Organ Donation and Transplantation among Non-US Citizens: Opportunities to Improve Global Equity in Heart Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Non-US citizens/non-US residents (NCNR) are a unique and growing population. Patterns of heart donation and heart transplantation (HT) within this subgroup have not been described fully. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of organs from NCNR donors and the characteristics and outcomes of NCNR HT recipients. METHODS: All adult donors whose hearts were recovered for HT and all primary adult HT recipients from 2013 to 2020 were identified using the United Network for Organ Sharing. Donors and recipients were categorized as citizens, residents, or NCNR. NCNR were further categorized by reason for travel to the United States. Outcomes included mortality, infection, and rejection at 1-year after transplantation. RESULTS: NCNR accounted for 0.4% (n = 77) of heart donors. Most NCNR donors identified as Hispanic (61%), were predominately recovered from the South and Southwest United States, and were less likely to express written documentation to be a donor compared with citizens and residents. NCNR accounted for 0.7% (n = 147) of all HT recipients. The majority identified as non-Hispanic White individuals (57.1%). Compared with citizens and residents, NCNR recipients seemed to be sicker, as evidenced by higher intra-aortic balloon pump use before HT and higher priority United Network for Organ Sharing status. Of NCNR recipients, 63% traveled to the United States for HT, predominately from Kuwait (29.9%) and Saudi Arabia (20%). At 1-year after transplant, there were no differences in mortality, infection, or rejection between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: A growing subgroup of NCNR travel from countries with low HT rates to the United States for HT. This finding highlights the need for strategies to improve equitable access to HT domestically and abroad.

Remote Patient Monitoring for Patients with Heart Failure: Sex- and Race-based Disparities and Opportunities.

Remote patient monitoring (RPM), within the larger context of telehealth expansion, has been established as an effective and safe means of care for patients with heart failure (HF) during the recent pandemic. Of the demographic groups, female patients and black patients are underenrolled relative to disease distribution in clinical trials and are under-referred for RPM, including remote haemodynamic monitoring, cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), wearables and telehealth interventions. The sex- and race-based disparities are multifactorial: stringent clinical trial inclusion criteria, distrust of the medical establishment, poor access to healthcare, socioeconomic inequities, and lack of diversity in clinical trial leadership. Notwithstanding addressing the above factors, RPM has the unique potential to reduce disparities through a combination of implicit bias mitigation and earlier detection and intervention for HF disease progression in disadvantaged groups. This review describes the uptake of remote haemodynamic monitoring, CIEDs and telehealth in female patients and black patients with HF, and discusses aetiologies that may contribute to inequities and strategies to promote health equity.

Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease and End-stage Renal Disease and Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device: Insights From the United States Renal Data System Database.

BACKGROUND: There is paucity of data regarding durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3-5 and CKD stage 5 on dialysis (end-stage renal disease [ESRD]). METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective study of Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD and a 5% sample of patients with CKD with an LVAD (2006-2018) to determine 1-year outcomes using the United States Renal Data System database. The LVAD implantation, comorbidities, and outcomes were identified using appropriate International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th edition codes. We identified 496 patients with CKD and 95 patients with ESRD who underwent LVAD implantation. The patients with ESRD were younger (59 years vs 66 years; P < .001), had more Blacks (40% vs 24.6%, P = .009), compared with the CKD group. The 1-year mortality (49.5% vs 30.9%, P < .001) and index mortality (27.4% vs 16.7%, P = .014) rates were higher for patients with ESRD. A subgroup analysis showed significantly higher mortality in ESRD vs CKD 3 (49.5% vs 30.2%, adjusted P = .009), but no significant difference in mortality between stage 3 vs 4/5 (30.2% vs 30.8%, adjusted P = .941). There was no significant difference in secondary outcomes (bleeding, stroke, and sepsis/infection) during follow-up between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ESRD undergoing LVAD implantation had significantly higher index and 1-year mortality rates compared with patients with CKD.

Comparison of Trends, Mortality, and Readmissions After Insertion of Left Ventricular Assist Devices in Patients <65 Years Vs ≥65 Years.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) use in treatment of stage D heart failure (HF) has evolved and expanded in the past decade. There is paucity of data on LVAD utilization in patients with age ≥65 years with multiple co-morbidities. We aimed to investigate utilization trends, outcomes, and rates and predictors of readmissions in patients receiving LVADs with age ≥65 years (AO) and comparing them with patient age <65 years (AY). We analyzed hospitalization data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2007 to 2015 to evaluate LVAD utilization trends and outcomes between the 2 patient cohorts. We also queried the Nationwide Readmission Database from 2014 to third quarter of 2015 to identify trends and compare etiologies of readmissions. Implants in AO patients increased from 20% (154) of the total LVADs implanted in 2007 to 33.2% (1,215) in 2014 and 31.8% (910) through September 2015 (p < 0.01). Over the study period there was a steady and significant increase in the mean Elixhauser scores in elderly patients who underwent LVAD implantation from 15.4 in 2007 to 24.54 in 2015 (p < 0.01). Despite this finding, the mean LOS in the AO cohort decreased from 56.0 days in 2007 to 33.8 days in 2015 (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the in-hospital mortality associated with LVAD implantation among the AO group gradually decreased over the study time period (39% in 2007 to 12.2% in 2015, p < 0.001). The overall readmission rate was not significantly different between AO versus AY group (28% vs 33%, p = 0.2). The most common cause in both groups was gastrointestinal bleed but it was significantly higher in AO group (24.3% vs 11.3%, p = 0.01). In conclusion, patients age ≥65 years with multiple co-morbidities are receiving increasing number of LVADs with improved survival outcomes. Their 30-day readmissions are comparable to the younger patients.

Practical guidance on the use of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure.

Sacubitril/valsartan is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that has been recommended in clinical practice guidelines to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic, symptomatic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This review provides an overview of ARNI therapy, proposes strategies to improve the implementation of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice, and provides clinicians with evidence-based, practical guidance on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF. Despite evidence demonstrating the benefits of ARNI therapy over standard of care, only a fraction of eligible patients takes sacubitril/valsartan. Barriers preventing the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan in eligible patients may include practitioners' unfamiliarity with ARNIs, safety concerns, and payer reimbursement issues. The optimal implementation of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice has the potential to reduce the overall burden of HF. Throughout this review, we describe our experience with sacubitril/valsartan, including strategies for the management of adverse events and common patient concerns. In addition, a strategy for the gradual introduction of sacubitril/valsartan using a treatment sequence scheme is proposed.