Mechanical Circulatory Support in the Treatment of Advanced Heart Failure.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, heart failure (HF) remains a pervasive condition with high morbidity and mortality, affecting 5.8 million people in the United States and 23 million worldwide. For patients with refractory end-stage HF, heart transplantation is the "gold standard" for definitive treatment. However, the demand for heart transplantation has consistently exceeded the availability of donor hearts, with approximately 2331 orthotopic heart transplantations performed in the United States in 2015 despite an estimated 100 000 to 250 000 patients with New York Heart Association class IIIB or IV symptoms that are refractory to medical treatment, making such patients potential transplant candidates. As such, the need for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to treat patients with end-stage HF has become paramount. In this review, we focus on the history, advancements, and current use of durable MCS device therapy in the treatment of advanced heart failure.

Report From the American Society of Transplantation Conference on Donor Heart Selection in Adult Cardiac Transplantation in the United States.

Cardiac transplantation remains the only definitive treatment for end-stage heart failure. Transplantation rates are limited by a shortage of donor hearts. This shortage is magnified because many hearts are discarded because of strict selection criteria and concern for regulatory reprimand for less-than-optimal posttransplant outcomes. There is no standardized approach to donor selection despite proposals to liberalize acceptance criteria. A donor heart selection conference was organized to facilitate discussion and generate ideas for future research. The event was attended by 66 participants from 41 centers with considerable experience in cardiac donor selection. There were state-of-the-art presentations on donor selection, with subsequent breakout sessions on standardizing the process and increasing utilization of donor hearts. Participants debated misconceptions and established agreement on donor and recipient risk factors for donor selection and identified the components necessary for a future donor risk score. Ideas for future initiatives include modification of regulatory practices to consider extended criteria donors when evaluating outcomes and prospective studies aimed at identifying the factors leading to nonacceptance of available donor hearts. With agreement on the most important donor and recipient risk factors, it is anticipated that a consistent approach to donor selection will improve rates of heart transplantation.

Sirolimus conversion after heart transplant: risk factors for acute rejection and predictors of renal function response.

In a randomized, comparative study of cardiac transplant patients with mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, conversion from calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) to sirolimus improved renal function at 1 year versus continuing CNIs, with an attendant risk of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection (BCAR). Post hoc analyses were conducted to identify predictors of BCAR and GFR improvement associated with conversion. Patients with proteinuria >500 mg/day were excluded. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses tested 13 parameters for BCAR and six for GFR improvement. In 57 sirolimus-treated patients, mean daily mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) dose was lower in those with versus without BCAR (1000 vs. 1420 mg; p = 0.014). Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified MMF dose ≤1000 mg/day as the optimal cutoff to predict BCAR. Multivariate analysis confirmed low MMF dose (odds ratio: 9.94; p = 0.007) and non-white race (odds ratio: 15.3; p = 0.06) were independently associated with BCAR. GFR improvement was evaluated in intent-to-treat patients (n = 116). Significant interaction was detected between treatment effect and preexisting diabetes status (univariate p = 0.077; multivariate p = 0.022), indicating greater beneficial effect of sirolimus in those without preexisting diabetes. These findings suggest that sirolimus is more effective in improving GFR in patients without preexisting diabetes, and adequate MMF doses are needed for sirolimus conversion.

Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in heart transplantation: a randomized, multicenter trial.

In an open-label, 24-month trial, 721 de novo heart transplant recipients were randomized to everolimus 1.5 mg or 3.0 mg with reduced-dose cyclosporine, or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) 3 g/day with standard-dose cyclosporine (plus corticosteroids ± induction). Primary efficacy endpoint was the 12-month composite incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection, acute rejection associated with hemodynamic compromise, graft loss/retransplant, death or loss to follow-up. Everolimus 1.5 mg was noninferior to MMF for this endpoint at month 12 (35.1% vs. 33.6%; difference 1.5% [97.5% CI: -7.5%, 10.6%]) and month 24. Mortality to month 3 was higher with everolimus 1.5 mg versus MMF in patients receiving rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) induction, mainly due to infection, but 24-month mortality was similar (everolimus 1.5 mg 10.6% [30/282], MMF 9.2% [25/271]). Everolimus 3.0 mg was terminated prematurely due to higher mortality. The mean (SD) 12-month increase in maximal intimal thickness was 0.03 (0.05) mm with everolimus 1.5 mg versus 0.07 (0.11) mm with MMF (p < 0.001). Everolimus 1.5 mg was inferior to MMF for renal function but comparable in patients achieving predefined reduced cyclosporine trough concentrations. Nonfatal serious adverse events were more frequent with everolimus 1.5 mg versus MMF. Everolimus 1.5 mg with reduced-dose cyclosporine offers similar efficacy to MMF with standard-dose cyclosporine and reduces intimal proliferation at 12 months in de novo heart transplant recipients.

Randomized controlled trial of sirolimus conversion in cardiac transplant recipients with renal insufficiency.

This randomized, comparative, multinational phase 3b/4 study of patients 1-8 years postcardiac transplantation (mean 3.9 years) evaluated the effect of conversion from a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) to sirolimus on renal function in patients with renal insufficiency. In total, 116 patients on CNI therapy with GFR 40-90 mL/min/1.73 m(2) were randomized (1:1) to sirolimus (n = 57) or CNI (n = 59). Intent-to-treat analysis showed the 1-year adjusted mean change from baseline in creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) was significantly higher with sirolimus versus CNI treatment (+3.0 vs. -1.4 mL/min/1.73 m(2) , respectively; p = 0.004). By on-therapy analysis, values were +4.7 and -2.1, respectively (p < 0.001). Acute rejection (AR) rates were numerically higher in the sirolimus group; 1 AR with hemodynamic compromise occurred in each group. A significantly higher treatment discontinuation rate due to adverse events (AEs; 33.3% vs. 0%; p < 0.001) occurred in the sirolimus group. Most common treatment-emergent AEs significantly higher in the sirolimus group were diarrhea (28.1%), rash (28.1%) and infection (47.4%). Conversion to sirolimus from CNI therapy improved renal function in cardiac transplant recipients with renal impairment, but was associated with an attendant AR risk and higher discontinuation rate attributable to AEs.

Proliferation signal inhibitors and post-transplant malignancies in heart transplantation: practical clinical management questions.

Although malignancy is a major threat to long-term survival of heart transplant (HT) recipients, clear strategies to manage immunosuppression in these patients are lacking. Several lines of evidences support the hypothesis of an anticancer effect of proliferation signal inhibitors (PSIs: mammalian target of rapamycin [mTOR] inhibitors) in HT recipients. This property may arise from PSI's ability to replace immunosuppressive therapies that promote cancer progression, such as calcineurin inhibitors or azathioprine, and/or through their direct biological actions in preventing tumor development and progression. Given the lack of randomized studies specifically exploring these issues in the transplant setting, a collaborative group reviewed current literature and personal clinical experience to reach a consensus aimed to provide practical guidance for the clinical conduct in HT recipients with malignancy, or at high risk of malignancy, with a special focus on advice relevant to potential role of PSIs.

Nonadherence consensus conference summary report.

This report is a summary of a 'Consensus Conference' on nonadherence (NA) to immunosuppressants. Its aims were: (1) to discuss the state-of-the-art on the definition, prevalence and measurement of NA, its risk factors and impact on clinical and economical outcomes and interventions and (2) to provide recommendations for future studies. A two-day meeting was held in Florida in January 2008, inviting 66 medical and allied health adherence transplant and nontransplant experts. A scientific committee prepared the meeting. Consensus was reached using plenary and interactive presentations and discussions in small break-out groups. Plenary presenters prepared a summary beforehand. Break-out group leaders initiated discussion between the group members prior to the meeting using conference calls and e-mail and provided a summary afterward. Conclusions were that NA: (a) is more prevalent than we assume; (b) is hard to measure accurately; (c) tends to confer worse outcomes; (d) happens for a number of reasons, and system-related factors including the patient's culture, the healthcare provider and the setting and (e) it is not currently known how to improve adherence. This consensus report provided some roadmaps for future studies on this complicated, multifaceted problem.

Proliferation signal inhibitors in transplantation: questions at the cutting edge of everolimus therapy.

While advances in immunosuppressive therapy have allowed dramatic improvements in the control of acute allograft rejection, there is still a need to improve long-term graft and patient survival rates following renal and heart transplantation. Among the recognized threats to long-term organ survival are chronic allograft dysfunction in the form of chronic allograft nephropathy and cardiac allograft vasculopathy, with long-term patient morbidity and mortality further compromised by higher than normal rates of posttransplant cardiovascular disease, infection, and malignancy. A growing body of evidence finds that the selection and dosing of immunosuppressive therapies can have great influence on long-term transplantation outcomes. Early evidence suggests that the proliferation signal inhibitors (PSIs), everolimus and sirolimus, might offer effective immunosuppressive activity together with antiproliferative effects that may address some of the unmet needs in the long-term therapeutic management of the posttransplant patient. This review summarizes the emerging evidence for employing PSI-based immunosuppression to seek a balance between the goals of maximizing graft and patient survival, while minimizing the risks of adverse events and long-term complications. Based on the proceedings of an international gathering of nephrologists, cardiologists and surgeons at the inaugural PSI Forum meeting "Proliferation signal inhibitors in transplantation: questions at the cutting edge," this paper aims to provide both an evidence base and practical guidance for transplant physicians seeking to optimize their use of PSI treatment and highlights avenues of ongoing research into the clinical potential of this class of immunosuppressive therapy.

Tacrolimus with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or sirolimus vs. cyclosporine with MMF in cardiac transplant patients: 1-year report.

The most advantageous combination of immunosuppressive agents for cardiac transplant recipients has not yet been established. Between November 2001 and June 2003, 343 de novo cardiac transplant recipients were randomized to receive steroids and either tacrolimus (TAC) + sirolimus (SRL), TAC + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclosporine (CYA) + MMF. Antilymphocyte induction therapy was allowed for up to 5 days. The primary endpoint of >/=3A rejection or hemodynamic compromise rejection requiring treatment showed no significant difference at 6 months (TAC/MMF 22.4%, TAC/SRL 24.3%, CYA/MMF 31.6%, p = 0.271) and 1 year (p = 0.056), but it was significantly lower in the TAC/MMF group when compared only to the CYA/MMF group at 1 year (23.4% vs. 36.8%; p = 0.029). Differences in the incidence of any treated rejection were significant (TAC/SRL = 35%, TAC/MMF = 42%, CYA/MMF = 59%; p < 0.001), as were median levels of serum creatinine (TAC/SRL = 1.5 mg/dL, TAC/MMF = 1.3 mg/dL, CYA/MMF = 1.5 mg/dL; p = 0.032) and triglycerides (TAC/SRL = 162 mg/dL, TAC/MMF = 126 mg/dL, CYA/MMF = 154 mg/dL; p = 0.028). The TAC/SRL group encountered fewer viral infections but more fungal infections and impaired wound healing. These secondary endpoints suggest that the TAC/MMF combination appears to offer more advantages than TAC/SRL or CYA/MMF in cardiac transplant patients, including fewer >/=3A rejections or hemodynamic compromise rejections and an improved side-effect profile.

Noninvasive discrimination of rejection in cardiac allograft recipients using gene expression profiling.

Rejection diagnosis by endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is invasive, expensive and variable. We investigated gene expression profiling of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) to discriminate ISHLT grade 0 rejection (quiescence) from moderate/severe rejection (ISHLT > or = 3A). Patients were followed prospectively with blood sampling at post-transplant visits. Biopsies were graded by ISHLT criteria locally and by three independent pathologists blinded to clinical data. Known alloimmune pathways and leukocyte microarrays identified 252 candidate genes for which real-time PCR assays were developed. An 11 gene real-time PCR test was derived from a training set (n = 145 samples, 107 patients) using linear discriminant analysis (LDA), converted into a score (0-40), and validated prospectively in an independent set (n = 63 samples, 63 patients). The test distinguished biopsy-defined moderate/severe rejection from quiescence (p = 0.0018) in the validation set, and had agreement of 84% (95% CI 66% C94%) with grade ISHLT > or = 3A rejection. Patients >1 year post-transplant with scores below 30 (approximately 68% of the study population) are very unlikely to have grade > or = 3A rejection (NPV = 99.6%). Gene expression testing can detect absence of moderate/severe rejection, thus avoiding biopsy in certain clinical settings. Additional clinical experience is needed to establish the role of molecular testing for clinical event prediction and immunosuppression management.

Improving outcomes in heart transplantation: the potential of proliferation signal inhibitors.

Graft failure and mortality among heart transplant recipients remains higher than in populations receiving renal transplants. A major cause of graft loss is cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), a condition characterized by diffuse thickening of coronary blood vessels. CAV often progresses silently, with major cardiac events (eg, ventricular arrhythmia) being the first presentation. Better diagnosis and monitoring of CAV is now possible with intravascular ultrasonography, a sensitive technique for measuring intimal thickness. To date, immunosuppressants have shown little efficacy for preventing CAV. However, a new class of agents, proliferation signal inhibitors (sirolimus and everolimus), have shown considerable efficacy in this regard and for preventing rejection. In an open-label trial, sirolimus therapy was associated with less intimal and medial proliferation than azathioprine. More robust evidence is available from a larger-scale, double-blind trial involving everolimus. At 12-month follow-up the incidence of CAV was significantly lower in patients receiving everolimus (35.7% and 30.4% for everolimus 1.5 and 3.0 mg/d vs 52.8% for azathioprine; P < .05). Sirolimus and everolimus were also associated with a lower rate of cytomegalovirus infection. As with other immunosuppressants, these agents are associated with adverse events (eg, hyperlipidemia), but they can be managed. Coadministration with calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) can exacerbate CNI-related nephrotoxicity, but evidence suggests that everolimus administered with reduced-exposure cyclosporine in the maintenance phase preserves renal function without loss of immunosuppressive efficacy. Reduced CNI dosing in de novo patients is also a potential future benefit. Proliferation signal inhibitors have considerable potential for improving outcomes in heart transplantation.

Everolimus (certican) in heart transplantation: optimizing renal function through minimizing cyclosporine exposure.

The proliferation signal inhibitor everolimus is efficacious for reducing the incidence of acute rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) in heart transplantation; and it has the potential to facilitate cyclosporine (CsA) minimization in this setting. Reducing CsA dose in heart transplantation is dependent on everolimus trough blood levels of 3 to 8 ng/mL being achieved. Physicians experienced in the use of everolimus aim for CsA trough blood levels of 175 to 200 ng/mL in everolimus-treated patients during the initial 3 months following heart transplantation. Modeling data from the heart pivotal study suggest that CsA trough blood levels of 100 ng/mL at 6 months posttransplant could be targeted without loss of efficacy, and antibody induction therapy may assist with this approach. Target CsA trough blood levels for maintenance patients could possibly be reduced from the current 80 to 100 ng/mL to 50 to 80 ng/mL. Maintenance patients with renal dysfunction or CAV may benefit from conversion to everolimus and subsequent reduction in CsA trough blood levels (eg, by 50%). Initial experience of everolimus with reduced CsA trough blood levels in heart transplantation is favorable, but there is scope for further study.

Infective endocarditis following orthotopic heart transplantation: 10 cases and a review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis is a known complication of cardiac transplantation. However, published information has been limited to case reports and small case series. METHODS: Cardiac transplantation has been performed at Temple University Hospital since 1983. We identified transplant patients with ICD-9 codes for endocarditis or bacteremia. A diagnosis of endocarditis required fulfillment of the Duke criteria and presence of a vegetation. Clinical and microbiologic data were collected. Demographic and survival information were compared with heart transplant recipients without endocarditis. We reviewed all previously published cases using a MEDLINE search. RESULTS: Ten of 659 heart transplant recipients had endocarditis (1.5%, 187 cases per 100,000 person years). Mitral and tricuspid valves were involved predominantly. No patient had aortic valve infection. Patients with tricuspid valve infection had a greater median number of endomyocardial biopsies (n=23) than those with mitral valve infection (n=9, P=0.10). The major pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (4 cases) and Aspergillus fumigatus (3 cases). Factors associated with S. aureus infection were new hemodialysis catheters, cellulitis, and a contaminated donor organ. All patients with A. fumigatus had antecedent cytomegalovirus viremia and disseminated fungal infection, including endophthalmitis. Endocarditis-related mortality was 80%. Median survival after transplant was 1.4 years in patients with endocarditis, compared with 9.3 years in other heart transplant recipients (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Endocarditis is substantially more common in heart transplant recipients than in general populations. Frequent central venous catheter access and multiple endomyocardial biopsies appear to predispose to infection. Aspergillus is a common pathogen and endocarditis follows infection elsewhere. The prognosis of post-cardiac transplant endocarditis is poor.

Feasibility of photopheresis to reduce the occurrence of restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: a clinical pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Photopheresis was evaluated as a means of preventing restenosis on the basis of immune modulation. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial analyzing clinical restenosis at 6 months after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Seventy-eight patients with single-vessel angioplasty were randomly assigned to a control group of 41 patients and a treatment group of 37 patients. At 6 months, there were 72 evaluable patients: 39 control patients and 33 treated. Twenty-nine control patients received balloon PTCA only and 10 patients received stents. Twenty treated patients received PTCA only and 13 patients received stents. Baseline clinical characteristics of both groups were similar. The treatment group received photopheresis for a total of 5 treatments. Primary end points were death from any cause, myocardial infarction, ischemia, and repeat revascularization procedures. RESULTS: By intention-to-treat analysis, clinical restenosis occurred in 27% of control patients versus 8% of treated patients (P =.040, relative risk = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Photopheresis therapy in patients undergoing balloon PTCA with and without stent deployment has been shown to be effective in reducing restenosis. The use of photopheresis in such patients merits further investigation.

Cardiac transplant outcome of patients supported on left ventricular assist device vs. intravenous inotropic therapy.

BACKGROUND: Although the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has been increasingly used as a bridge to transplant, its effect on post-transplant outcome is uncertain. We, therefore, designed this study using the Cardiac Transplant Research Database to compare patients supported on an LVAD before transplant with those treated with intravenous inotropic medical therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 5,880 patients transplanted between 1990 and 1997, a total of 502 received support from LVADs and 2,514 received intravenous inotropic medical therapy at the time of transplant. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in post-transplant survival between the LVAD and medical-therapy groups (p = 0.09). Results of a multivariate Cox regression analysis were consistent with that of the Kaplan-Meier analysis and did not identify LVAD as a significant risk factor for mortality. The percentage of patients who received LVADs as a function of total transplants increased from 2% in 1990 to 16% in 1997. Furthermore, although the number of extracorporeal LVADs remained relatively constant, the number of intracorporeal LVADs increased over time. Multivariate parametric analysis found that the risk factors for post-transplant death in the LVAD group were extracorporeal LVAD use (p = 0.0004), elevated serum creatinine (p = 0.05), older donor age (p = 0.03), increased donor ischemic time (p < 0.0001), and earlier year of transplant (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Given a limited donor supply, the intracorporeal LVAD helps the sickest patients survive to transplant and provides post-transplant outcome similar to that of patients supported on inotropic medical therapy. Therefore, patients supported on LVADs before transplant may receive the greatest marginal benefit when compared with other transplant candidates.