Does bortezomib influence pre-transplant desensitization therapy or benefit post-heart transplant outcomes for highly sensitized patients?

BACKGROUND: The use of bortezomib which is a proteasome inhibitor has been demonstrated to be efficacious in small number of patients as a desensitization strategy in heart transplant. We reviewed our single center's experience using Bortezomib along with plasmapheresis as desensitization therapy for highly sensitized patients to assess pre- and post-transplant outcomes. METHOD: We assessed 43 highly sensitized patients awaiting HTx (defined as cPRA > 50%) between 2010 and 2021 who underwent desensitization therapy with bortezomib. Only those patients who subsequently underwent HTx were included in this study. Enrolled patients received up to four doses of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 ) over 2 weeks in conjunction with plasmapheresis. The efficacy of PP/BTZ was assessed by comparing the calculated panel reactive antibodies to HLA class I or class II antigens. Post-transplant outcomes including overall survival and incidence of rejection were compared to those of non-sensitized patients (PRA < 10%, n = 649) from the same center. RESULTS: The average cPRA prior to PP/BTZ was 94.5%. Post-PP/BTZ there was no statistically significant decline in mean cPRA, class I cPRA, or class II cPRA, though the average percentage decrease in class I cPRA (8.7 ± 17.0%) was higher than the change in class II cPRA (4.4 ± 13.3%). Resulted were also replicated with C1q-binding antibodies showing more effect on I class compared to class II (15.0 ± 37.4% vs. 6.8 ± 33.6%) as well as with 1:8 dilutional assay (14.0 ± 23.0% vs. 9.1 ± 34.9%). Additionally, PP/BTZ treated patients and the control group of non-sensitized patients had similar overall 1 year survival (95.4 vs. 92.5%) but patients with PP/BTZ had increased incidence of AMR (79.1% vs. 97.1%, p = < .001), any treated rejection (62.8% vs. 86.7%, p = < .001) and de novo DSA development (81.4% vs. 92.5%, p = .007). Major side effects of PP/BTZ included thrombocytopenia (42%), infection requiring antibiotics (28%), and neuropathy (12%). CONCLUSION: The use of bortezomib in highly sensitized patients does not significantly lower circulating antibodies prior to heart transplantation. However, its use may improve the chances of obtaining an immuno-compatible donor heart and contribute to acceptable post-transplant outcomes.

The impact of the United Network of Organ Sharing allocation change on waitlist trajectories of inpatients listed with inotropic support: A single-center analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation scheme prior to October 18, 2018, heart transplant (HTx) candidates with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS), or pulmonary artery (PA) catheter inotropic support all received Status 1A priority. In revised scheme, patients with PA catheter and inotropic support are Status 3 after those on ECMO (Status 1) or temporary MCS (Status 2). We examined the impact of the allocation change on HTx candidates listed Status 1A versus Status 3 at a high-volume transplant center. METHODS: Between January 2017 and January 2021, 75 patients were listed with a PA catheter and inotropic support prior to the allocation change (Era 1) and 48 were listed after (Era 2). Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared for these 123 patients. RESULTS: Heart transplant (HTx) candidates in Era 2 had higher median inotrope doses at listing. There was no significant difference in inpatient wait list days (12 vs. 20 days, P = .15), transition to temporary MCS (33.3% vs. 22.7%, P = .15), or wait list mortality (6.3% vs. 4.0%, P = .68). There was also no significant difference in survival to transplantation (91.7% vs. 94.7%, P = .71). There were no differences in post-transplant outcomes including 1-year survival (88.6% vs. 93.0%, P = .38). CONCLUSION: At a high-volume transplant center, the UNOS allocation change did not result in increased wait list time, use of temporary MCS, or mortality on the waitlist or post-transplant for candidates on inotropic support with continuous hemodynamic monitoring.

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.

Characteristics and outcomes of heart transplant recipients with a pretransplant history of malignancy.

We aimed to investigate the characteristics and outcomes of HTx recipients with a history of pretransplant malignancy (PTM). Among 1062 HTx recipients between 1997 and 2013, 73 (7.1%) patients had PTMs (77 cancer cases). We analyzed post-HTx outcome, recurrence of PTM, and development of de novo malignancies. Post-HTx outcome included overall survival, 10-year survival, 10-year freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), non-fatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), any treated rejection (ATR), acute cellular rejection (ACR), and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Four most common PTMs were lymphoproliferative disorders (18.2%), prostate cancers (18.2%), non-melanoma skin cancers (18.2%), and breast cancers (13.0%). Median time from PTM and HTx was 9.0 years. During a median follow-up of 8.6 years after HTx, patients with PTM, compared to those without, showed significantly higher incidence of posttransplant malignancies (43.8% vs. 20.8%, p < .001) including 9.6% (n = 7) of PTM recurrences. However, patients with PTM, compared to those without, showed comparable overall survival, 10-year survival, 10-year freedom from CAV, NF-MACE, ATR, ACR, and AMR. Therefore, a history of PTM should not disqualify patients from HTx listing, while further research is necessary for early detection of posttransplant malignancies in these patients.

Heart transplantation in muscular dystrophy: Single-center analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac involvement may occur in many forms of muscular dystrophy (MD). While cardiac disease may progress to warrant heart transplantation (HTx), there may be contraindications related to extra-cardiac disease including pulmonary and skeletal muscle involvement that limit overall survival and impairs post-transplant rehabilitation efforts. This study describes the MD HTx experience at a single high-volume center. METHODS: We examined the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with MD with heart failure (HF) (n = 28), patients with MD status post HTx (n = 20) and non-MD HTx control group (n = 40) matched 2:1 for age at transplant, sex, listing status, and antibody sensitization. RESULTS: Patients with MD who underwent HTx had increased ventilator days (2 vs. 1 days, p = .013), increased hospital length of stay (20 vs. 12 days, p = .022), and increased discharge to inpatient rehab (60% vs. 8%, p < .001). By 1 year post HTx, patients with MD more often required assistive devices for walking (55% vs. 10%, p = .01). Nonetheless, post-HTx survival was similar at 1 year (100% vs. 97.5%, p = .48) and 5 years (95.0% vs. 87.5%, p = .36). Of the HTx recipients with MD, 95% were followed by a neurologist, 60% by a neuromuscular specialist as part of the Muscular Dystrophy Association Clinic at our center. CONCLUSION: Transplantation is a feasible option for patients with MD and advanced HF. MD patients who undergo transplantation may benefit from multidisciplinary specialized care to optimize MD-related morbidity.

Heart transplant recipient 1-year outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic initially brought forth considerable challenges to the field of heart transplantation. To prevent the spread of the virus and protect immunocompromised recipients, our center made the following modifications to post-transplant outpatient management: eliminating early coronary angiograms, video visits for postoperative months 7, 9, and 11, and home blood draws for immunosuppression adjustments. To assess if these changes have impacted patient outcomes, the current study examines 1-year outcomes for patients transplanted during the pandemic. Between March and September 2020, we assessed 50 heart transplant patients transplanted during the pandemic. These patients were compared to patients who were transplanted during the same months between 2011 and 2019 (n = 482). Endpoints included subsequent 1-year survival, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy, any-treated rejection, acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), and hospital and ICU length of stay. Patients transplanted during the pandemic had similar 1-year endpoints compared to those of patients transplanted from years prior apart from 1-year freedom from NF-MACE which was significantly higher for patients transplanted during the pandemic. Despite necessary changes being made to outpatient management of heart transplant recipients, heart transplantation continues to be safe and effective with similar 1-year outcomes to years prior.

Long-term outcomes after heart transplantation using ex vivo allograft perfusion in standard risk donors: A single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: The Organ Care System (OCS) is an ex vivo perfusion platform for donor heart preservation. Short/mid-term post-transplant outcomes after its use are comparable to standard cold storage (CS). We evaluated long-term outcomes following its use. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2013, 38 patients from a single center were randomized as a part of the PROCEED II trial to receive allografts preserved with CS (n = 19) or OCS (n = 19). Endpoints included 8-year survival, survival free from graft-related deaths, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), non-fatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), and rejections. RESULTS: Eight-year survival was 57.9% in the OCS group and 73.7% in the CS group (p = .24). Freedom from CAV was 89.5% in the OCS group and 67.8% in the CS group (p = .13). Freedom from NF-MACE was 89.5% in the OCS group and 67.5% in the CS group (p = .14). Eight-year survival free from graft-related death was equivalent between the two groups (84.2% vs. 84.2%, p = .93). No differences in rejection episodes were observed (all p > .5). CONCLUSIONS: In select patients receiving OCS preserved allografts, late post-transplant survival trended lower than those transplanted with an allograft preserved with CS. This is based on a small single-center series, and larger numbers are needed to confirm these findings.

Cardiac microstructural alterations in immune-inflammatory myocardial disease: a retrospective case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Immune-inflammatory myocardial disease contributes to multiple chronic cardiac processes, but access to non-invasive screening is limited. We have previously developed a method of echocardiographic texture analysis, called the high-spectrum signal intensity coefficient (HS-SIC) which assesses myocardial microstructure and previously associated with myocardial fibrosis. We aimed to determine whether this echocardiographic texture analysis of cardiac microstructure can identify inflammatory cardiac disease in the clinical setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case-control study of 318 patients with distinct clinical myocardial pathologies and 20 healthy controls. Populations included myocarditis, atypical chest pain/palpitations, STEMI, severe aortic stenosis, acute COVID infection, amyloidosis, and cardiac transplantation with acute rejection, without current rejection but with prior rejection, and with no history of rejection. We assessed the HS-SIC's ability to differentiate between a broader diversity of clinical groups and healthy controls. We used Kruskal-Wallis tests to compare HS-SIC values measured in each of the clinical populations with those in the healthy control group and compared HS-SIC values between the subgroups of cardiac transplantation rejection status. RESULTS: For the total sample of N = 338, the mean age was 49.6 ± 20.9 years and 50% were women. The mean ± standard error of the mean of HS-SIC were: 0.668 ± 0.074 for controls, 0.552 ± 0.049 for atypical chest pain/palpitations, 0.425 ± 0.058 for myocarditis, 0.881 ± 0.129 for STEMI, 1.116 ± 0.196 for severe aortic stenosis, 0.904 ± 0.116 for acute COVID, and 0.698 ± 0.103 for amyloidosis. Among cardiac transplant recipients, HS-SIC values were 0.478 ± 0.999 for active rejection, 0.594 ± 0.091 for prior rejection, and 1.191 ± 0.442 for never rejection. We observed significant differences in HS-SIC between controls and myocarditis (P = 0.0014), active rejection (P = 0.0076), and atypical chest pain or palpitations (P = 0.0014); as well as between transplant patients with active rejection and those without current or prior rejection (P = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: An echocardiographic method can be used to characterize tissue signatures of microstructural changes across a spectrum of cardiac disease including immune-inflammatory conditions.

Transplant centers that assess frailty as part of clinical practice have better outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Frailty predicts adverse post-kidney transplant (KT) outcomes, yet the impact of frailty assessment on center-level outcomes remains unclear. We sought to test whether transplant centers assessing frailty as part of clinical practice have better pre- and post-KT outcomes in all adult patients (≥18 years) and older patients (≥65 years). METHODS: In a survey of US transplant centers (11/2017-4/2018), 132 (response rate = 65.3%) centers reported their frailty assessment practices (frequency and specific tool) at KT evaluation and admission. Assessment frequency was categorized as never, sometime, and always; type of assessment tool was categorized as none, validated (for post-KT risk prediction), and any other tool. Center characteristics and clinical outcomes for adult patients during 2017-2019 were gleaned from the transplant national registry (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of waitlist outcomes (waitlist mortality, transplantation) in candidates and IRRs of post-KT outcomes (all-cause mortality, death-censored graft loss) in recipients by frailty assessment frequency. We also estimated IRRs of waitlist outcomes by type of assessment tool at evaluation. All models were adjusted for case mix and center characteristics. RESULTS: Assessing frailty at evaluation was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (always IRR = 0.91,95%CI:0.84-0.99; sometimes = 0.89,95%CI:0.83-0.96) and KT rate (always = 0.94,95%CI:0.91-0.97; sometimes = 0.88,95%CI:0.85-0.90); the associations with waitlist mortality rate (always = 0.86,95%CI:0.74-0.99; sometimes = 0.83,95%CI:0.73-0.94) and KT rate (always = 0.82,95%CI:0.77-0.88; sometimes = 0.92,95%CI:0.87-0.98) were stronger in older patients. Furthermore, using validated (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.88-0.92) or any other tool (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.87-0.93) at evaluation was associated lower KT rate, while only using a validated tool was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (IRR = 0.89,95%CI:0.83-0.96), especially in older patients (IRR = 0.82,95%CI:0.72-0.93). At admission for KT, always assessing frailty was associated with a lower graft loss rate (IRR = 0.71,95%CI:0.54-0.92) but not with mortality (IRR = 0.93,95%CI:0.76-1.13). CONCLUSIONS: Assessing frailty at evaluation is associated with lower KT rate, while only using a validated frailty assessment tool is associated with better survival, particularly in older candidates. Centers always assessing frailty at admission are likely to have better graft survival rates. Transplant centers may utilize validated frailty assessment tools to secure KT access for appropriate candidates and to better allocate health care resources for patients identified as frail, particularly for older patients.

Heterogeneity of liver fibrosis in patients with congestive hepatopathy: A biopsy and explant comparison series.

PURPOSE: Patients with end-stage heart failure and concomitant irreversible liver injury may be candidates for combined heart liver transplant (CHLT). Determining appropriate candidates for CHLT is essential given organ scarcity. Transjugular liver biopsy (TJLB) is used to evaluate the severity of parenchymal liver injury in transplant candidates. In patients with congestive hepatopathy (CH), the fibrosis pattern may be heterogenous. METHODS: We reviewed all CHLT cases between 2007 and 2017, as well as lone-heart transplant cases with post-mortem autopsy. Pre-transplant TJLB was compared to explant to assess the performance of biopsy fibrosis staging. RESULTS: 12 patients were included. Median age at time of transplant was 58 and the cohort was predominantly male (75%). Seven (64%) TJLB were predominantly stage 4 fibrosis and 4 (36%) were stage 1. Advanced fibrosis was the dominant pattern in 7 (70%) explants and 5 (50%) explants had heterogenous fibrosis. In 50% of CH cases, there was discordance between the TJLB and explant. In the autopsy cases, the TJLB and autopsy findings differed. CONCLUSIONS: In this series of matched TJLB and explanted livers, we found variable performance of TJLB in predicting the predominant fibrosis stage present in the liver.

Stem cell donor HLA typing improves CPRA in kidney allocation.

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Kidney Allocation System provides a priority to sensitized candidates based on the calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA) value. The human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotype reference panel used for calculation of the CPRA by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), the OPTN contractor, has limitations. We derived a novel panel from the National Marrow Donor Program HLA haplotype data set and compared the accuracy of CPRA values generated with this panel (NMDP-CPRA) to those generated from the UNOS panel (UNOS-CPRA), using predicted and actual deceased donor kidney offers for a cohort of 24 282 candidates. The overall accuracy for kidney offers was similar using NMDP-CPRA and UNOS-CPRA. Accuracy was slightly higher for NMDP-CPRA than UNOS-CPRA for candidates in several highly sensitized CPRA categories, with deviations in linkage disequilibrium for Caucasians and the smaller size of the UNOS panel as contributing factors. HLA data derived from stem cell donors yields CPRA values that are comparable to those derived from deceased kidney donors while improving upon several problems with the current reference panel. Consideration should be given to using stem cell donors as the reference panel for calculation of CPRA to improve equity in kidney transplant allocation.

Complement inhibition for prevention of antibody-mediated rejection in immunologically high-risk heart allograft recipients.

Allosensitization represents a major barrier to heart transplantation (HTx). We assessed the efficacy and safety of complement inhibition at transplant in highly sensitized heart transplant recipients. We performed a single-center, single-arm, open-label trial (NCT02013037). Patients with panel reactive antibodies (PRA) ≥70% and pre-formed donor-specific antibodies (DSA) were eligible. In addition to standard of care, patients received nine infusions of eculizumab during the first 2 months posttransplant. The primary composite endpoint was antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) ≥pAMR2 and/or left ventricular dysfunction during the first year. Secondary endpoints included hemodynamic compromise, allograft rejection, and patient survival. Twenty patients were included. Median cPRA and mean fluorescence intensity of immunodominant DSA were 95% (90%-97%) and 6250 (5000-10 000), respectively. Retrospective B cell and T cell flow crossmatches were positive in 14 and 11 patients, respectively. The primary endpoint occurred in four patients (20%). Survival at 1 year was 90% with no deaths resulting from AMR. In a prespecified analysis comparing treated patients to matched control patients, we observed a dramatic reduction in the risk of biopsy-proven AMR in patients treated with eculizumab (HR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.14-0.95, p = .032). Our findings support the prophylactic use of complement inhibition for heart transplantation at high immunological risk. ClinincalTrials.gov, NCT02013037.

The impact of depression on heart transplant outcomes: A retrospective single-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Depression is prevalent in patients with heart failure and after heart transplant. We identified the prevalence of pre- and post-transplant depression and its association with clinical characteristics and post-transplant outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed 114 adults transplanted 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2015 and identified patients with pre- and post-transplant depression. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Of 114 patients, 35.1% had pre-transplant depression and 26.3% had post-transplant depression. Patients with post-transplant depression within the first year were significantly more likely to have acute rejection (10% vs 0%), longer intensive care unit (11.7 days vs 7.8 days) and hospital stay (31.7 days vs 16.3 days), and discharge to inpatient rehabilitation (26.7% vs 8.3%). Patients with post-transplant depression within the first year had significantly higher 5-year mortality (30% vs 9.5%, p = .009). However, after adjustment for total artificial heart/biventricular assist device, acute rejection, intensive care unit, and hospital length of stay, this relationship was no longer significant (HR 2.11; 95% CI 0.18-25.27; p = .556). CONCLUSIONS: Depression is common among heart transplant candidates and recipients. While pre-transplant depression did not impact outcomes, patients with post-transplant depression were more likely to have had a complicated course, suggesting the need for increased vigilance regarding depression in such patients.

Advanced heart failure and heart transplantation in adult congenital heart disease in the current era.

BACKGROUND: Adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) may undergo heart transplantation (HTx) despite increased risk of poor short-term outcomes due to factors including surgical complexity and antibody sensitization. We assessed the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with ACHD in the current era referred for HTx at a single high-volume transplant center. METHODS: From 2010 to 2020, 37 ACHD patients were evaluated for HTx. ACHD HTx recipients were compared to non-ACHD HTx recipients matched for age, sex, listing status, and prior cardiac surgery. RESULTS: Of the 37 patients with ACHD, eight (21.6%) were declined for HTx. Of 29 ACHD patients listed, 19 (65.5%) underwent HTx. Compared with non-ACHD HTx controls, the ACHD HTx recipients had more treated cellular (21.1% vs. 15.8%, P = .010) and antibody-mediated (15.8% vs. 10.5%, P = .033) rejection. There was no difference in hospital readmission or allograft vasculopathy at 1 year. There was a nonsignificant higher 1-year mortality in ACHD HTx recipients (21.1% vs. 7.9%, P = .21). CONCLUSION: At a high-volume transplant center, ACHD patients undergoing HTx appear to have a marginally higher risk of rejection, but no significant increase in 1-year mortality. With careful selection and management, HTx for patients with ACHD may be feasible in the current era.

Eculizumab for antibody-mediated rejection in heart transplantation: A case-control study.

Complement inhibition offers a novel treatment approach for antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). We examined patients with hemodynamic compromise AMR 2010-2020, comparing eight patients supplemented with eculizumab to 10 patients without; administration was at the treating physician's discretion. There were no significant differences between groups though eculizumab patients had a non-significantly higher inotrope score (208.8 mcg/kg/min vs. 2.6 mcg/kg/min; P = .22), more extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (62.5% vs. 20%; P = .066), and worse 1-year survival (37.5% vs. 60%; P = .63). The role of eculizumab is uncertain in AMR; multicenter collaborative studies are essential to better define its role.

The effects of donor-specific antibody characteristics on cardiac allograft vasculopathy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) causes late graft dysfunction and post-transplant mortality. Currently, the effects of different donor-specific antibodies (DSA) on the severity of CAV remain unclear. METHOD: We evaluated 526 adult heart transplant recipients at a single center between January 2010 and August 2015. Subjects were divided into those with DSA (n = 142) and those without DSA (n = 384, control). The DSA group was stratified into persistent DSA (n = 34), transient DSA (n = 105), 1:8 dilution DSA (n = 45), complement-binding (C1q) DSA (n = 36), Class I DSA (n = 37), and Class II DSA (n = 105). The primary outcome was the incidence of moderate-to-severe CAV (CAV 2/3) at 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: Subjects with persistent DSA, 1:8 dilution DSA, and C1q DSA had higher incidence of CAV 2/3 compared the control group (17.6%, 13.3%, and 16.7% vs. 3.1%, respectively; P≤ .001). The incidence of CAV 2/3 between subjects with transient DSA and the control group was similar (2.8% vs. 3.1%; P = .888). Subjects with Class II DSA also had higher incidence of CAV 2/3 (7.6% vs. 3.1%; P = .039). CONCLUSION: DSA that are persistent, 1:8 dilution positive, C1q positive, and Class II are associated with more severe grades of CAV. These DSA characteristics may prognosticate disease and warrant consideration for treatment.

Intermediate-term outcomes of heart transplantation for cardiac amyloidosis in the current era.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) has been historically noted with poor outcomes after heart transplant (HTx). However, strict patient selection, appropriate multi-organ transplant, and aggressive post-transplant therapy can result in favorable outcomes. We present the experience in the largest single-center cohort of CA patients post-HTx in the recent era. METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2018, 51 CA patients underwent HTx-13 light-chain amyloidosis (AL) and 38 transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR), 49 were included. Endpoints included 3-year survival, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), and freedom from non-fatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE). RESULTS: Overall 3-year survival was 81.6% (69.2% for AL and 86% for ATTR) and was comparable to survival for patients transplanted for non-amyloid restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) in the same period (89%, p = .46). Three-year freedom from CAV (84% vs. 89%, p = .98), NF-MACE (82% vs. 83%, p = .96), and any-treated rejection (95% vs. 89%, p = .54) were also comparable in both groups. No recurrence in amyloid was noted in endomyocardial biopsies. Six patients (46%) with AL amyloidosis underwent autologous stem cell transplant 1-year post-HTx, and two patients (8%) with variant ATTR-CA underwent combined heart-liver transplant due to cardiac cirrhosis. CONCLUSION: In the current era, both AL and ATTR cardiac amyloidosis patients have acceptable outcomes after heart transplantation.

Impact of the United Network for organ sharing 2018 donor heart allocation system on transplant morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: While the revised UNOS HTx donor allocation system aimed to minimize waitlist mortality by prioritizing more critically ill transplant candidates, there is concern for increased post-transplant morbidity and mortality. We examined the impact of the revised allocation system on waitlist and post-transplant outcomes at a high-volume transplant center. METHODS: One hundred and sixty nine adult patients underwent first-time single-organ HTx one year before (Era 1:79 patients) and after (Era 2:90 patients) implementation of the new allocation system (10/18/2018). Clinical characteristics, waitlist outcomes, and post-transplant morbidity and mortality were compared. RESULTS: Era 2 patients were twice as likely to be transplanted on temporary mechanical circulatory support (43% vs. 19%, p < .0001). While Era 2 waitlist time was shorter (10 vs. 43 days, p < .001), exception status requests (21.1% vs. 17.9%) and waitlist mortality (3.3% vs. 2.2%) were similar. There was no difference in primary graft dysfunction, intensive care unit or hospital length of stay, readmissions, rejection, allograft vasculopathy, or 1-year survival (91.1% vs. 93.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In a high-volume center, the revised HTx allocation system shortened waitlist time with no significant change in waitlist mortality or observed impact on post-transplant outcomes. With careful patient selection, the revised allocation system may optimize waitlist and post-transplant outcomes.

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.

Coronary computed tomography-angiography quantitative plaque analysis improves detection of early cardiac allograft vasculopathy: A pilot study.

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is an increasingly important complication after cardiac transplant. We assessed the additive diagnostic benefit of quantitative plaque analysis in patients undergoing coronary computed tomography-angiography (CCTA). Consecutive patients undergoing CCTA for CAV surveillance were identified. Scans were visually interpreted for coronary stenosis. Semiautomated software was used to quantify noncalcified plaque (NCP), as well as its components. Optimal diagnostic cut-offs for CAV, with coronary angiography as gold standard, were defined using receiver operating characteristic curves. In total, 36 scans were identified in 17 patients. CAV was present in 17 (46.0%) reference coronary angiograms, at a median of 1.9 years before CCTA. Median NCP (147 vs 58, P < .001), low-density NCP (median 4.5 vs 0.9, P = .003), fibrous plaque (median 76.1 vs 31.1, P = .003), and fibrofatty plaque (median 63.6 vs 27.6, P < .001) volumes were higher in patients with CAV, whereas calcified plaque was not (median 0.0 vs 0.0, P = .510). Visual assessment of CCTA alone was 70.6% sensitive and 100% specific for CAV. The addition of total NCP volume increased sensitivity to 82.4% while maintaining 100% specificity. NCP volume is significantly higher in patients with CAV. The addition of quantitative analysis to visual interpretation improves the sensitivity for detecting CAV without reducing specificity.