Characteristics and outcomes of heart transplant recipients with a pretransplant history of malignancy.

We aimed to investigate the characteristics and outcomes of HTx recipients with a history of pretransplant malignancy (PTM). Among 1062 HTx recipients between 1997 and 2013, 73 (7.1%) patients had PTMs (77 cancer cases). We analyzed post-HTx outcome, recurrence of PTM, and development of de novo malignancies. Post-HTx outcome included overall survival, 10-year survival, 10-year freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), non-fatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), any treated rejection (ATR), acute cellular rejection (ACR), and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Four most common PTMs were lymphoproliferative disorders (18.2%), prostate cancers (18.2%), non-melanoma skin cancers (18.2%), and breast cancers (13.0%). Median time from PTM and HTx was 9.0 years. During a median follow-up of 8.6 years after HTx, patients with PTM, compared to those without, showed significantly higher incidence of posttransplant malignancies (43.8% vs. 20.8%, p < .001) including 9.6% (n = 7) of PTM recurrences. However, patients with PTM, compared to those without, showed comparable overall survival, 10-year survival, 10-year freedom from CAV, NF-MACE, ATR, ACR, and AMR. Therefore, a history of PTM should not disqualify patients from HTx listing, while further research is necessary for early detection of posttransplant malignancies in these patients.

Heart transplant recipient 1-year outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic initially brought forth considerable challenges to the field of heart transplantation. To prevent the spread of the virus and protect immunocompromised recipients, our center made the following modifications to post-transplant outpatient management: eliminating early coronary angiograms, video visits for postoperative months 7, 9, and 11, and home blood draws for immunosuppression adjustments. To assess if these changes have impacted patient outcomes, the current study examines 1-year outcomes for patients transplanted during the pandemic. Between March and September 2020, we assessed 50 heart transplant patients transplanted during the pandemic. These patients were compared to patients who were transplanted during the same months between 2011 and 2019 (n = 482). Endpoints included subsequent 1-year survival, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy, any-treated rejection, acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), and hospital and ICU length of stay. Patients transplanted during the pandemic had similar 1-year endpoints compared to those of patients transplanted from years prior apart from 1-year freedom from NF-MACE which was significantly higher for patients transplanted during the pandemic. Despite necessary changes being made to outpatient management of heart transplant recipients, heart transplantation continues to be safe and effective with similar 1-year outcomes to years prior.

Long-term outcomes after heart transplantation using ex vivo allograft perfusion in standard risk donors: A single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: The Organ Care System (OCS) is an ex vivo perfusion platform for donor heart preservation. Short/mid-term post-transplant outcomes after its use are comparable to standard cold storage (CS). We evaluated long-term outcomes following its use. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2013, 38 patients from a single center were randomized as a part of the PROCEED II trial to receive allografts preserved with CS (n = 19) or OCS (n = 19). Endpoints included 8-year survival, survival free from graft-related deaths, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), non-fatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), and rejections. RESULTS: Eight-year survival was 57.9% in the OCS group and 73.7% in the CS group (p = .24). Freedom from CAV was 89.5% in the OCS group and 67.8% in the CS group (p = .13). Freedom from NF-MACE was 89.5% in the OCS group and 67.5% in the CS group (p = .14). Eight-year survival free from graft-related death was equivalent between the two groups (84.2% vs. 84.2%, p = .93). No differences in rejection episodes were observed (all p > .5). CONCLUSIONS: In select patients receiving OCS preserved allografts, late post-transplant survival trended lower than those transplanted with an allograft preserved with CS. This is based on a small single-center series, and larger numbers are needed to confirm these findings.

Rapidly Growing Mycobacterium tuberculosis in the Form of Empyema Necessitans: A Case Report.

We present a case of rapidly growing disseminated Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) that presented as an empyema necessitans (EN) in a 65-year-old woman with a single right lung transplant admitted for progressive dyspnea. While hospitalized, she had daily fevers and was found to have a right-sided chest wall abscess and pleural effusion. Acid-fast bacilli cultures from the abscess and pleural fluid grew MTB within 4 and 6 days, respectively. Blood cultures later grew MTB as well. Upon initiation of rifampin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol, she developed hemorrhagic pancreatitis and distributive shock secondary to antituberculosis medications and disseminated MTB. Noteworthy features of this case include the rapid rate of MTB culture growth in less than a week, the development of a likely donor-derived MTB EN, and the clinical challenges of MTB screening and MTB infection management in a solid organ transplant recipient.

Impact of the United Network for organ sharing 2018 donor heart allocation system on transplant morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: While the revised UNOS HTx donor allocation system aimed to minimize waitlist mortality by prioritizing more critically ill transplant candidates, there is concern for increased post-transplant morbidity and mortality. We examined the impact of the revised allocation system on waitlist and post-transplant outcomes at a high-volume transplant center. METHODS: One hundred and sixty nine adult patients underwent first-time single-organ HTx one year before (Era 1:79 patients) and after (Era 2:90 patients) implementation of the new allocation system (10/18/2018). Clinical characteristics, waitlist outcomes, and post-transplant morbidity and mortality were compared. RESULTS: Era 2 patients were twice as likely to be transplanted on temporary mechanical circulatory support (43% vs. 19%, p < .0001). While Era 2 waitlist time was shorter (10 vs. 43 days, p < .001), exception status requests (21.1% vs. 17.9%) and waitlist mortality (3.3% vs. 2.2%) were similar. There was no difference in primary graft dysfunction, intensive care unit or hospital length of stay, readmissions, rejection, allograft vasculopathy, or 1-year survival (91.1% vs. 93.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In a high-volume center, the revised HTx allocation system shortened waitlist time with no significant change in waitlist mortality or observed impact on post-transplant outcomes. With careful patient selection, the revised allocation system may optimize waitlist and post-transplant outcomes.

Heart transplantation in the era of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: Is it safe and feasible?

As the SARS-CoV-2-pandemic continues to unfold, the number of heart transplants completed in the United States has been declining steadily. The current case series examines the immediate short-term outcomes of seven heart transplant recipients transplanted during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We hope to illustrate that with proper preparation, planning, and testing, heart transplantation can be continued during a pandemic. We assessed 7 patients transplanted from March 4, 2020, to April 15, 2020. The following endpoints were noted: in-hospital survival, in-hospital freedom from rejection, in-hospital nonfatal major cardiac adverse events (NF-MACE), severe primary graft dysfunction, hospital length of stay, and ICU length of stay. There were no expirations throughout the hospital admission. In addition, there were no patients with NF-MACE or treated rejection, and 1 patient developed severe primary graft dysfunction. Average length of stay was 17.2 days with a standard deviation of 5.9 days. ICU length of stay was 7.7 days with a standard deviation of 2.3 days. Despite the decreasing trend in completed heart transplants due to SARS-CoV-2, heart transplantation appears to be feasible in the immediate short term. Further follow-up is needed, however, to assess the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on post-heart transplant outcomes months after transplantation.

Access to extracorporeal life support as a quality metric: Lessons from trauma.

BACKGROUND: Access to centers with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) capabilities varies by region and may affect overall outcomes. We assessed the outcomes of trauma patients requiring ECMO support and compared the overall survival of all patients with trauma at facilities with and without ECMO capabilities. METHODS: A retrospective review of the National Trauma Data Bank was performed to identify all trauma patients receiving care at ECMO and non-ECMO centers. Baseline patient characteristics and outcomes were analyzed. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) was used to compare survival at ECMO and non-ECMO facilities. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2015, a total of 5 781 123 patients with trauma were identified with 1 983 986 (34%) admitted to an ECMO facility and 3 797 137 (66%) admitted to a non-ECMO facility. A total of 522 (0.03%) patients required ECMO. Both the number of patients with trauma requiring ECMO support and the number of trauma facilities utilizing ECMO increased over the 9-year-study period (4.9 to 13.8 patients per 100 000 admissions, and 18 to 77 centers, respectively). The mortality for ECMO patients was 40.5%. Patients with trauma admitted to ECMO facilities had more severe injuries (injury severity score: 9.0 vs 8.0; P < .001). The overall mortality was 3.3%. The adjusted OR for mortality associated with admission to an ECMO facility vs a non-ECMO facility was 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.95-0.97; adjusted P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of ECMO for patients with trauma is expanding. Our study demonstrates a survival benefit associated with admission to a facility with ECMO capabilities. Thus, access to ECMO is a potential quality metric for trauma centers.

Mechanical circulatory support for cardiac amyloidosis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac amyloidosis, typically from abnormal deposition of AL or ATTR amyloid protein, can result in heart failure requiring transplantation (HTx). The role of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is not well-established. The purpose of this study was to present our experience with MCS in patients with cardiac amyloidosis. METHODS: Consecutive patients with cardiac amyloidosis who received MCS at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2010 and 2018 were reviewed. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared to a control group of MCS patients without amyloid matched 2:1 for age and INTERMACS Profile. RESULTS: 11 amyloid patients underwent durable MCS, two with paracorporeal biventricular assist devices and 9 with total artificial hearts. No patients received isolated left ventricular assist device support. By 1 year, 9 (82%) of patients in the MCS-Amyloid group had been transplanted and 2 (18%) had died. In the MCS-No Amyloid group, by 1 year, 8 (36%) of patients had been transplanted, 10 (46%) had died, and 4 (18%) were still living with MCS. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 9-year period, patients with amyloid cardiomyopathy who required MCS at our institution all received durable biventricular MCS. For carefully selected patients, this approach is feasible with acceptable outcomes as bridge to transplantation.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Appropriateness: An Interdisciplinary Consensus-Based Approach.

We describe a quality improvement initiative aimed at achieving interdisciplinary consensus about the appropriate delivery of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Interdisciplinary rounds were implemented for all patients on ECMO and addressed whether care was consistent with a patient's minimally acceptable outcome, maximally acceptable burden, and relative likelihood of achieving either. The rounding process was associated with decreased days on venoarterial ECMO, from a median of 6 days in 2014 (first quartile [Q1]-third quartile [Q3], 3-10) to 5 days in 2015 (Q1-Q3, 2.5-8) and in 2016 (Q1-Q3, 1-8). Our statistical methods do not allow us to conclude that this change was due to our intervention, and it is possible that the observed decreases would have occurred whether or not the rounding process was implemented.

Role of Methadone in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Two Case Reports.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) affects pharmacokinetics/dynamics of drugs in unpredictable ways. Anecdotally, ECMO patients require high doses of opioids and sedatives, leading to concerns of tolerance. Methadone is a long-acting synthetic opioid with antagonist properties at the n-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor. It has been shown to improve spontaneous breathing trials and weaning from mechanical ventilation; however, there is no literature describing its use in ECMO. We describe two patients from the cardiac surgery intensive care unit at Cedars Sinai (Los Angeles, CA) on ECMO for over 30 days maintained on methadone.

Massive Pulmonary Embolism: Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Surgical Pulmonary Embolectomy.

Massive pulmonary embolism (PE) refers to large emboli that cause hemodynamic instability, right ventricular failure, and circulatory collapse. According to the 2016 ACCP Antithrombotic Guidelines, therapy for massive PE should include systemic thrombolytic therapy in conjunction with anticoagulation and supportive care. However, in patients with a contraindication to systemic thrombolytics or in those who fail the above interventions, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and/or surgical embolectomy may be used to improve oxygenation, achieve hemodynamic stability, and successfully treat massive PE. Randomized controlled human trials evaluating ECMO in this context have not been done, and its role has not been well-defined. The European Society of Cardiology 2014 acute PE guidelines briefly mention that ECMO can be used for massive PE as a method for hemodynamic support and as an adjunct to surgical embolectomy. The 2016 CHEST Antithrombotic Therapy for venous thromboembolism Disease guidelines do not mention ECMO in the management of massive PE. However, multiple case reports and small series cited benefit with ECMO for massive PE. Further, ECMO may facilitate stabilization for surgical embolectomy. Unfortunately, ECMO requires full anticoagulation to maintain the functionality of the system; hence, significant bleeding complicates its use in 35% of patients. Contraindications to ECMO include high bleeding risk, recent surgery or hemorrhagic stroke, poor baseline functional status, advanced age, neurologic dysfunction, morbid obesity, unrecoverable condition, renal failure, and prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation without adequate perfusion of end organs. In this review, we discuss management of massive PE, with an emphasis on the potential role for ECMO and/or surgical embolectomy.

Device Strategies for Patients in INTERMACS Profiles 1 and 2 Cardiogenic Shock: Double Bridge With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Initial Implant of More Durable Devices.

For Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profiles 1 and 2 cardiogenic shock patients initially placed on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), whether crossover to more durable devices is associated with increased survival, and its optimal timing, are not established. Profiles 1 and 2 patients placed on mechanical support were prospectively registered. Survival and successful hospital discharge were compared between patients placed on ECMO only, ECMO with early crossover, and ECMO with delayed crossover. Survival of patients directly implanted with non-ECMO devices was also reported. One-hundred and sixty-two patients were included. Mean age was 52.2 ± 13.8 years. Seventy-three of 162 (45.1%) were initiated on ECMO. Of these, 43 were supported with ECMO only, 11 were crossed-over early <4 days, and 19 were crossed-over in a delayed fashion. Survival was different across groups (Log-rank P < 0.002). In multivariate analysis, early crossover was associated with decreased mortality as compared with no crossover (hazard ratio [HR] 0.201, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.058-0.697, P = 0.011) or with delayed crossover (HR 0.255, 95%CI 0.073-0.894, P = 0.033). Mortality was not different between delayed crossover and no crossover (P = 0.473). In patients with early crossover there were no deaths at 30 days, and 60-day survival was 90.0 ± 9.5%. Survival to hospital discharge was 72.8%. For patients directly implanted with non-ECMO devices, 30-day and 60-day survival was 90.9 ± 3.1% and 87.3 ± 3.8%, respectively, and survival to hospital discharge was 78.7%. Both initial implant of durable devices and double bridge strategy was associated with improved outcomes. If the double bridge strategy is chosen, early crossover is associated with improved survival and successful hospital discharge.

Clot Extraction With the FlowTriever Device in Acute Massive Pulmonary Embolism.

Clinical guidelines support the use of systemic thrombolytic therapy for acute massive pulmonary embolism (PE). When anticoagulation and thrombolysis fail or are contraindicated, options become limited. We report an acute PE case in which treatment options were limited, and a novel device, the FlowTriever (Inari Medical, Irvine, California), was successfully used. This is the first case report of the use of this device that we are aware of.

Robot-Assisted Resection of Left Ventricular Papillary Fibroelastoma Arising From the Mitral Chordal Apparatus.

The application of robot-assisted thoracoscopy to cardiac surgery affords an opportunity to leverage the exceptional intraoperative exposure, visualization, and dexterity of the robotic platform. Here, we report the case of a 72-year-old woman who presented to our institution for evaluation of a left ventricular mass that was identified following workup for an embolic event. We present an intraoperative video that provides technical details of the robot-assisted resection of the lesion, which was found to be a left ventricular papillary fibroelastoma arising from the mitral chordal apparatus. This case highlights the advantages provided by the robotic platform, which permitted complete, minimally invasive surgical excision of the lesion while minimizing the burden of surgical trauma.

Improved clinical outcomes associated with the Impella 5.5 compared to the Impella 5.0 in contemporary cardiogenic shock and heart failure patients.

A redesigned surgically implanted heart pump incorporates several design changes from the prior device generation, but no published comparative data demonstrate if these changes translate to improved outcomes. We retrospectively compared clinical characteristics and outcomes, drawn from an FDA-mandated QA database, for contemporary patients treated with the Impella 5.5 or Impella 5.0 for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS), cardiomyopathy, or postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS). A total of 1238 patients at 290 US sites were included for analysis. Patients receiving the Impella 5.5 had significantly higher survival through explant (i.e., successfully weaned or bridged to heart replacement therapy) than those receiving the Impella 5.0 in all 3 settings: AMICS (70.5% vs 56.8%; p = 0.005), cardiomyopathy (88.1% vs 76.9%; p = 0.001), and PCCS (76.1% vs 55.7%; p = 0.003). Duration of support was significantly longer for Impella 5.5 patients with AMICS (9.2 vs 6.1 days; p = 0.008) and cardiomyopathy (10.7 vs 8.1 days; p < 0.001).

Successful Reuse of a Donor Heart.

At a time when transplantable organs are in a shortage, few cases have noted the reuse of donor hearts in a second recipient in an effort to expand the donor network. Here, we present a case in which an O Rh-positive donor heart was first transplanted into a B Rh-positive recipient and later successfully retransplanted into a second O Rh-positive recipient 10 days after the initial transplant at the same medical center. On postoperative day 1, the first recipient, a 21-year-old man with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, sustained a devastating cerebrovascular accident with progression to brain death. With preserved left ventricle and mildly depressed right ventricle function, the heart was allocated to the second recipient, a 63-year-old male patient with familial restrictive cardiomyopathy. The bicaval technique was used, and the total ischemic time was 100 minutes. His postoperative course was uncomplicated with no evidence of rejection on 3 endomyocardial biopsies. Follow-up transthoracic echocardiogram revealed a left ventricular ejection fraction of 60% to 70%. Seven months posttransplant, the second recipient was doing well with appropriate left and right ventricular function. With careful organ selection, short ischemic time, and proper postoperative care, retransplant of donor hearts may be an option for select patients in need of heart transplant.

Temporary Left Ventricular Support Device as a Bridge to Heart-Liver or Heart-Kidney Transplant: Pushing the Boundaries of Temporary Support.

In patients with severe cardiogenic shock, temporary mechanical circulatory support has become a viable strategy to bridge patients to heart transplantation. However, end-stage heart failure is often associated with progressive organ dysfunction of the liver or kidney. This can require a dual organ transplant for definitive management (combined heart-liver [HL] or heart-kidney [HK] transplantation). We evaluated temporary mechanical support to bridge patients to HL or HK transplant at a single, high-volume center. All patients who underwent Impella 5.0 placement from January 2014 to October 2018 were identified. From this dataset, patients who underwent placement as a bridge to dual organ transplant were selected, as were those who underwent Impella as a bridge to isolated heart transplant. Over the 5 years of evaluation, 104 patients underwent Impella 5.0 placement. Of these, 14.3% (n = 15) were identified as potential dual organ recipients (11 HK, 4 HL). In total, 80% (12/15) successfully underwent dual organ transplant (8 HK, 4 HL), with a 1-year survival of 100% in both transplanted groups. Among patients undergoing Impella 5.0 placement as a bridge to isolated heart transplant (n = 33), 78.8% (26) were successfully bridged, and 1-year survival was 92% after transplantation. Impella 5.0 is a viable bridge to dual organ transplantation and should be considered as a management strategy in these complex patients at experienced institutions.

Left atrial appendage closure during mitral repair in patients without atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: Routine left atrial appendage closure during mitral repair in patients without atrial fibrillation (AF) is controversial. We aimed to compare the incidence of stroke after mitral repair in patients without recent AF according to left atrial appendage closure. METHODS: An institutional registry identified 764 consecutive patients without recent AF, endocarditis, prior appendage closure, or stroke undergoing isolated robotic mitral repair between 2005 and 2020. Left atrial appendages were closed via left atriotomy using a double-layer continuous suture in 5.3% (15 out of 284) patients before 2014, versus 86.7% (416 out of 480) after 2014. The cumulative incidence of stroke (including transient ischemic attack) was determined using statewide hospital data. Median follow-up was 4.5 years (range, 0-16.6 years). RESULTS: Patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure were older (63 vs 57.5 years, P < .001), with higher prevalence of remote AF requiring cryomaze (9%, n = 40 vs 1%, n = 3, P < .001). After appendage closure there were fewer reoperations for bleeding (0.7% [n = 3] vs 3% [n = 10]; P = .02), and more AF (31.8% [n = 137] vs 25.2% [n = 84]; P = .047). Two-year freedom from >2+ mitral regurgitation was 97%. Six strokes and 1 transient ischemic attack occurred after appendage closure compared with 14 and 5 in patients without (P = .002), associated with a significant difference in 8-year cumulative incidence of stroke/transient ischemic attack (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.14-0.85; P = .02). This difference persisted in the sensitivity analysis, excluding patients undergoing concomitant cryomaze procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Routine left atrial appendage closure during mitral repair in patients without recent AF appears safe and was associated with a lower risk of subsequent stroke/transient ischemic attack.

Three year post heart transplant outcomes of desensitized durable mechanical circulatory support patients.

BACKGROUND: The risks and benefits of desensitization therapy (DST) in highly sensitized mechanical circulatory support (MCS) patients are not well known. We investigated 3 year post-transplant outcomes of desensitized durable MCS patients. METHODS: Among 689 consecutively enrolled heart transplantation recipients between 2010 and 2016, we categorized them into Group A (desensitized MCS patients, n = 21), Group B (desensitized non-MCS patients, n = 28) and Group C (all nondesensitized patients, n = 640). Post-transplant outcomes included the incidence of primary graft dysfunction, 3-year survival, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events, any treated rejection, acute cellular rejection, antibody mediated rejection (AMR) and infectious complications. RESULTS: The types of DST in Groups A and B were similar and included combinations of rituximab/intravenous immunoglobulin and plasmapheresis/bortezomib. Group A, compared with Group B, showed significantly higher pre-DST panel reactive antibody (PRA) (92.2 ± 9.8 vs. 83.3 ± 15.6, P = 0.007) and higher PRA reduction after DST (-22.2 ± 26.9 vs. -6.3 ± 7.5, P = 0.015). Groups A and C showed comparable primary graft dysfunction, 3-year survival, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events, any treated rejection, acute cellular rejection, and AMR. Although statistically not significant, Group A showed numerically higher 3-year freedom from AMR than Group B. Infectious complications were similar in both Groups A and B. CONCLUSIONS: DST for MCS patients showed significant PRA reduction, resulting in an expansion of the donor pool. The post-transplant outcome of desensitized MCS patients showed comparable clinical outcomes to non-desensitized control patients in the same study period, revealing the safety and efficacy of DST.