Results of heart retransplantation: subanalysis of the Spanish Heart Transplant Registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Heart retransplantation (ReHT) is controversial in the current era. The aim of this study was to describe and analyze the results of ReHT in Spain. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis from the Spanish Heart Transplant Registry from 1984 to 2018. Data were collected on donors, recipients, surgical procedure characteristics, immunosuppression, and survival. The main outcome was posttransplant all-cause mortality or need for ReHT. We studied differences in survival according to indication for ReHT, the time interval between transplants and era of ReHT. RESULTS: A total of 7592 heart transplants (HT) and 173 (2.3%) ReHT were studied (median age, 52.0 and 55.0 years, respectively). Cardiac allograft vasculopathy was the most frequent indication for ReHT (42.2%) and 59 patients (80.8%) received ReHT >5 years after the initial transplant. Acute rejection and primary graft failure decreased as indications over the study period. Renal dysfunction, hypertension, need for mechanical ventilation or intra-aortic balloon pump and longer cold ischemia time were more frequent in ReHT. Median follow-up for ReHT was 5.8 years. ReHT had worse survival than HT (weighted HR, 1.43; 95%CI, 1.17-1.44; P<.001). The indication of acute rejection (HR, 2.49; 95%CI, 1.45-4.27; P<.001) was related to the worst outcome. ReHT beyond 5 years after initial HT portended similar results as primary HT (weighted HR, 1.14; 95%CI, 0.86-1.50; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: ReHT was associated with higher mortality than HT, especially when indicated for acute rejection. ReHT beyond 5 years had a similar prognosis to primary HT.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with or without simultaneous intra-aortic balloon pump support as a direct bridge to heart transplantation: results from a nationwide Spanish registry.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the potential clinical benefit of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) as a bridge to heart transplantation (HT). METHODS: We studied 169 patients who were listed for urgent HT under VA-ECMO support at 16 Spanish institutions from 2010 to 2015. The clinical outcomes of patients under simultaneous IABP support (n = 73) were compared to a control group of patients without IABP support (n = 96). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the IABP and control groups with regard to the cumulative rates of transplantation (71.2% vs 81.2%, P = 0.17), death during VA-ECMO support (20.6% vs 14.6%, P = 0.31), transition to a different mechanical circulatory support device (5.5% vs 5.2%, P = 0.94) or weaning from VA-ECMO support due to recovery (2.7% vs 0%, P = 0.10). There was a higher incidence of bleeding events in the IABP group (45.2% vs 25%, P = 0.006; adjusted odds ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval 1.02-4.67). In-hospital postoperative mortality after HT was 34.6% in the IABP group and 32.5% in the control group (P = 0.80). One-year survival after listing for urgent HT was 53.3% in the IABP group and 52.2% in the control group (log rank P = 0.75). Multivariate adjustment for potential confounders did not change this result (adjusted hazard ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.56-1.58). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, simultaneous IABP therapy in transplant candidates under VA-ECMO support did not significantly reduce morbidity or mortality.