Overcoming challenges in patient selection and monitoring in combined heart and kidney transplantation.

Combined heart-kidney transplantation (HKT) is a growing therapeutic strategy in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) and concomitant chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although patients with advanced HF and need for chronic haemodialysis have a clear indication for combined HKT, challenges to current practice lie in identifying those patients with severely depressed kidney function, which will not recover kidney function after restoration of appropriate haemodynamic conditions following heart transplantation (HT) alone. Because of the paucity of available organs, maximisation of kidney graft utility whilst minimising the operative risks associated with combined transplantation is mandatory. The benefits of HKT go beyond the mere restoration of kidney function. Data from registry analysis show that HKT improves overall survival in patients with CKD, as compared to heart transplant only, and it is associated with reduced incidence of heart allograft rejection, likely through the promotion of host immune tolerance mechanisms. In patients not requiring chronic dialysis, kidney-after-heart strategy may be explored, instead of combined HKT, in particular when the aetiology of CKD is unclear. This indeed allows for monitoring and gaging of indications for combined transplantation in the postoperative period. This approach however should be matched with priority listing for kidney transplantation given the high waitlist mortality in heart transplant recipients with associated CKD. The use of kidney machine perfusion may represent an additional tool to optimise the outcome of HKT, allowing more time to stabilise the patient after HT surgery.

Is Less Always More? A Prospective Two-Centre Study Addressing Clinical Outcomes in Leadless versus Transvenous Single-Chamber Pacemaker Recipients.

(1) Background: Leadless (LL) stimulation is perceived to lower surgical, vascular, and lead-related complications compared to transvenous (TV) pacemakers, yet controlled studies are lacking and real-life experience is non-conclusive. (2) Aim: To prospectively analyse survival and complication rates in leadless versus transvenous VVIR pacemakers. (3) Methods: Prospective analysis of mortality and complications in 344 consecutive VVIR TV and LL pacemaker recipients between June 2015 and May 2021. Indications for VVIR pacing were "slow" AF, atrio-ventricular block in AF or in sinus rhythm in bedridden cognitively impaired patients. LL indication was based on individualised clinical judgement. (4) Results: 72 patients received LL and 272 TV VVIR pacemakers. LL pacemaker indications included ongoing/expected chronic haemodialysis, superior venous access issues, active lifestyle with low pacing percentage expected, frailty causing high bleeding/infectious risk, previous valvular endocarditis, or device infection requiring extraction. No significant difference in the overall acute and long-term complication rate was observed between LL and TV cohorts, with greater mortality occurring in TV due to selection of older patients. (5) Conclusions: Given the low complication rate and life expectancy in this contemporary VVIR cohort, extending LL indications to all VVIR candidates is unlikely to provide clear-cut benefits. Considering the higher costs of LL technology, careful patient selection is mandatory for LL PMs to become advantageous, i.e., in the presence of vascular access issues, high bleeding/infectious risk, and long life expectancy, rendering lead-related issues and repeated surgery relevant in the long-term perspective.