Long-Term Outcomes of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.

Despite remarkable progress in survival with the availability of novel agents, an overwhelming majority of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have disease that relapses. Allogeneic (allo-) hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is a potentially curative option for a subgroup of patients with high-risk MM. This study assessed the long-term outcome of MM patients who underwent allo-HCT while in first remission as consolidation treatment. Thirty-three patients with newly diagnosed MM who underwent allo-HCT as part of consolidation therapy between 1994 and 2016 were reviewed retrospectively. Of these patients, 70% underwent autologous HCT before allo-HCT. All patients were chemosensitive and achieved at least partial response before proceeding to allo-HCT. Most received nonmyeloablative/reduced-intensity conditioning (88%) and a matched sibling donor graft (85%). Acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and chronic GVHD occurred in 30% and 61% of patients, respectively. The median duration of follow-up was 64.1 months (range, 1.4 to 199.2 months) for all patients and 164.4 months (range, 56.0 to 199.2 months) for survivors. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 36 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 8.6 to 73.0 months). The median time from treatment to progression was 73.0 months (95% CI, 30.6 months to not reached). The median overall survival (OS) was 131.9 months (95% CI, 38.4 months to not reached). Of all patients, 39% were alive for more than 10 years, with 46% (n = 6) without progression or relapse. The cumulative incidence of relapse was 18% at 1 year, 39% at 5 years, and 46% at 10 years post-allo-HCT. The cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality was 3% at 100 days, 18% at 1 year, 21% at 3 years, and 24% at 5 year post-allo-HCT. On multivariable analysis, high-risk cytogenetics were associated with a shorter PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.7; 95% CI, 1.01 to 7.21; P = .047) and OS (HR, 4.91; 95% CI, 1.48 to 16.27; P = .009). Achieving complete remission after allo-HCT also was associated with longer PFS (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.64; P = .004) and OS (HR, .23; 95% CI, .07 to .72; P = .012). Allo-HCT may confer a survival advantage in a selected population of MM patients when performed early in the disease course; additional data on identifying the patients who will benefit the most are needed.

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation-induced Pulmonary Venous Occlusion Requiring Pneumonectomy.

A 71-year-old woman with a history of atrial fibrillation underwent a catheter-based ablation procedure. Months later, she presented with dyspnea and a left-sided pleural effusion. Diagnostic evaluation revealed left-sided pulmonary venous occlusion, with essentially absent left lung perfusion. The patient underwent left pneumonectomy, with left atrial appendage occlusion. Although lobectomy for pulmonary venous occlusion of a single vein after pulmonary vein isolation has been described, this appears to be a novel report of occluded pulmonary venous drainage of an entire lung necessitating pneumonectomy.

Multi-institutional Analysis of 505 Patients With Coronavirus Disease-2019 Supported With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Predictors of Survival.

BACKGROUND: We reviewed our experience with 505 patients with confirmed coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) at 45 hospitals and estimated risk factors for mortality. METHODS: A multi-institutional database was created and used to assess all patients with COVID-19 who were supported with ECMO. A Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression model was estimated to assess the effect on survival of multiple potential risk factors for mortality, including age at cannulation for ECMO as well as days between diagnosis of COVID-19 and intubation and days between intubation and cannulation for ECMO. RESULTS: Median time on ECMO was 18 days (interquartile range, 10-29 days). All 505 patients separated from ECMO: 194 patients (38.4%) survived and 311 patients (61.6%) died. Survival with venovenous ECMO was 184 of 466 patients (39.5%), and survival with venoarterial ECMO was 8 of 30 patients (26.7%). Survivors had lower median age (44 vs 51 years, P < .001) and shorter median time interval from diagnosis to intubation (7 vs 11 days, P = .001). Adjusting for several confounding factors, we estimated that an ECMO patient intubated on day 14 after the diagnosis of COVID-19 vs day 4 had a relative odds of survival of 0.65 (95% credible interval, 0.44-0.96; posterior probability of negative effect, 98.5%). Age was also negatively associated with survival: relative to a 38-year-old patient, we estimated that a 57-year-old patient had a relative odds of survival of 0.43 (95% credible interval, 0.30-0.61; posterior probability of negative effect, >99.99%). CONCLUSIONS: ECMO facilitates salvage and survival of select critically ill patients with COVID-19. Survivors tend to be younger and have shorter time from diagnosis to intubation. Survival of patients supported with only venovenous ECMO was 39.5%.

Multi-institutional Analysis of 200 COVID-19 Patients Treated With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Outcomes and Trends.

BACKGROUND: The role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the management of patients with COVID-19 continues to evolve. The purpose of this analysis is to review our multi-institutional clinical experience involving 200 consecutive patients at 29 hospitals with confirmed COVID-19 supported with ECMO. METHODS: This analysis includes our first 200 COVID-19 patients with complete data who were supported with and separated from ECMO. These patients were cannulated between March 17 and December 1, 2020. Differences by mortality group were assessed using χ2 tests for categoric variables and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests and Welch's analysis of variance for continuous variables. RESULTS: Median ECMO time was 15 days (interquartile range, 9 to 28). All 200 patients have separated from ECMO: 90 patients (45%) survived and 110 patients (55%) died. Survival with venovenous ECMO was 87 of 188 patients (46.3%), whereas survival with venoarterial ECMO was 3 of 12 patients (25%). Of 90 survivors, 77 have been discharged from the hospital and 13 remain hospitalized at the ECMO-providing hospital. Survivors had lower median age (47 versus 56 years, P < .001) and shorter median time from diagnosis to ECMO cannulation (8 versus 12 days, P = .003). For the 90 survivors, adjunctive therapies on ECMO included intravenous steroids (64), remdesivir (49), convalescent plasma (43), anti-interleukin-6 receptor blockers (39), prostaglandin (33), and hydroxychloroquine (22). CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation facilitates survival of select critically ill patients with COVID-19. Survivors tend to be younger and have a shorter duration from diagnosis to cannulation. Substantial variation exists in drug treatment of COVID-19, but ECMO offers a reasonable rescue strategy.

Early Usage of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Absence of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation to Treat COVID-19-related Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure.

A subset of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop profound respiratory failure and are treated via invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Of these, a smaller subset has severe gas exchange abnormalities that are refractory to maximal levels of IMV support. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used successfully in these circumstances. However, using ECMO only after failure of IMV exposes patients to the risks of ventilator-induced lung injury. We report a successful outcome using ECMO in the setting of COVID-19 in the absence of IMV failure in an awake, nonintubated patient. This approach may be beneficial for selected patients with COVID-19.

Trans-ventricular catheter device-based closure of postmyocardial infarction ventricular septal defect following coronary artery bypass grafting: A staged hybrid approach.

A 66-year-old woman with a history of hypertension, ischemic stroke, and rheumatoid arthritis presented to the hospital with severe angina pectoris and dyspnea and was diagnosed with myocardial infarction (MI). Coronary angiography revealed multisystem coronary artery occlusive disease. Due to refractory myocardial ischemia/evolving MI, emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was undertaken. Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography additionally revealed an apical muscular ventricular septal defect (VSD). Concomitant VSD repair was deferred due to the absence of surface evidence of transmural MI for left ventriculotomy, in the setting of pre-existing severe left ventricular dysfunction. An initial totally percutaneous attempt to close the VSD postoperatively failed. A hybrid surgical/catheter-based VSD closure was performed on postoperative day 4, with a successful outcome. The patient did well postoperatively and currently is alive in good condition. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a staged (post-CABG) and hybrid surgical/catheter-based technique without the utilization of cardiopulmonary bypass.

Towards the use of localised delivery strategies to counteract cancer therapy-induced cardiotoxicities.

Cancer therapies have significantly improved cancer survival; however, these therapies can often result in undesired side effects to off target organs. Cardiac disease ranging from mild hypertension to heart failure can occur as a result of cancer therapies. This can warrant the discontinuation of cancer treatment in patients which can be detrimental, especially when the treatment is effective. There is an urgent need to mitigate cardiac disease that occurs as a result of cancer therapy. Delivery strategies such as the use of nanoparticles, hydrogels, and medical devices can be used to localise the treatment to the tumour and prevent off target side effects. This review summarises the advancements in localised delivery of anti-cancer therapies to tumours. It also examines the localised delivery of cardioprotectants to the heart for patients with systemic disease such as leukaemia where localised tumour delivery might not be an option.

Heterotopic Cardiac Transplantation: Long-term Results and Fate of the Native Heart.

BACKGROUND: The long-term results of heterotopic cardiac transplantation have not been well defined. Patient survival rates and the fate of the native heart remain unclear. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of all 46 heterotopic cardiac transplantations performed at a single institution, the Texas Heart Institute in Houston, Texas, between 1982 and 2017. Four patients who underwent heterotopic transplantation as an emergency procedure for cardiogenic shock were excluded. Three of the procedures were repeat transplantations in patients who had previously undergone heterotopic transplantation; the 3 repeat transplantations were excluded, but the original procedures were not. Follow-up was 100% complete for mortality and 77% complete (30 of 39 patients) for assessment of preoperative indication for surgery and postoperative cardiac function. RESULTS: For the 39 patients, the 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year survival rates were 69%, 36%, and 21%, respectively. One patient remains alive 25 years after the transplantation procedure. The most frequent indication for heterotopic transplantation was pulmonary vascular resistance greater than 4 Wood units (n = 11), followed by weight greater than 112.5 kg (n = 7). In most patients, native heart left ventricular ejection fraction stabilized over time to between 10% and 30%. Sinus rhythm was preserved in 87% (26 of 30) of native hearts at long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Heterotopic cardiac transplantation is an acceptable procedure that should be considered for obese patients (especially those heavier than 112.5 kg) and patients with elevated pulmonary vascular resistance (especially those with pulmonary vascular resistance >4.0 Wood units). After heterotopic transplantation, native cardiac function appears to stabilize, and there is potential for native heart recovery.

Accuracy of Postoperative Risk Scores for Survival Prediction in Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Profile 1 Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients.

In this study, we sought to determine the accuracy of several critical care risk scores for predicting survival of Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) Profile 1 patients after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) placement. We retrospectively analyzed the records of 605 patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation between 2003 and 2016. We calculated the preoperative HeartMate II Risk Score (HMRS) and preoperative Right Ventricular Failure Risk Score (RVFRS) and the following risk scores for postoperative days 1-5: HMRS, RVFRS, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD), MELD-eXcluding International Normalized Ratio, Post Cardiac Surgery (POCAS) risk score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) risk score, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III. The preoperative scores and the postoperative day 1, 5-day mean, and 5-day maximum scores were entered into a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to examine accuracy for predicting 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year survival. The mean POCAS score was the best predictor of 30-day and 90-day survival (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.869 and 0.816). The postoperative mean RVFRS was the best predictor of 1-year survival (AUC = 0.7908). The postoperative maximum and mean RVFRS and HMRS were more accurate than the preoperative scores. Both of these risk score measurements of acuity in the postoperative intensive care unit setting help predict early mortality after LVAD implantation.

Outcomes of Repeat Left Ventricular Assist Device Exchange.

Implantable continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) are used for long-term LV support in bridging patients to heart transplantation or as destination therapy. With prolonged support times, some patients will have repeat complications necessitating multiple device exchanges. To elucidate the safety and efficacy of repeat device exchange, we retrospectively reviewed data from 25 patients who underwent two or more CF-LVAD implantations between July 2005 and August 2017. Indications for exchange were thrombus/hemolysis (n = 8, 32%), electromechanical device malfunction (n = 14, 56%), and infection (n = 3, 12%). The implanted devices were the HeartMate II (n = 13, 52%), the HeartWare HVAD (n = 11, 44%), and the Jarvik 2000 (n = 1, 4%). Average hospital length of stay was 44 days (range 4-221 days), and 17 patients (68%) survived to discharge. Average duration of support after the most recent LVAD implantation was 802 days (range 1-3,229 days). Overall survival was 72% at 1 year and 60% at 2 years. Postoperative complications included respiratory failure in five patients (20%), device infection in five (20%), bleeding requiring reoperation in four (16%), neurologic dysfunction in four (16%), and acute renal failure in two (8%). Overall, our data suggest that repeat LVAD exchange is a feasible option for patients with recurrent device-related complications.