The impact of the distance between patient residency and heart transplant center on outcomes after heart transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Heart transplant (HTx) recipients require continuous monitoring and care in order to prevent and treat possible complications related to the graft function or to the immunosuppressive treatment promptly. Since heart transplantation centers (HTC) are more experienced in managing HTx recipients than other healthcare facilities, the distance between patient residency and HTC could negatively affect the outcomes. METHODS: Data of patients discharged after receiving HTx between 2000 and 2021, collected into our institutional database, were retrospectively analyzed. The population was divided into three groups: A (n = 180), B (n = 157), and C (n = 134), according to the distance tertiles between patient residency and HTC. The primary end-point was survival, secondary end-points were incidences of complications. RESULTS: Recipient and donor characteristics did not differ between the three groups. Survival at 10 years was 66 ± 4%, 66 ± 4%, and 65 ± 5%, respectively, for groups A, B, and C (p = .34). Immunosuppressive regimen and rate of complications did not differ between groups. However, the rates of outpatient visits and of hospitalization performed at HTC were higher in group A than others. CONCLUSION: Distance from the HTC does not represent a barrier to a successful outcome for HTx recipients, as long as regular and continuous follow-up is provided.

Graft preservation in heart transplantation: current approaches.

Heart transplantation (HTx) represents the current best surgical treatment for patients affected by end-stage heart failure. However, with the improvement of medical and interventional therapies, the population of HTx candidates is increasingly old and at high-risk for mortality and complications. Moreover, the use of "extended donor criteria" to deal with the shortage of donors could increase the risk of worse outcomes after HTx. In this setting, the strategy of donor organ preservation could significantly affect HTx results. The most widely used technique for donor organ preservation is static cold storage in ice. New techniques that are clinically being used for donor heart preservation include static controlled hypothermia and machine perfusion (MP) systems. Controlled hypothermia allows for a monitored cold storage between 4°C and 8°C. This simple technique seems to better preserve the donor heart when compared to ice, probably avoiding tissue injury due to sub-zero °C temperatures. MP platforms are divided in normothermic and hypothermic, and continuously perfuse the donor heart, reducing ischemic time, a well-known independent risk factor for mortality after HTx. Also, normothermic MP permits to evaluate marginal donor grafts, and could represent a safe and effective technique to expand the available donor pool. However, despite the increasing number of donor hearts preserved with these new approaches, whether these techniques could be considered superior to traditional CS still represents a matter of debate. The aim of this review is to summarize and critically assess the available clinical data on donor heart preservation strategies employed for HTx.

Influence of a regional network combined with a systematic multidisciplinary approach on the outcomes of patients with acute type A aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: Whether in patients with acute type A aortic dissection reduction of intervals between onset of symptoms and diagnosis influences patient outcomes is still not completely defined. METHODS: In 199 patients with acute type A aortic dissection, the efficacy of a systematic multidisciplinary approach and institution of a regional network were evaluated; 90 patients operated before 2016 (Group1) were compared with 109 repaired after 2016 (Group2) for early and late outcomes. RESULTS: Mortality was reduced from 13% in Group1 to 4% in Group2 (p = 0.013). In Group2 a more patients (46%) had arch replacement compared to Group1 (29%)(p = 0.06). In Group2 axillary artery cannulation was almost routinely used (91% vs 67%, p < 0.001) with shorter circulatory arrest time (37 vs 44 min, p < 0.001). The interval from diagnosis to surgery dropped from 210 min in Group1 to 160 min in Group2 (p < 0.001); this reduction was evident both in patients admitted to the emergency department of a spoke and/or a hub center. Patients presenting with or developing shock were reduced from Group1 to Group2 and in particular those reaching the hub center from spoke centers. Survival at 1 and 5 years was 82 ± 4% and 70 ± 5% in Group1 vs 92 ± 3% and 87 ± 8% in Group2 (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of patients with acute type A aortic dissection improved using a systematic multidisciplinary approach while a network between spoke and hub centers reduced intervals between diagnosis, transportation to hub center and repair, limiting the incidence of tamponade and shock.