Effect of recipient gender and donor-specific antibodies on antibody-mediated rejection after heart transplantation.

Gender-difference regarding antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) after heart transplantation has been described. However, no study accounted for the presence of preformed donor-specific antibodies (pfDSA), a known risk factor of AMR, more common among women than men. In a single-institution 6-year cohort (2010-2015), time to AMR was assessed, comparing men with women by survival analysis with a 1-year death-censored follow-up. All AMRs were biopsy proven. Confounding variables that were accounted for included mean intensity fluorescence (MFI) of pfDSA, recipient age, HLA-, size- and sex-mismatch. 463 patients were included. Overall incidence of AMR was 10.3% at 1 year. After adjusting for confounding variables, independent risk factors of AMR were female recipient gender (adjusted hazard-ratio [adj. HR] = 1.78 [1.06-2.99]), P = .03) and the presence of pfDSA (adj. HR = 3.20 [1.80-5.70], P < .001). This association remained significant when considering pfDSA by their MFI; female recipient gender had an adj. HR = 2.2 (P = .026) and MFI of pfDSA (per 1 MFI-increase) adj. HR = 1.0002 (P < .0001). In this cohort, women were at higher risk of AMR than men and this risk increase was additive to that of pfDSA. These findings may suggest a gender-related difference in the severity of pfDSA.

Performance of existing risk scores around heart transplantation: validation study in a 4-year cohort.

Several risk scores exist to help identify best candidate recipients for heart transplantation (HTx). This study describes the performance of five heart failure risk scores and two post-HTx mortality risk scores in a French single-centre cohort. All patients listed for HTx through a 4-year period were included. Waiting-list risk scores [Heart Failure Survival Score (HFSS), Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC), Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF) and Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF)] and post-HTx scores Index for Mortality Prediction After Cardiac Transplantation (IMPACT and CARRS) were computed. Main outcomes were 1-year mortality on waiting list and after HTx. Performance was assessed using receiver operator characteristic (ROC), calibration and goodness-of-fit analyses. The cohort included 414 patients. Waiting-list mortality was 14.0%, and post-HTx mortality was 16.3% at 1-year follow-up. Heart failure risk scores had adequate discrimination regarding waiting-list mortality (ROC AUC for HFSS = 0.68, SHFM = 0.74, OPTIMIZE-HF = 0.72, MAGGIC = 0.70 and GWTG = 0.77; all P-values <0.05). On the contrary, post-HTx risk scores did not discriminate post-HTx mortality (AUC for IMPACT = 0.58, and CARRS = 0.48, both P-values >0.50). Subgroup analysis on patients undergoing HTx after ventricular assistance device (VAD) implantation (i.e. bridge-to-transplantation) (n = 36) showed an IMPACT AUC = 0.72 (P < 0.001). In this single-centre cohort, existing heart failure risk scores were adequate to predict waiting-list mortality. Post-HTx mortality risk scores were not, except in the VAD subgroup.

Management of end-stage heart failure patients with or without ventricular assist device: an observational comparison of clinical and economic outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Heart transplantation (HT) and ventricular assist devices (VAD) for the management of end-stage heart failure have not been directly compared. We compare the outcomes and use of resources with these 2 strategies in 2 European countries with different allocation systems. METHODS: We studied 83 patients managed by VAD as the first option in Bad Oeynhausen, Germany (Group I) and 141 managed with either HT or medical therapy, as the first option, in Paris, France (Group II). The primary end-point was 2-year survival. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed after the application of propensity score weights to mitigate the effects of non-random group assignment. The secondary end-points were resource utilization and costs. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients undergoing HT and patients treated with inotropes at the enrolment time. RESULTS: The Group I patients were more severely ill and haemodynamically compromised, and 28% subsequently underwent HT vs 55% primary HT in Group II, P < 0.001. The adjusted probability of survival was 44% in Group I vs 70% in Group II, P <0.0001. The mean cumulated 2-year costs were €281 361 ± 156 223 in Group I and €47 638 ± 35 061 in Group II, P < 0.0001. Among patients who underwent HT, the adjusted probability of survival in Group I (n = 23) versus Group II (n = 78) was 76% versus 68%, respectively (0.09), though it differed in the inotrope-treated subgroups (77% in Group I vs 67% in Group II, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: HT should remain the first option for end-stage heart failure patients, associated with improved outcomes and better cost-effectiveness profile. VAD devices represent an option when transplant is not possible or when patient presentation is not optimal.

Late antibody-mediated rejection after heart transplantation: Mortality, graft function, and fulminant cardiac allograft vasculopathy.

BACKGROUND: Late antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) after heart transplantation is suspected to be associated with a poor short-term prognosis. METHODS: A retrospective single-center observational study was performed. Late AMR was defined as AMR occurring at least 1 year after heart transplantation. The study included all consecutive patients with proven and treated late acute AMR at the authors' institution between November 2006 and February 2013. The aim was to analyze the prognosis after late AMR, including mortality, recurrence of AMR, left ventricular ejection fraction, and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV). Selected endomyocardial biopsy specimens obtained before AMR were also blindly reviewed to identify early histologic signs of AMR. RESULTS: The study included 20 patients treated for late AMR. Despite aggressive immunosuppressive therapies (100% of patients received intravenous methylprednisolone, 90% received intravenous immunoglobulin [IVIg],85% received plasmapheresis, 45% received rituximab), the prognosis remained poor. Survival after late AMR was 80% at 1 month, 60% at 3 months, and 50% at 1 year. All early deaths (<3 months, n = 8) were directly attributable to graft dysfunction or to complication of the intense immunosuppressive regimen. Among survivors at 3 months (n = 12), histologic persistence or recurrence of AMR, persistent left ventricular dysfunction, and fulminant CAV were common (33%, 33%, and 17% of patients). Microvascular inflammation was detected in at least 1 biopsy specimen obtained before AMR in 13 patients (65%). CONCLUSIONS: Prognosis after late AMR is poor despite aggressive immunosuppressive therapies. Fulminant CAV is a common condition in these patients. Microvascular inflammation is frequent in endomyocardial biopsy specimens before manifestation of symptomatic AMR.