Dual-Organ Transplantation: Indications, Evaluation, and Outcomes for Heart-Kidney and Heart-Liver Transplantation: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Although heart transplantation is the preferred therapy for appropriate patients with advanced heart failure, the presence of concomitant renal or hepatic dysfunction can pose a barrier to isolated heart transplantation. Because donor organ supply limits the availability of organ transplantation, appropriate allocation of this scarce resource is essential; thus, clear guidance for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation and simultaneous heart-liver transplantation is urgently required. The purposes of this scientific statement are (1) to describe the impact of pretransplantation renal and hepatic dysfunction on posttransplantation outcomes; (2) to discuss the assessment of pretransplantation renal and hepatic dysfunction; (3) to provide an approach to patient selection for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation and simultaneous heart-liver transplantation and posttransplantation management; and (4) to explore the ethics of multiorgan transplantation.

OPTN/SRTR 2022 Annual Data Report: Heart.

The number of heart transplants in the United States has continued to increase. Since 2011, pediatric heart transplants have increased 31.7% to 494 and adult heart transplants have increased 85.8% to 3,668 in 2022. The numbers of new candidates for pediatric and adult heart transplants have also increased, with 703 new pediatric candidates and 4,446 new adult candidates in 2022. Adult heart transplant rates continue to rise, peaking at 122.5 transplants per 100 patient-years in 2022; however, the pediatric heart transplant rate decreased to its lowest rate in the past decade, 104.2 transplants per 100 patient-years, a decrease of 13.9% from 121 transplants per 100 patient-years in 2011. Despite this, pretransplant mortality among pediatric candidates has decreased by 52.2%, from 20.8 deaths per 100 patient-years in 2011 to 10.0 deaths per 100 patient-years in 2022, but remains excessive for candidates younger than 1 year at 25.7 deaths per 100 patient-years. Among adult candidates, pretransplant mortality declined from 15 deaths per 100 patient-years in 2011 to 8.7 deaths per 100 patient-years in 2022. Since 2011, posttransplant mortality has been stable to slightly better; among recipients who underwent transplant in 2015-2017, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year pediatric survival rates were 93.7%, 89.2%, and 85.0%, respectively, and the adult survival rates were 91.3%, 85.7%, and 80.4%. Donor trends have been favorable, with an increase in the numbers of hearts recovered and growing numbers of hearts procured after circulatory death.

Differences in Donor Heart Acceptance by Race and Gender of Patients on the Transplant Waiting List.

Importance: Barriers to heart transplant must be overcome prior to listing. It is unclear why Black men and women remain less likely to receive a heart transplant after listing than White men and women. Objective: To evaluate whether race or gender of a heart transplant candidate (ie, patient on the transplant waiting list) is associated with the probability of a donor heart being accepted by the transplant center team with each offer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the United Network for Organ Sharing datasets to identify organ acceptance with each offer for US non-Hispanic Black (hereafter, Black) and non-Hispanic White (hereafter, White) adults listed for heart transplant from October 18, 2018, through March 31, 2023. Exposures: Black or White race and gender (men, women) of a heart transplant candidate. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was heart offer acceptance by the transplant center team. The number of offers to acceptance was assessed using discrete time-to-event analyses, nonparametrically (stratified by race and gender) and parametrically. The hazard probability of offer acceptance for each offer was modeled using generalized linear mixed models adjusted for candidate-, donor-, and offer-level variables. Results: Among 159 177 heart offers with 13 760 donors, there were 14 890 candidates listed for heart transplant; 30.9% were Black, 69.1% were White, 73.6% were men, and 26.4% were women. The cumulative incidence of offer acceptance was highest for White women followed by Black women, White men, and Black men (P < .001). Odds of acceptance were less for Black candidates than for White candidates for the first offer (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.84) through the 16th offer. Odds of acceptance were higher for women than for men for the first offer (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.39-1.68) through the sixth offer and were lower for the 10th through 31st offers. Conclusions and Relevance: The cumulative incidence of heart offer acceptance by a transplant center team was consistently lower for Black candidates than for White candidates of the same gender and higher for women than for men. These disparities persisted after adjusting for candidate-, donor-, and offer-level variables, possibly suggesting racial and gender bias in the decision-making process. Further investigation of site-level decision-making may reveal strategies for equitable donor heart acceptance.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

OPTN/SRTR 2021 Annual Data Report: Heart.

The past 5 years have posed challenges to the field of heart transplantation. The 2018 heart allocation policy revision was accompanied by anticipated practice adjustments and increased use of short-term circulatory support, changes that may ultimately serve to advance the field. The COVID-19 pandemic also had an impact on heart transplantation. While the number of heart transplants in the United States continued to increase, the number of new candidates decreased slightly during the pandemic. There were slightly more deaths following removal from the waiting list for reasons other than transplant during 2020, and a decline in transplants among candidates listed as status 1, 2, or 3 compared with the other statuses. Heart transplant rates decreased among pediatric candidates, most notably among those younger than 1 year. Despite this, pretransplant mortality has declined for both pediatric and adult candidates, particularly candidates younger than 1 year. Transplant rates have increased in adults. The prevalence of ventricular assist device use has increased among pediatric heart transplant recipients, while the prevalence of short-term mechanical circulatory support, particularly intra-aortic balloon pump and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, has increased among adult recipients.

Readability and Non-English Language Resources of Heart Transplant Center Websites in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Health literacy is associated with heart failure (HF) care and outcomes. Online resources offer important educational materials for patients seeking access to heart transplantation but tend to be complex and potentially ineffective for non-English speakers and those with low reading levels. The purpose of this study was to evaluate both the readability of patient-level information posted on United States heart transplant center websites and the availability of non-English resources. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a review of patient-facing information on websites of U.S. heart transplant centers identified through the United Network for Organ Sharing in August 2022. Written English text was extracted and assessed for readability by using the Fry Graph Readability score. Websites were additionally evaluated for non-English language text and translator tools. Standard ANOVA analysis was used to compare readability levels across transplant regions. The median Fry readability level to understand a piece of text for all regions was 15, which is equivalent to a college-junior reading level (range: 7-17, 7th grade to postgraduate level). There was no statistical difference in median Fry readability levels among regions (P = 0.16). Of the 139 eligible heart transplant center websites, only 56.1% (78/139) had non-English resources available for patients. Regions 5 (75% [15/20]) and 6 (75% [3/4]) had the highest percentage of non-English resources, and region 2 had the lowest (38% [6/16]). CONCLUSIONS: Heart transplant center online resources are inadequate, and many do not provide translations of the English language. Additional work is needed to standardize heart-transplant patient information for a diverse U.S.

Role of ascorbic acid in cardiac allograft vasculopathy.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a progressive fibroproliferative disease which occurs after heart transplantation and is associated with significant long-term morbidity and mortality. Currently available strategies including statins, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, and revascularization, have limited overall effectiveness in treating this pathology once the disease process is established. mTOR inhibitors, while effective when used early in the disease process, are not well tolerated, and hence not routinely used in post-transplant care. RECENT DATA: Recent work on rodent models have given us a novel mechanistic understanding of effects of ascorbic acid in preventing CAV. TET methyl cytosine dioxygenase2 (TET2) reduces vascular smooth muscle cell (VSMC) apoptosis and intimal thickening. TET2 is repressed by interferon γ (IFNγ) in the setting of CAV. Ascorbic acid has been shown to promote TET2 activity and attenuate allograft vasculopathy in animal models and CAV progression in a small clinical trial. SUMMARY: CAV remains a challenging disease process and needs better preventative strategies. Ascorbic acid improves endothelial dysfunction, reduces reactive oxygen species, and prevents development of intimal hyperplasia by preventing smooth muscle cell apoptosis and hyperproliferation. Further large-scale randomized control studies of ascorbic acid are needed to establish the role in routine post-transplant management.

Do outcomes for heart transplantation differ based on donor and recipient race?

PURPOSE: There are limited data examining the impact of both donor and recipient race on outcomes following orthotopic heart transplant (OHT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between donor and recipient race and OHT outcomes. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was retrospectively reviewed from January 2000 to March 2018 for donor hearts. A comparison was conducted based on donor and recipient race (White, Black, Hispanic, Other/Unknown). Races for which there were limited numbers were excluded from the analysis (Asian, n = 1292; American Indian, n = 132; Pacific Islander, n = 132, Multiple ethnicities, n = 225). The primary endpoint was survival at 30 days, 1 year survival, and post-transplant rejection. Logistic and Cox models were used to quantify survival endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 41 841 OHT were included. Of the recipients, 29 894 (71%) were White, 8475 (20%) were Black, and 3472 (8%) were Hispanic. Of the donors 27 783 (66%) were White, 6277 (15%) were Black, 6576 (16%) were Hispanic, and 1205 (3%) were Unknown/Other race. In a comparison of recipient demographics, White recipients were older (54.09 ± 12.21 years) compared to Black (49.44 ± 12.83 years) and Hispanic (49.97 ± 13.27 years) recipients. All other differences between groups were not clinically significant. Black recipients were more likely to receive a heart with an "urgent" status (probability .80) compared to White (.73) and Hispanic (.75) recipients (p < .001). Hispanic recipients were more likely to receive a transplant when listed as "non-urgent" (Probability .47) compared to White (.37) and Black (.30) recipients (p < .001). In terms of outcomes, compared to White recipients, Hispanic patients experienced a decreased 30-day survival (OR 1.27; p = .011) and 1-year survival (OR 1.17; p = .016). In comparing Donor/Recipient combinations compared to a White Donor/White Recipient combination, overall survival was decreased in White donor/African American recipient (HR 1.36; p < .001), African American donor/African American recipient (HR 1.41; p < .001) and Hispanic donor/African American recipient (HR 1.30; p < .001) combinations (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: African American and Hispanic recipients have decreased survival compared to White recipients after heart transplant. The African American donor does not decrease survival. Racial differences still exist in donor and recipient characteristics and recipient outcomes after OHT. Increasing the donor pool for all races and ethnicities would potentially benefit all recipients. Continued study is warranted in order to minimize these differences among recipients and identify factors that could be contributing to decreased survival, in order to optimize outcomes for African American and Hispanic recipients post-transplant and eliminate disparities.

Proceedings from the metrics forum in heart transplantation for performance monitoring.

Regulatory oversight for heart transplant programs is currently under review by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). There is concern whether 1-year patient and graft survival truly represent heart transplant center performance. Thus, a forum was organized by the Thoracic and Critical Care Community of Practice (TCC COP) of the American Society of Transplantation (AST) for the heart transplant community to voice their opinions on matters involving program performance monitoring by UNOS. A TCC COP work group was formed to review outcome metrics for adult heart transplantation and culminated in a virtual community forum (72 participants representing 61 heart transplant programs) on November 12-13, 2020. One-year posttransplant survival is still considered an appropriate and important measure to assess program performance. Waitlist mortality and offer acceptance rate as pretransplant metrics could also be useful measures of program performance, recognizing that outside factors may influence these metrics. In depth discussion of these metrics and other issues including auditing thresholds, innovations to reduce risk-averse behavior and personally designed program scorecards are included in this meeting proceedings.

2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure replaces the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure and the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews and other evidence conducted in human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies published through September 2021 were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments that have high-quality published economic analyses.

Representation of Black patients in heart failure clinical trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Black patients with heart failure in the United States are underrepresented in clinical trials relative to their overrepresentation in the heart failure population and in adverse heart failure outcomes. We aim to evaluate historical trends in this space and highlight recent developments. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple landmark heart failure trials published since 2019 have underrepresented Black patients, though several discussed this lack of representation as limitations. A review of large heart failure clinical trials from 2001 to 2016 found persistent underrepresentation of Black patients without significant change over time. Trials enrolling from North America exclusively had more proportional representation, enrolling an average of 31.6% Black participants. SUMMARY: There is a shrinking proportion of Black patients in pivotal heart failure trials despite a higher prevalence of disease and associated adverse outcomes. There is increasing awareness of these disparities within the heart failure community, potentially leading to improved representation in future studies.

Sensitization in Heart Transplantation: Emerging Knowledge: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Sensitization, defined as the presence of circulating antibodies, presents challenges for heart transplant recipients and physicians. When present, sensitization can limit a transplantation candidate's access to organs, prolong wait time, and, in some cases, exclude the candidate from heart transplantation altogether. The management of sensitization is not yet standardized, and current therapies have not yielded consistent results. Although current strategies involve antibody suppression and removal with intravenous immunoglobulin, plasmapheresis, and antibody therapy, newer strategies with more specific targets are being investigated.

Safety of regadenoson positron emission tomography stress testing in orthotopic heart transplant patients.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the safety of regadenoson (REG) stress testing in patients who have undergone orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). BACKGROUND: Routine screening for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is necessary after OHT. Adenosine stress is contraindicated after heart transplantation due to supersensitivity in denervated hearts. Safety of regadenoson stress following OHT has not been well studied. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from OHT patients (N = 123) who were referred to REG stress testing. Medical records were reviewed to determine hemodynamic and ECG response to regadenoson and to identify adverse reactions. RESULTS: No serious adverse events occurred. No life-threatening arrhythmias or hemodynamic changes occurred. Common side-effects related to regadenoson were observed, dyspnea being the most frequent (66.7%). On average the heart rate rose from 82.8 ± 12 to 95.7 ± 13.4 bpm (P < 0.001), systolic blood pressure decreased from 138.7 ± 20.9 to 115.9 ± 23.9 mmHg (P < 0.001) and mean arterial pressure decreased from 103.5 ± 14.1 to 84.72 ± 15.90 mmHg (P < 0.001) during stress protocol. There was no sustained ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or second-or third-degree atrioventricular block. CONCLUSION: Regadenoson stress testing appears to be well tolerated and safe in OHT patients.

HFSA/SAEM/ISHLT Clinical Expert Consensus Document on the Emergency Management of Patients with Ventricular Assist Devices.

Mechanical circulatory support is now widely accepted as a viable long-term treatment option for patients with end-stage heart failure (HF). As the range of indications for the implantation of ventricular assist devices grows, so does the number of patients living in the community with durable support. Because of their underlying disease and comorbidities, in addition to the presence of mechanical support, these patients are at a high risk for medical urgencies and emergencies (Table 1). Thus, it is the responsibility of clinicians to understand the basics of their emergency care. This consensus document represents a collaborative effort by the Heart Failure Society of America, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) to educate practicing clinicians about the emergency management of patients with ventricular assist devices. The target audience includes HF specialists and emergency medicine physicians, as well as general cardiologists and community-based providers.

Heart and lung organ offer acceptance practices of transplant programs are associated with waitlist mortality and organ yield.

Variation in heart and lung offer acceptance practices may affect numbers of transplanted organs and create variability in waitlist mortality. To investigate these issues, offer acceptance ratios, or adjusted odds ratios, for heart and lung transplant programs individually and for all programs within donation service areas (DSAs) were estimated using offers from donors recovered July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017. Logistic regressions estimated the association of DSA-level offer acceptance ratios with donor yield and local placement of organs recovered in the DSA. Competing risk methodology estimated the association of program-level offer acceptance ratios with incidence and rate of waitlist removals due to death or becoming too sick to undergo transplant. Higher DSA-level offer acceptance was associated with higher yield (odds ratios [ORs]: lung, 1.04 1.111.19 ; heart, 1.09 1.211.35 ) and more local placement of transplanted organs (ORs: lung, 1.01 1.121.24 ; heart, 1.47 1.691.93 ). Higher program-level offer acceptance was associated with lower incidence of waitlist removal due to death or becoming too sick to undergo transplant (hazard ratios [HRs]: heart, 0.80 0.860.93 ; lung, 0.67 0.750.83 ), but not with rate of waitlist removal (HRs: heart, 0.91 0.981.06 ; lung, 0.89 0.991.10 ). Heart and lung offer acceptance practices affected numbers of transplanted organs and contributed to program-level variability in the probability of waitlist mortality.

Sensitization in Transplantation: Assessment of Risk (STAR) 2017 Working Group Meeting Report.

The presence of preexisting (memory) or de novo donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSAs) is a known barrier to successful long-term organ transplantation. Yet, despite the fact that laboratory tools and our understanding of histocompatibility have advanced significantly in recent years, the criteria to define presence of a DSA and assign a level of risk for a given DSA vary markedly between centers. A collaborative effort between the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics and the American Society of Transplantation provided the logistical support for generating a dedicated multidisciplinary working group, which included experts in histocompatibility as well as kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation. The goals were to perform a critical review of biologically driven, state-of-the-art, clinical diagnostics literature and to provide clinical practice recommendations based on expert assessment of quality and strength of evidence. The results of the Sensitization in Transplantation: Assessment of Risk (STAR) meeting are summarized here, providing recommendations on the definition and utilization of HLA diagnostic testing, and a framework for clinical assessment of risk for a memory or a primary alloimmune response. The definitions, recommendations, risk framework, and highlighted gaps in knowledge are intended to spur research that will inform the next STAR Working Group meeting in 2019.

Clinical usefulness of gene-expression profile to rule out acute rejection after heart transplantation: CARGO II.

AIMS: A non-invasive gene-expression profiling (GEP) test for rejection surveillance of heart transplant recipients originated in the USA. A European-based study, Cardiac Allograft Rejection Gene Expression Observational II Study (CARGO II), was conducted to further clinically validate the GEP test performance. METHODS AND RESULTS: Blood samples for GEP testing (AlloMap(®), CareDx, Brisbane, CA, USA) were collected during post-transplant surveillance. The reference standard for rejection status was based on histopathology grading of tissue from endomyocardial biopsy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), negative (NPVs), and positive predictive values (PPVs) for the GEP scores (range 0-39) were computed. Considering the GEP score of 34 as a cut-off (>6 months post-transplantation), 95.5% (381/399) of GEP tests were true negatives, 4.5% (18/399) were false negatives, 10.2% (6/59) were true positives, and 89.8% (53/59) were false positives. Based on 938 paired biopsies, the GEP test score AUC-ROC for distinguishing ≥3A rejection was 0.70 and 0.69 for ≥2-6 and >6 months post-transplantation, respectively. Depending on the chosen threshold score, the NPV and PPV range from 98.1 to 100% and 2.0 to 4.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: For ≥2-6 and >6 months post-transplantation, CARGO II GEP score performance (AUC-ROC = 0.70 and 0.69) is similar to the CARGO study results (AUC-ROC = 0.71 and 0.67). The low prevalence of ACR contributes to the high NPV and limited PPV of GEP testing. The choice of threshold score for practical use of GEP testing should consider overall clinical assessment of the patient's baseline risk for rejection.

Women With Cardiogenic Shock Derive Greater Benefit From Early Mechanical Circulatory Support: An Update From the cVAD Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this analysis was to assess survival differences between men and women supported with Impella 2.5 (Abiomed Inc., Danvers) in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). BACKGROUND: Data on sex differences in outcomes of CS with mechanical circulatory support are sparse. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the cVAD Registry who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and Impella 2.5 support for CS complicating an AMI were included. Differences between men and women were examined. RESULTS: In total, 180 patients were analyzed. Women (n = 49, 27.2%) were older (71.0 ± 12.8 years vs 63.8 ± 13.0, P = 0.001), smaller (BSA 1.82 ± 0.22 vs 2.04 ± 0.24 m(2) , P < 0.001), and had a higher STS mortality risk score than men (27.9 ± 17.0 vs. 20.8 ± 16.8 P = 0.01). There was no difference in survival to discharge (P = 0.3). Patients receiving the Impella 2.5 pre-PCI had significantly lower inpatient mortality than those who received support post-PCI (P = 0.003). However, the magnitude of the survival benefit was significantly greater in women who received the Impella pre-PCI as compared to men. Overall, 68.8% of women survived with pre-PCI Impella 2.5 versus 24.2% post-PCI (P = 0.005) whereas 54.2% of men survived with pre-PCI Impella 2.5 versus 40.3% post-PCI (P = 0.1, p-interaction = 0.07). No differences in timing to intervention were found between men and women. CONCLUSIONS: Early initiation of hemodynamic support prior to PCI with Impella 2.5, in the setting of AMI complicated by CS, was associated with a greater survival benefit to hospital discharge in women compared to men, despite a higher predicted risk of mortality and a greater revascularization failure rate for women. (J Interven Cardiol 2016;29:248-256).