants, including kidney and liver, but has not been widely adopted in heart transplantation. However, resurging interest in DCD donation and the introduction of ex vivo perfusion technology has catalyzed recent clinical trials and the development of DCD heart-transplantation programs. Herein, we review the history of DCD heart transplantation, describe the currently used procurement protocols for it and examine clinical challenges and outcomes of such a procedure.

Donor Heart Recovery and Preservation Modalities in 2024.

Historically, heart transplantation (HT) has relied on the use of traditional cold storage for donor heart preservation. This organ preservation modality has several limitations, including the risk for ischemic and cold-induced graft injuries that may contribute to primary graft dysfunction and poor post-HT outcomes. In recent years, several novel donor heart preservation modalities have entered clinical practice, including the SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System of controlled hypothermic preservation, and the Transmedics Organ Care System of ex vivo perfusion. Such technologies are altering the landscape of HT by expanding the geographic reach of procurement teams and enabling both donation after cardiac death and the use of expanded criteria donor hearts. This paper will review the emerging evidence on the association of these modalities with improved post-HT outcomes, and will also suggest best practices for selecting between donor heart preservation techniques.

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).

Metabolomic profiling during ex situ normothermic perfusion before heart transplantation defines patterns of substrate utilization and correlates with markers of allograft injury.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac metabolism is altered in heart failure and ischemia-reperfusion injury states. We hypothesized that metabolomic profiling during ex situ normothermic perfusion before heart transplantation (HT) would lend insight into myocardial substrate utilization and report on subclinical and clinical allograft dysfunction risk. METHODS: Metabolomic profiling was performed on serial samples of ex situ normothermic perfusate assaying biomarkers of myocardial injury in lactate and cardiac troponin I (TnI) as well as metabolites (66 acylcarnitines, 15 amino acids, nonesterified fatty acids [NEFA], ketones, and 3-hydroxybutyrate). We tested for change over time in injury biomarkers and metabolites, along with differential changes by recovery strategy (donation after circulatory death [DCD] vs donation after brain death [DBD]). We examined associations between metabolites, injury biomarkers, and primary graft dysfunction (PGD). Analyses were performed using linear mixed models adjusted for recovery strategy, assay batch, donor-predicted heart mass, and time. RESULTS: A total of 176 samples from 92 ex situ perfusion runs were taken from donors with a mean age of 35 (standard deviation 11.3) years and a median total ex situ perfusion time of 234 (interquartile range 84) minutes. Lactate trends over time differed significantly by recovery strategy, while TnI increased during ex situ perfusion regardless of DCD vs DBD status. We found fuel substrates were rapidly depleted during ex situ perfusion, most notably the branched-chain amino acids leucine/isoleucine, as well as ketones, 3-hydroxybutyrate, and NEFA (least squares [LS] mean difference from the first to last time point -1.7 to -4.5, false discovery rate q < 0.001). Several long-chain acylcarnitines (LCAC), including C16, C18, C18:1, C18:2, C18:3, C20:3, and C20:4, increased during the perfusion run (LS mean difference 0.42-0.67, q < 0.001). Many LCACs were strongly associated with lactate and TnI. The change over time of many LCACs was significantly different for DCD vs DBD, suggesting differential trends in fuel substrate utilization by ischemic injury pattern. Changes in leucine/isoleucine, arginine, C12:1-OH/C10:1-DC, and C16-OH/C14-DC were associated with increased odds of moderate-severe PGD. Neither end-of-run nor change in lactate or TnI was associated with PGD. CONCLUSIONS: Metabolomic profiling of ex situ normothermic perfusion solution reveals a pattern of fuel substrate utilization that correlates with subclinical and clinical allograft dysfunction. This study highlights a potential role for interventions focused on fuel substrate modification in allograft conditioning during ex situ perfusion to improve allograft outcomes.

The Future of heart procurement with donation after circulatory death: Current practice and opportunities for advancement.

Heart Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD) has the potential to significantly increase the number of patients benefitting from heart transplantation. However, the expansion of DCD heart transplantation is currently limited by unanswered questions pertaining to best practices in DCD heart procurement. Additionally, significant variability exists within regulatory frameworks, professional guidelines, and published practices of DCD procurement processes. Here we describe the current practice and outstanding questions related to fundamental aspects of DCD heart procurement, including donor selection, premortem donor intervention, ischemic definitions, confirmation of circulatory death, and techniques for heart procurement and preservation. Addressing these key issues through research and consensus recommendations will facilitate the advancement of the field and ultimately expand the opportunity for heart transplantation to a greater number of patients.