Environmental oxygen affects ex vivo growth and proliferation of mesenchymal progenitors by modulating mitogen-activated protein kinase and mammalian target of rapamycin signaling.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Stem and progenitor cells of hematopoietic and mesenchymal lineages reside in the bone marrow under low oxygen (O2) saturation. O2 levels used in ex vivo expansion of multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) affect proliferation, metabolism and differentiation. METHODS: Using cell-based assays and transcriptome and proteome data, the authors compared MSC cultures simultaneously grown under a conventional 19.95% O2 atmosphere or at 5% O2. RESULTS: In 5% O2, MSCs showed better proliferation and higher self-renewal ability, most probably sustained by enhanced signaling activity of mitogen-activated protein kinase and mammalian target of rapamycin pathways. Non-oxidative glycolysis-based energy metabolism supported growth and proliferation in 5% O2 cultures, whereas MSCs grown under 19.95% O2 also utilized oxidative phosphorylation. Cytoprotection mechanisms used by cells under 5% O2 differed from 19.95% O2  suggesting differences in the triggers of cell stress between these two O2  conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the potential benefits for the growth and metabolism of MSCs, the authors propose the use of 5% O2 for MSC culture.

Interaction between ischemic time and donor age under the new donor heart allocation system: Effect on post-transplant survival.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic time (IT) under the new heart transplant (HTx) allocation system has increased compared to the old system. We investigated the effect of IT and donor age on post-HTx survival. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was analyzed to identify adult HTx between October 2015 and August 2020. Recipients were stratified by donor age, transplantation era, and IT. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to compare 180-day post-HTx mortality. Cox proportional hazards modeling and propensity score matching were performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: Under the new system (N = 3654), IT≥4 h led to decreased survival compared to IT < 4 h (91.4% vs. 93.7%; P = .02), although this decrease was undetectable among those with donors ≥39 years old (90.4% vs. 91.1%; P = .73). IT≥4 h led to decreased survival with donors < 39 years old (91.7% vs. 94.6%; P < .01). Under the old system (N = 5987), IT≥4 h resulted in decreased survival (89.8% vs. 93.9%; P < .01), including with donors ≥39 years old (86.9% vs. 92.4%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: IT≥4 h remains a risk for post-HTx mortality under the new system. However, the magnitude of this effect is blunted when donor age is ≥39 years, likely secondary to increased allocation of these organs to lower status, more stable recipients.

Left thoracotomy vs full sternotomy for centrifugal durable LVAD implantation: 1-year outcome comparison post-LVAD and post-heart transplantation.

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantations have traditionally been approached through a full median sternotomy (FS). Recently, a minimally invasive left thoracotomy (LT) approach has been popularized. This study sought to compare the outcomes of FS and LT patients post-primary LVAD implantation and post-subsequent heart transplant (HT). This was a single-center retrospective study. 83 patients who underwent primary centrifugal durable LVAD implantation from January 2014 to June 2018 were included (FS, n = 41; LT, n = 42). 41 patients had a subsequent HT (FS, n = 19; LT, n = 22). Pre-operative patient demographics, intraoperative variables, post-operative 1-year survival, length of hospital stay, complications, and outcomes for LVAD implantation and following HT were analyzed. Intraoperative data showed that the LT group had a 23.4% longer mean LVAD implant surgical time (p < 0.01). One-year post-LVAD survival was similar between the two groups (p = 0.05). Complication rates, with the exception of the rate of hemorrhagic stroke (p = 0.04) post-LVAD implant were similar. One-year survival post-HT was similar between groups (p = 0.35). Complication rates and mean length of hospital stay were also similar (p = 1.0) post-HT. Our study demonstrated that LT approach does not negatively affect post-LVAD implantation or post-HT outcomes. Further, larger studies may determine more detailed effects of LT approach.

Effect of concomitant mitral valve procedures for severe mitral regurgitation during left ventricular assist device implantation.

The effect of performing a concomitant mitral valve procedure (MVP) during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation has been reported for patients with moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation (MR), but moderate MR is less of a clinical concern for CF-LVAD patients. There is a paucity of reports focusing on patients with severe MR. Thus, the purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of performing a concomitant MVP during CF-LVAD implantation in patients with severe preoperative MR. Between November 2003 and March 2016, 526 patients underwent primary implantation of a CF-LVAD at our center. Patients with severe MR who underwent a concomitant MVP were compared to those who did not in regard to overall survival, perioperative complications, postoperative echocardiography data, bridge-to-transplantation success, and CF-LVAD explantation. Of the 108 patients with severe MR, 26 underwent a concomitant MVP and 82 did not. These groups showed no difference in survival (p = 0.61). Additionally, the two groups had similar rates of postoperative right heart failure (p = 0.69) and readmissions (p = 0.42). The 24-month follow-up echocardiography results were also similar. Furthermore, the groups showed no difference in bridge-to-cardiac transplantation success (30.0% vs 25.0%, p = 0.80) or CF-LVAD explantation rates (0.0% vs 0.0%. p = 1.0). Our findings suggest that patients with severe MR who undergo a MVP during CF-LVAD implantation do not have superior outcomes to those who do not. However, assessments of other outcomes may show some benefits to performing concomitant MVPs.

Outcomes in patients who underwent a concomitant tricuspid valve procedure during left ventricular assist device implantation.

BACKGROUND: Study findings have been inconsistent regarding whether a concomitant tricuspid valve replacement or repair performed concurrently with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation has additive clinical benefit in patients with severe tricuspid valve regurgitation (TR). AIM OF STUDY: To determine the effect of performing a concomitant tricuspid valve procedure (TVP) at the time of CF-LVAD implantation on patient outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our single-institution experience in 526 patients who underwent primary implantation of a CF-LVAD between November 2003 and March 2016. We identified 59 (11.2%) patients who had severe TR at the time of implantation and analyzed the effect of performing a concomitant TVP at the time of CF-LVAD implantation on the rate of survival, incidence of postoperative right heart failure (RHF), recurrence of TR, and incidence of 30-day readmission. RESULTS: We did not observe a significant difference in the overall survival rate (P = .51), incidence of postoperative RHF (P = .26), or recurrence of TR (P = .73) between patients with severe TR who underwent a TVP and those who did not at the time of CF-LVAD implantation. However, the incidence of 30-day readmission was significantly lower in patients who underwent a TVP than in those who did not (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Performing a concomitant TVP at the time of CF-LVAD implantation did not improve patient outcomes but reduced the incidence of 30-day readmission.

Severe LVAD-related infections requiring surgical treatment: Incidence, predictors, effect on survival, and impact of device selection.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are being used more frequently for treating refractory, advanced heart failure. However, infection remains a frequent complication. In this study, we analyzed the incidence of severe infections in LVAD recipients to determine its impact on survival. METHODS: From May 2009 through March 2016, 437 patients with advanced heart failure underwent implantation of a continuous-flow LVAD (n = 314, HeartMate II LVAD [Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL]; n = 123 HeartWare HVAD [Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN]). We analyzed the rate of severe device infection requiring surgical intervention or involving sepsis and the impact of severe infection on outcomes in patients on long-term LVAD support. RESULTS: Infection occurred in 244 patients (HeartMate II, n = 186; HVAD, n = 58); severe infections developed in 160 patients (HeartMate II, n = 119; HVAD, n = 41). HeartMate II recipients had 344 severe infection events (0.63 events per patient-year [EPPY]), whereas HeartWare recipients had 89 severe infection events (0.42 EPPY; P = 0.047). HeartMate II recipients had a higher incidence of pump infections (P < 0.001). Severe infections did not significantly affect survival (P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Although HeartMate II patients had a significantly higher incidence of pump infections requiring surgical treatment, survival was not adversely affected. The difference in postoperative infection rates may be an important factor in device type selection.

Device exchange from Heartmate II to HeartWare HVAD.

BACKGROUND: Despite technological advancements, pump durability and pump-related complications continue to affect and adversely impact the lives of patients with end-stage heart failure on left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. In an attempt to avoid recurrent LVAD-related complications, there may be circumstances where it is clinically advantageous to exchange a patient's device from HeartMate II to HeartWare HVAD. However, there is a paucity of data that describes the safety and feasibility of such an approach. OBJECTIVE: We present the largest single-center series of HeartMate II (HMII) to HeartWare (HVAD) device exchanges. METHODS: A retrospective review of 11 patients who underwent HMII to HVAD exchange from 2012 to 2017 was conducted to evaluate patient characteristics, incidence of postoperative complications, and survival. RESULTS: Eleven male patients (mean age 55 ± 14.4 years) underwent HMII to HVAD device exchange. One patient expired on postoperative day 7 secondary to sepsis. One patient was lost-to-follow-up after 23 months. An additional three patients died at 5, 7, and 24 months. Mean follow-up after device exchange was 1555 ± 311 days for the remaining six patients. None of the 11 study patients underwent LVAD explant, further device exchange, or heart transplant. CONCLUSION: Exchange of an HMII LVAD to an HVAD can be performed safely with acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Experience with the HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device in Patients Older than 60 Years.

BACKGROUND: Advanced age is a relative contraindication for heart transplantation, but no age cutoff has been defined for patients receiving mechanical circulatory support. METHODS: Between November 1, 2003 and November 1, 2012, we implanted the HeartMate II (HMII) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in 319 patients. One hundred seven patients (89 men, 18 women) were over 60 years old (mean, 66 ± 4 years, range, 61-78 years) and received the HMII as a bridge to transplantation (n = 45) or as destination therapy (n = 62). We evaluated their experience by performing a retrospective analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients had ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 34 had idiopathic cardiomyopathy. Three patients (2.8%) already had a HeartMate XVE LVAD, 54 (50.5%) were receiving intra-aortic balloon pump support, 52 (48.6%) had undergone a previous cardiac procedure, and 9 (8.4%) had received renal replacement therapy (RRT) (continuous venovenous hemofiltration, hemodialysis, or both) before HMII implantation. The median duration of HMII support was 313 days (range, 1-3339 days). After device implantation, 36 patients (33.6%) had gastrointestinal bleeding, 24 (23%) required RRT, 18 (17.5%) had ventricular arrhythmias, and 24 (22.4%) had LVAD-related infections, and 9 (8.4%) had right ventricular failure requiring mechanical support, and 28 (26.2%) had neurologic complications. The actual survival rate was 69% at 6 months, 63% at 1 year, and 54% at 2 years. Eighty-one patients died, 9 are still receiving HMII support, and 17 are alive after heart transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients can benefit from LVAD therapy, and advanced age should not preclude LVAD implantation.

Bridging to a Long-Term Ventricular Assist Device With Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Implanting short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices as a bridge-to-decision is increasingly popular. However, outcomes have not been well studied in patients who receive short-term MCS before receiving long-term left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. We analyzed outcomes in our single-center experience with long-term continuous-flow (CF)-LVAD recipients with pre-implantation short-term MCS. From November 2003 through March 2016, 526 patients (mean age, 54.7 ± 13.5 years) with chronic heart failure (mean ejection fraction, 21.7 ± 3.6%) underwent implantation of either the HeartMate II (n = 403) or the HeartWare device (n = 123). Before implantation, 269 patients received short-term MCS with the TandemHeart, the Impella 2.5/5.0, an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), or the CentriMag. The short-term MCS patients were compared with the CF-LVAD-only patients regarding preoperative demographics, incidence of postoperative complications, and long-term survival. The 269 patients received the following short-term MCS devices: 57 TandemHeart, 27 Impella, 172 IABP, 12 VA-ECMO, and 1 CentriMag. Survival at 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years was 94.2, 87.2, 79.4, and 72.4%, respectively, for CF-LVAD-only patients versus 91.0, 78.1, 73.4, and 65.6%, respectively, for short-term MCS + CF-LVAD patients (P = 0.17). Within the short-term MCS group, survival at 24 months was poorest for patients supported with VA-ECMO or the TandemHeart (P = 0.03 for both), and survival across all four time points was poorest for patients supported with VA-ECMO (P = 0.02). Short-term MCS was not an independent predictor of mortality in multivariate Cox regression models (hazard ratio = 1.12, 95% confidence interval = 0.84-1.49, P = 0.43). In conclusion, we found that using short-term MCS therapy-except for VA-ECMO-as a bridge to long-term CF-LVAD support was not associated with poorer survival.

Outcomes in patients with advanced heart failure and small body size undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have become a preferred treatment option for patients with end-stage heart failure when used as a bridge to transplant or as a destination therapy. However, the association between small body size and postoperative outcomes for continuous-flow (CF) LVAD recipients is still being studied. We sought to determine whether body surface area (BSA) is associated with patient outcomes after CF-LVAD implantation. The study cohort of our single-center, retrospective review consisted of all patients (n = 526) who underwent CF-LVAD implantation (n = 403 HeartMate II, n = 123 HeartWare) between November 2003 and March 2016 regardless of indication. Patients were stratified into 2 cohorts according to their BSA measurements: small BSA (<1.5 m2, n = 13) and non-small BSA (≥1.5 m2, n = 513). We compared the survival of the small-BSA cohort with that of the non-small-BSA cohort. Patients with a small BSA had lower survival rates at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months (76.9, 61.5, 53.8, and 38.5%, respectively) than did patients with a non-small BSA (90.4, 80.9, 74.7, and 67.6% respectively; overall, p = 0.004). Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that a small BSA was an independent predictor of postoperative mortality (hazard ratio = 0.22, 95% confidence interval = 0.05-0.97, p < 0.04). These findings highlight the adverse impact of a small BSA on outcomes after CF-LVAD implantation.

Effect of obesity on outcomes in patients undergoing implantation of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of obesity on outcomes after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation. A single-center retrospective analysis was performed on 526 chronic heart failure patients who were implanted with the HeartMate II CF-LVAD (n = 403) or HeartWare HVAD (n = 123) between November 2003 and March 2016. Patients were stratified into 4 groups based on BMI: underweight (< 18.5 kg/m2, n = 18, 3.4%), normal-weight (18.5-25 kg/m2, n = 173, 32.9%), overweight (25-30 kg/m2, n = 182, 30.2%), and obese (> 30 kg/m2, n = 153, 33.5%). The underweight group was excluded because of its small sample size. Records were reviewed to determine the incidence of postoperative complications and survival. Survival at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months were similar among normal-weight (91.3, 84.4, 76.3, and 67.6%), overweight (90.4, 80.8, 76.5, and 69.6%), and obese patients (90.7, 74.7, 65.3, and 61.3%, p = 0.24). Additionally, obesity was not a significant predictor of mortality in Cox proportional hazard models (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.766-1.277, p = 0.13). These findings suggest that appropriately selected obese patients receive similar survival benefit from CF-LVADs compared to non-obese patients, and obesity should not serve as a contraindication to CF-LVAD implantation.

Acute kidney injury after implantation of a left ventricular assist device: a comparison of axial-flow (HeartMate II) and centrifugal-flow (HeartWare HVAD) devices.

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) are increasingly being used to treat advanced, refractory chronic heart failure. Herein, we sought to determine the incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in axial-flow (HeartMate II; HM-II) and centrifugal-flow (HVAD) CF-LVAD recipients, as well as the effect of AKI on mortality. The study cohort comprised 520 patients who received a HM-II (n = 398) or HVAD (n = 122) at our center between November 2003 and March 2016. Their records were reviewed to determine the incidence of RIFLE-defined AKI after LVAD implantation. We compared the perioperative characteristics, postoperative complications, and survival rates of the patients with and without AKI and differentiated the outcomes based on device type (HM-II or HVAD). Seventy-five patients (14.4%) developed AKI postoperatively. Patients with AKI after LVAD implantation had significantly reduced survival compared to patients without AKI (p = 0.01). Cox proportional hazards models showed that AKI was a significant independent predictor of mortality (HR = 1.54, p = 0.03). Preoperative mechanical circulatory support and prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time were independent predictors of AKI. The incidence of AKI was similar for HM-II and HVAD recipients (p = 0.25). There was no significant difference in AKI rates for the HM-II and HVAD recipients. Developing AKI adversely affected survival.

Predictive value of preoperative serum albumin levels on outcomes in patients undergoing LVAD implantation.

BACKGROUND: We performed a single-center retrospective analysis to determine whether preoperative serum albumin levels were associated with postoperative adverse events and short- and long-term survival in patients who underwent continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation. METHODS: From November 2003 through March 2016, 526 patients underwent CF-LVAD implantation. Patients whose preoperative serum albumin level was normal (≥3.5 g/dL) were compared to patients with preoperative hypoalbuminemia (<3.5 g/dL), which was further categorized as moderate (2.5-3.5 g/dL) or severe (<2.5 g/dL). These groups were compared regarding preoperative demographics, incidence of postoperative complications, and long-term survival. RESULTS: Patients with hypoalbuminemia had higher serum levels of liver enzymes (P < 0.05) and total bilirubin (P < 0.001) and significantly lower platelet counts (P = 0.02) and prealbumin levels (P < 0.001) than patients with normal preoperative albumin levels. Survival in patients with moderate and severe preoperative hypoalbuminemia was significantly decreased compared with patients with normal preoperative serum albumin levels (P < 0.001). Preoperative hypoalbuminemia was also associated with higher incidences of postoperative infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, neurological dysfunction, and acute kidney injury (P ≤ 0.01 for all) but did not affect the success of bridge to transplantation or survival after transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated that there is a significant association of preoperative low serum albumin levels with postoperative adverse outcomes and lower survival rates. This highlights the importance of a patient's preoperative nutritional status on postoperative outcomes after CF-LVAD implantation.

Left ventricular outflow tract closure during LVAD implantation: 2 cases of patients supported for over 6 years.

We previously reported a series of 5 patients with advanced heart failure and aortic insufficiency (AI) who underwent concomitant left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) closure at the time of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation. Although this technique of treating AI has been shown to be effective in the short term, its long-term durability has not been well studied. Here, we report the long-term outcomes of two patients with severe AI who underwent LVOT closure at the time of CF-LVAD implantation. Each of the two patients survived for more than 6 years without any complications related to LVOT closure.

Blood type O heart transplant candidates have longer waitlist time and higher delisting under the new allocation system.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies have examined the effect of blood type on heart transplantation (HTx) waitlist outcomes in cohorts through 2015. We aim to analyze the effect of blood type on contemporary waitlist outcomes with a new allocation system focus. METHODS: Adults listed for HTx between April 2015 and December 2020 were included. Survival to HTx and waitlist death/deterioration was compared between type O and non-type O candidates using competing risks regression. Donor/recipient ABO compatibility trends were further investigated. RESULTS: Candidates with blood type O (n = 7509) underwent HTx less frequently than candidates with blood type other than type O (n = 9699) (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.53-0.58) with higher rates of waitlist death/deterioration (sHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.34). Subgroup analyses demonstrated persistence of this trend under the new donor heart allocation system (HTx: sHR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.54-0.62; death/clinical deterioration: sHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.60), especially among those listed at high status (1, 2, or 3) (HTx: sHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.63-0.75; death/deterioration: sHR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.16-2.22). Among those listed at status 3, waitlist death/deterioration was modified by presence of a durable left ventricular assist device (left ventricular assist device: sHR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.58-4.29; no left ventricular assist device: sHR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.28-11.2). Type O donor heart allocation to secondary ABO candidates increased in the new system (14.5% vs 12.0%; P < .01); post-HTx survival remained comparable between recipients with blood type O and non-type O (log-rank P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Further logistical considerations are warranted to minimize allocation inequity regarding blood type under the new allocation system.

Trends in Outcomes of Heart Transplants Using Extended Criteria Donors: A United Network for Organ Sharing Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although the use of extended criteria donors (ECDs) is traditionally avoided because of poorer outcomes, management of heart transplant (HTx) recipients has evolved over the past decades. We sought to examine the temporal trends in outcomes of ECDs in HTx. METHODS: We queried the United Network for Organ Sharing database for adult HTx recipients who fit the EXPAND Trial criteria for ECDs: ischemic time ≥ 4 hours, ejection fraction < 50%, age > 55 years, and history of coronary artery disease. Transplant years were stratified into the following 4 periods: (1) 2000 to 2004, (2) 2005 to 2009, (3) 2010 to 2014, and (4) 2014 to 2018. The 2-sample t test, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log-rank test, analysis of variance, multivariable Cox proportional hazards, and multinomial logistic regression were used to compare data between periods. RESULTS: Through periods 1 to 4, 39,028 patients were stratified as follows: 9217 (2942 ECDs, 31.9%), 9224 (2730 ECDs, 29.6%), 10,309 (2762 ECDs, 26.8%), and 10,278 (2190 ECDs, 21.3%). Transplants using ECDs in periods 1 and 2 had increased 1-year mortality compared with periods 3 and 4 (16.9% and 15.6% vs 11.9% and 10.9% respectively, P < .001). Later periods also demonstrated improved Karnofsky scores (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although use of ECDs decreased across the periods, we noted significant improvement in 1-year survival rates and postoperative functional status.

Total ventricular mass oversizing +50% or greater was a predictor of worse 1-year survival after heart transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: Current donor-recipient size matching guidelines rely primarily on body weight, with no specified oversizing cutoff values. Recent literature has explored predicted total ventricular mass matching over body weight matching. We aim to explore the impact of total ventricular mass oversizing on heart transplant outcomes. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for adults who underwent primary heart transplant from 1997 to 2017. By using validated equations, donor-recipient total ventricular mass mismatch was calculated. Donor-recipient pairs were divided into 3 groups by total ventricular mass mismatch. Post-heart transplant 1-year survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. We also investigated post-heart transplant complications, independent predictors for mortality, donor-recipient sex mismatch, and donor-recipient body habitus in total ventricular mass mismatch greater than +50%. RESULTS: A total of 34,455 donor-recipient pairs were included. Fractional polynomial regression demonstrated increased the risk of mortality with higher total ventricular mass mismatch. Total ventricular mass mismatch of +48.3% maximized the Youden Index. Donor-recipient pairs were subsequently grouped by total ventricular mass mismatch as -20% to +30%, +30% to +50%, and greater than +50%. Total ventricular mass mismatch greater than +50% was an independent risk factor for 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40, P = .004) and was associated with increased postoperative stroke (P = .002). Some 80.3% of these recipients were smaller female patients with male donors. Total ventricular mass mismatch from +30% to +50% was not associated with worse survival (P = .17). CONCLUSIONS: Total ventricular mass mismatch greater than +50% is associated with worse 1-year survival, although this group comprises a small portion of heart transplant. total ventricular mass mismatch from +30% to +50% is not associated with worse survival. These outcomes should be considered in selecting donors and in efforts to expand the potential donor pool.

Heart Transplant Waitlist Outcomes and Wait Time by Center Volume in the Pre-2018 Allocation Change Era.

Although the transplant outcomes of centers are heavily monitored and compared, with a particular link between posttransplant outcomes and center volume demonstrated, little data exist comparing waitlist outcomes. Here, we explored waitlist outcomes by transplant center volume. We performed a retrospective analysis of adults listed for primary heart transplantation (HTx) from 2008 to 2018 using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Transplant centers were split into low (<10 HTx/year), medium (10-30 HTx/year), and high (>30 HTx/year) volume, and waitlist outcomes were compared. Of the 35,190 patients included in our study, 23,726 (67.4%) underwent HTx, 4,915 (14.0%) died or deteriorated before receiving HTx, 1,356 (3.9%) were delisted due to recovery, and 1,336 (3.8%) underwent left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. High-volume centers had higher rates of survival to transplant (71.3% vs. 60.6% for low-volume centers and 64.9% for medium-volume centers), and low rates of death or deterioration (12.6% vs. 14.6% for low-volume centers and 15.1% for medium-volume centers). Listing at a low-volume center was independently associated with death or delisting before HTx (HR 1.18, p = 0.007), whereas listing at a high-volume center (HR 0.86; p < 0.001) and prelisting LVAD (HR 0.67, p < 0.001) were protective. Death or delisting before HTx was lowest for patients listed in higher volume centers.

Geographic Variation in Heart Transplant Extended Criteria Donors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Recent research has explored the use of higher risk extended criteria donors (ECDs) as a means of expanding the donor pool for heart transplantation. Here we sought to explore the current geographic distribution and survival outcomes of ECD utilization in various regions across the United States. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was retrospectively queried for adult primary heart transplantation from 2000 to 2019. The EXPAND trial definition of ECD was used: ischemic time ≥ 4 hours, ejection fraction < 50%, age > 55 years, and history of coronary artery disease. Geographic data and 2019 population estimates were obtained from the US Census Bureau. RESULTS: Of the 42 642 transplants included in our analysis, 11 750 (27.6%) used ECDs. Region utilization of ECDs ranged from 18.4% to 46.5% of transplants. Region 6 had the highest utilization rate at 46.5%; this was primarily driven by the number of transplants with ischemic time ≥ 4 hours. Region 6 encompasses the largest total area (1.08 million square miles) and smallest population density (15.6 people per square mile). Region 8 had the lowest marginal donor utilization rate at 18.4%. Regions with high utilization of low ejection fractions, older donors, and donors with coronary artery disease (ie, regions 1 and 2) were able to maintain an average utilization rate of ECDs by maintaining short ischemic times. CONCLUSIONS: Large discrepancies in the use of ECDs exist across the different United Network for Organ Sharing regions. This is primarily driven by longer ischemic times, likely guided by variance in population densities between different regions.