A comprehensive assessment of long-term SARS-CoV-2-specific adaptive immune memory in convalescent COVID-19 Solid Organ Transplant recipients.

Long-term adaptive immune memory has been reported among immunocompetent individuals up to eight months following SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, limited data is available in convalescent patients with a solid organ transplant. To investigate this, we performed a thorough evaluation of adaptive immune memory at different compartments (serological, memory B cells and cytokine [IFN-γ, IL-2, IFN-γ/IL12 and IL-21] producing T cells) specific to SARS-CoV-2 by ELISA and FluoroSpot-based assays in 102 convalescent patients (53 with a solid organ transplants (38 kidney, 5 liver, 5 lung and 5 heart transplant) and 49 immunocompetent controls) with different clinical COVID-19 severity (severe, mild and asymptomatic) beyond six months after infection. While similar detectable memory responses at different immune compartments were detected between those with a solid organ transplant and immunocompetent individuals, these responses were predominantly driven by distinct COVID-19 clinical severities (97.6%, 80.5% and 42.1%, all significantly different, were seropositive; 84% vs 75% vs 35.7%, all significantly different, showed IgG-producing memory B cells and 82.5%, 86.9% and 31.6%, displayed IFN-γ producing T cells; in severe, mild and asymptomatic convalescent patients, respectively). Notably, patients with a solid organ transplant with longer time after transplantation did more likely show detectable long-lasting immune memory, regardless of COVID-19 severity. Thus, our study shows that patients with a solid organ transplant are capable of maintaining long-lasting peripheral immune memory after COVID-19 infection; mainly determined by the degree of infection severity.

Hospitalization-related economic impact of patients with cardiogenic shock in a high-complexity reference centre.

AIMS: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high mortality. Current guidelines strongly recommend centralizing the care of these patients in high-complexity centres. We described the hospitalization-related economic cost and its main determinants in patients with CS in a high-complexity reference centre. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a single-centre, retrospective study. All patients with CS (2015-17) were included. Hospitalization-related cost per patient was calculated by analytical accountability method, including hospital stay-related expenditures, interventions, and consumption of devices. Expenditure was expressed in 2018 euros. All-cause mortality during follow-up was registered. Ratio of cost per life-year gained (LYG) was also calculated. A total of 230 patients were included, with mean age of 63 years. In-hospital mortality was 88/230 (38.3%). Hospital stay was longer in patients surviving after the admission (21.7 vs. 7.5 days, P < 0.001). Total economic cost for the overall cohort was 3 947 118€ (mean/patient 17 161€). Most of this cost was attributable to hospital stay (81.1%). The rest of the expenditure was due to in-hospital procedures (13.1%) and the use of devices (5.8%). Most of hospital stay-related costs (79.8%) were due to Critical Care Unit stay. Mean follow-up was 651 days. Total LYG was 409.77 years for the whole series. The observed ratio of cost per LYG was 9632.52 €/LYG. CONCLUSIONS: Management of CS in a reference centre is associated to a significant economic cost, but with a low ratio of cost per LYG. Most of this cost is attributable to hospital stay, specifically in critical care units.

Economic analysis of intermittent intravenous outpatient treatment with levosimendan in advanced heart failure in Spain.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Advanced heart failure (HF) leads to high hospitalization and mortality rates. The LION-HEART study was a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of intravenous administration of intermittent doses of levosimendan in outpatients with advanced HF. The aim of the present study was to perform a cost analysis to determine whether the lower rate of hospitalizations for HF, observed in patients treated with levosimendan in the LION-HEART study, can generate savings for the Spanish national health system compared with the option of not treating patients with advanced HF. METHODS: An economic model was used that included IC hospitalization rates from the LION-HEART study, the costs of hospitalization due to HF and those of the acquisition and intravenous administration of levosimendan. The time horizon of the analysis was 12 months. Two analyses were carried out, one deterministic and the other probabilistic (second-order Monte Carlo simulation). RESULTS: In the deterministic analysis, the total saving for each patient treated with levosimendan would amount to-€698.48. In the probabilistic analysis, the saving per patient treated with levosimendan would be-€849.94 (95%CI, €133.12 to-€2,255.31). The probability of savings with levosimendan compared with the no treatment option would be 94.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent ambulatory treatment with levosimendan can generate savings for the Spanish national health system compared with the option of not treating patients with advanced HF.

Prevalence, significance, and management of aortic insufficiency in continuous flow left ventricular assist device recipients.

BACKGROUND: Aortic insufficiency (AI) is increasingly recognized as a complication of continuous flow left ventricular assist device support; however, its long-term prevalence, clinical significance, and efficacy of potential interventions are not well known. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied the prevalence and management of AI in 232 patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist device at our institution. Patients with aortic valve (AV) surgery before left ventricular assist device implantation were excluded from analysis. To examine the prevalence of de novo AI, patients without preoperative AI were divided into a retrospective and a prospective cohort based on whether a dedicated speed optimization study had been performed at the time of discharge. Forty-three patients underwent AV repair at the time of implant, and 3 subsequently developed greater than mild AI. In patients without surgical AV manipulation and no AI at the time of implant, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that freedom from greater than mild de novo AI at 1 year was 77.6±4.2%, and that at least moderate AI is expected to develop in 37.6±13.3% after 3 years. Nonopening of the AV was strongly associated with de novo AI development in patients without prospective discharge speed optimization. Seven of 21 patients with at least moderate AI developed symptomatic heart failure requiring surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: AI is common in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices and may lead to clinical decompensation requiring surgical correction. The prevalence of AI is substantially less in patients whose AV opens, and optimized loading conditions may reduce AI prevalence in those patients in whom AV opening cannot be achieved.