Impact of Age of Heart Transplant Program on Patient Survival and Post-Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between age of a heart transplant (HT) program and outcomes has not been explored. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database of all adult HTs between 2009 and 2019. For each patient, we created a variable that corresponded to program age: new (<5), developing (≥5 but <10) and established (≥10) years. RESULTS: Of 20 997 HTs, 822 were at new, 908 at developing, and 19 267 at established programs. Patients at new programs were significantly more likely to have history of cigarette smoking, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and prior sternotomy. These programs were less likely to accept organs from older donors and those with a history of hypertension or cigarette use. As compared to patients at new programs, transplant patients at established programs had less frequent rates of treated rejection during the index hospitalization (HR 0.43 [95% CI, 0.36-0.53] p < 0.001) and at 1 year (HR 0.58 [95% CI, 0.49-0.70], p < 0.001), less frequently required pacemaker implantations (HR 0.50 [95% CI, 0.36-0.69], p < 0.001), and less frequently required dialysis (HR 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82], p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in short- or long-term survival between the groups (log-rank p = 0.24). CONCLUSION: Patient and donor selection differed between new, developing, and established HT programs but had equivalent survival. New programs had increased likelihood of treated rejection, pacemaker implantation, and need for dialysis. Standardized post-transplant practices may help to minimize this variation and ensure optimal outcomes for all patients.

Comparative Analysis of Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in Heart Transplantation: A Single-Center Study Evaluating Conventional Ice-Cold Storage versus the Paragonix SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System.

BACKGROUND: Since the 2018 allocation system change in heart transplantation (HT), ischemic times have increased, which may be associated with peri-operative and post-operative complications. This study aimed to compare ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI) in hearts preserved using ice-cold storage (ICS) and the Paragonix SherpaPak TM Cardiac Transport System (CTS). METHODS: From January 2021 to June 2022, consecutive endomyocardial biopsies from 90 HT recipients were analyzed by a cardiac pathologist in a single-blinded manner: 33 ICS and 57 CTS. Endomyocardial biopsies were performed at three-time intervals post-HT, and the severity of IRI manifesting histologically as coagulative myocyte necrosis (CMN) was evaluated, along with graft rejection and graft function. RESULTS: The incidence of IRI at weeks 1, 4, and 8 post-HT were similar between the ICS and CTS groups. There was a 59.3% statistically significant reduction in CMN from week 1 to 4 with CTS, but not with ICS. By week 8, there were significant reductions in CMN in both groups. Only 1 out of 33 (3%) patients in the ICS group had an ischemic time >240 mins, compared to 10 out of 52 (19%) patients in the CTS group. During the follow-up period of 8 weeks to 12 months, there were no significant differences in rejection rates, formation of de novo donor-specific antibodies and overall survival between the groups. CONCLUSION: The CTS preservation system had similar rates of IRI and clinical outcomes compared to ICS despite longer overall ischemic times. There is significantly more recovery of IRI in the early post operative period with CTS. This study supports CTS as a viable option for preservation from remote locations, expanding the donor pool.

Utility of a fusion protein T-cell co-stimulation blocker Belatacept in heart transplant recipients: Real world experience from a high volume center.

BACKGROUND: Belatacept (BTC), a fusion protein, selectively inhibits T-cell co-stimulation by binding to the CD80 and CD86 receptors on antigen-presenting cells (APCs) and has been used as immunosuppression in adult renal transplant recipients. However, data regarding its use in heart transplant (HT) recipients are limited. This retrospective cohort study aimed to delineate BTC's application in HT, focusing on efficacy, safety, and associated complications at a high-volume HT center. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients who underwent HT between January 2017 and December 2021 and subsequently received BTC as part of their immunosuppressive regimen. Twenty-one HT recipients were identified. Baseline characteristics, history of rejection, and indication for BTC use were collected. Outcomes included renal function, graft function, allograft rejection and mortality. Follow-up data were collected through December 2023. RESULTS: Among 776 patients monitored from January 2017 to December 2021 21 (2.7%) received BTC treatment. Average age at transplantation was 53 years (± 12 years), and 38% were women. BTC administration began, on average, 689 [483, 1830] days post-HT. The primary indications for BTC were elevated pre-formed donor-specific antibodies in highly sensitized patients (66.6%) and renal sparing (23.8%), in conjunction with reduced calcineurin inhibitor dosage. Only one (4.8%) patient encountered rejection within a year of starting BTC. Graft function by echocardiography remained stable at 6 and 12 months posttreatment. An improvement was observed in serum creatinine levels (76.2% of patients), decreasing from a median of 1.58 to 1.45 (IQR [1.0-2.1] to [1.1-1.9]) over 12 months (p = .054). eGFR improved at 3 and 6 months compared with 3 months pre- BTC levels; however, this was not statistically significant (p = .24). Treatment discontinuation occurred in seven patients (33.3%) of whom four (19%) were switched back to full dose CNI. Infections occurred in 11 patients (52.4%), leading to BTC discontinuation in 4 patients (19%). CONCLUSION: In this cohort, BTC therapy was used as alternative immunosuppression for management of highly sensitized patients or for renal sparing. BTC therapy when combined with CNI dose reduction resulted in stabilization in renal function as measured through renal surrogate markers, which did not, however, reach statistical significance. Patients on BTC maintained a low rejection rate and preserved graft function. Infections were common during BTC therapy and were associated with medication pause/discontinuation in 19% of patients. Further randomized studies are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of BTC in HT recipients.

Unplanned hospital readmissions following HeartMate 3 implantation: Readmission rates, causes, and impact on survival.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) remain a frequent comorbidity, associated with decreased quality of life and increased resources utilization. This study sought to determine causes, predictors, and impact on survival of hospitalizations during HeartMate 3 (HM3) support. METHODS: All patients implanted with HM3 between November 2014 to December 2019 at Columbia University Irving Medical Center were consecutively enrolled in the study. Demographics and clinical characteristics from the index admission and the first outpatient visit were collected and used to estimate 1-year and 900-day readmission-free survival and overall survival. Multivariable analysis was performed for subsequent readmissions. RESULTS: Of 182 patients who received a HM3 LVAD, 167 (92%) were discharged after index admission and experienced 407 unplanned readmissions over the median follow up of 727 (interquartile range (IQR): 410.5, 1124.5) days. One-year and 900-day mean cumulative number of all-cause unplanned readmissions was 0.43 (95%CI, 0.36, 0.51) and 1.13 (95%CI, 0.99, 1.29). The most frequent causes of rehospitalizations included major infections (29.3%), bleeding (13.2%), device-related (12.5%), volume overload (7.1%), and other (28%). One-year and 900-day survival free from all-cause readmission was 38% (95%CI, 31-46%) and 16.6% (95%CI, 10.3-24.4%). One-year and 900-day freedom from 2, 3, and ≥4 readmissions were 60.7%, 74%, 74.5% and 26.2%, 33.3%, 41.3%. One-year and 900-day survival were unaffected by the number of readmissions and remained >90%. Male sex, ischemic etiology, diabetes, lower serum creatinine, longer duration of index hospitalization, and a history of readmission between discharge and the first outpatient visit were associated with subsequent readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned hospital readmissions after HM3 are common, with infections and bleeding accounting for the majority of readmissions. Irrespective of the number of readmissions, one-year survival remained unaffected.

Outcomes After Heartmate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation Using a 10 mm Outflow Graft.

The presence of adhesions and patent bypass grafts may create challenges for standard 14 mm outflow graft placement during left ventricular assist device implantation. We retrospectively describe our experience using a 10 mm Bioline Fusion graft (Getinge, Goteborg, Sweden) as the outflow graft in patients undergoing primary Heartmate 3 (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) implantation. One hundred one patients underwent Heartmate 3 left ventricular assist device implantation, 80% via a thoracotomy approach, with the standard 14 mm outflow graft (78) or a 10 mm Bioline Fusion outflow graft (23). Initial postoperative rotor speed-to-flow ratio (the revolutions per minutes (RPMs) required to achieve a given flow) was significantly higher in 10 mm graft patients (1,472 vs. 1,283 RPM/L/min; p = 0.03), suggesting elevated resistance in the smaller graft. Furthermore, the initial postoperative vasoactive-inotrope score was higher in the 10 mm graft patients (24.1 vs. 17.6; p = 0.022). Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups. In conclusion, the use of a 10 mm graft was associated with higher RPMs needed to generate a given flow and a higher vasoactive-inotrope score, but these differences were not associated with increased right ventricular failure or mortality.

Impact of Advanced Therapy Centers on Characteristics and Outcomes of Heart Failure Admissions.

BACKGROUND: Although much attention has been paid to admission and transfer patterns for cardiogenic shock, contemporary data are lacking on decompensated heart failure (HF) admissions and transfers and the impact of advanced therapy centers (ATCs) on outcomes. METHODS: HF hospitalizations were obtained from the Nationwide Readmissions Database 2016 to 2019. Centers performing at least 1 heart transplant or left ventricular assist device were classified as ATCs. Patient characteristics, outcomes, and procedural volume were compared among 3 cohorts: admissions to non-ATCs, admissions to ATCs, and transfers to ATCs. A secondary analysis evaluated outcomes for severe HF hospitalizations (cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and mechanical ventilation). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for the presence of HF decompensations and significant clinical variables during univariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2 331 690 hospitalizations (81.2%) were admissions to non-ATCs (94.5% of centers), 525 037 (18.3%) were admissions to ATCs (5.5% of centers), and 15 541 (0.5%) were transferred to ATCs. Patients treated at ATCs (especially those transferred) had higher rates of HF decompensations, procedural frequency, lengths of stay, and costs. Unadjusted mortality was 2.6% at non-ATCs and was higher at ATCs, both for directly admitted (2.9%, P<0.001) and transferred (11.2%, P<0.001) patients. However, multivariable-adjusted mortality was significantly lower at ATCs, both for directly admitted (odds ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.78-0.87]; P<0.001) and transferred (odds ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.57-0.78]; P<0.001) patients. For severe HF admissions, unadjusted mortality was 37.2% at non-ATCs and was lower at ATCs, both for directly admitted (25.3%, P<0.001) and transferred (25.2%, P<0.001) patients, with similarly lower multivariable-adjusted mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF treated at ATCs were sicker but associated with higher procedural volume and lower adjusted mortality.

Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used for patients with cardiogenic shock. Although Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used for left ventricular unloading (LVU) during VA-ECMO treatment, there are limited data on comparative outcomes. We compared outcomes of Impella and IABP for LVU during VA-ECMO. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2020, we analyzed outcomes in 3 groups of patients with cardiogenic shock requiring VA-ECMO based on LVU strategies: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) only, ECMO with IABP, and ECMO with Impella. Of 15 980 patients on VA-ECMO, IABP and Impella were used in 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving Impella significantly increased from 2016 to 2020 (6.5% versus 25.8%; P-trend<0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher with ECMO with Impella (54.8%) compared with ECMO only (50.4%) and ECMO with IABP (48.4%). After adjustment, ECMO with IABP versus ECMO only was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.83; P=0.02). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO only had similar in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.09; P=0.695) but was associated with more bleeding (aOR, 1.21; P=0.007) and more acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.42; P<0.001). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO with IABP was associated with greater risk of acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.49; P=0.002), higher in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.32; P=0.001), and higher 40-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.25; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cardiogenic shock on VA-ECMO, LVU with Impella, particularly with 2.5/CP, was not associated with improved survival at 40 days but was associated with increased adverse events compared with IABP. More data are needed to assess Impella platform-specific comparative outcomes of LVU.

Long-term outcomes of heart transplantation in adults with congenital heart disease: The impact of single-ventricle versus biventricular physiology.

Objective: Congenital heart disease is a risk factor for mortality after orthotopic heart transplantation; however, the impact of preoperative circulation type and primary congenital heart disease diagnosis remains poorly delineated. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with adult congenital heart disease aged 16 years or more who underwent orthotopic heart transplantation at our institution between 2008 and 2022. Patients were categorized as having single-ventricle or biventricular circulation. The primary end point was 5-year post-transplant survival. Results: Sixty-one patients with adult congenital heart disease (single-ventricle: n = 26 [42.6%], biventricular: n = 35 [57.4%]) underwent orthotopic heart transplantation at 33.7 [interquartile range, 19.1-48.7] years. The most common congenital heart disease diagnosis was hypoplastic left heart syndrome (n = 11, 42.3%) in the single-ventricle group and congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries (n = 7, 20.0%) in the biventricular group. Twenty-four patients previously underwent Fontan palliation. At transplant, patients in the single-ventricle group were younger (18.5 [interquartile range, 17.6-32.3] years vs 45.0 [interquartile range, 33.0-52.2] years, P < .001) and more likely to have biopsy-proven cirrhosis (46.2% vs 14.3%, P = .01) and protein-losing enteropathy (42.3% vs 2.9%, P < .001). Patients in the single-ventricle group also had longer bypass times (223.4 ± 65.3 minutes vs 187.4 ± 59.5 minutes, P = .03) and longer durations of mechanical ventilatory support (3.5 [interquartile range, 2.0-6.0] days vs 1.0 [interquartile range, 1.0-2.0] days, P < .001). Operative mortality was comparable (11.5% vs 8.6%, P = 1). Median follow-up was 6.0 [interquartile range, 2.4-10.0] years. Five-year survival was worse in the single-ventricle group (66.0% ± 10.0% vs 91.3% ± 4.8%, P = .03), as was freedom from major rejection (58.3% ± 10.2% vs 84.0% ± 6.6%, P = .02). In univariable analysis, hypoplastic left heart syndrome and Fontan circulation were risk factors for post-transplant mortality (hypoplastic left heart syndrome: hazard ratio, 5.0, P < .001; Fontan: hazard ratio, 3.5, P = .03). Conclusions: Adult patients with congenital heart disease undergoing heart transplant with single-ventricle physiology experienced a more complicated post-transplant course, with worse long-term survival and freedom from rejection. Multicenter studies are required to guide orthotopic heart transplantation decision-making in this complex cohort.

Medium-Term Outcomes of Concomitant Aortic Valve Repair in Patients with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to analyze the development of aortic insufficiency in patients who received central aortic valve repair when undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent HeartMate II or 3 (Abbott Lab) implantation between 2004 and 2022. Ninety-four patients were excluded from analysis for history of aortic valve procedures, a bicuspid aortic valve, baseline trace aortic insufficiency, or other concomitant aortic valve procedure. Patients who had ≥ mild aortic insufficiency had concomitant aortic valve repair. Clinical characteristics, serial echocardiograms, and outcomes were determined. RESULTS: Of the 656 patients who underwent HeartMate II or 3 implantation, 105 patients (59 HeartMate II and 46 HeartMate 3) met study criteria. Median age was 68 years [60-74 years], 91.4% [n=96] were male, 54.4% [n=56] were white, and 68.6% [n=72] received support as destination therapy. Preoperative aortic insufficiency degree was 54.3% (n=57) mild, 23.8% (n=25) mild-to-moderate, 20.0% (n=21) moderate, 1.0% (n=1) moderate-to-severe, 1.0% (n=1) severe. In hospital mortality was 5.7% [n=6]. Freedom from ≥ moderate aortic insufficiency was 96.4% (95%CI: 92.5%-100%), 93.3% (95%CI: 87.6%-99.2%), and 91.0% (95%CI: 84.1%-98.5%) at 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year post-implantation, respectively. One HeartMate II patient experienced severe aortic insufficiency and was treated with a heart transplant. Three-year survival was 63.4% [95%CI: 52.9%-75.9%]. CONCLUSIONS: Central aortic valve repair may be an effective technique to mitigate aortic insufficiency in HeartMate II and 3. A larger cohort study with longer duration of follow up is warranted to further investigate the clinical impact.

Ventricular assist device using a thoracotomy-based implant technique: Multi-Center Implantation of the HeartMate 3 in Subjects With Heart Failure Using Surgical Techniques Other Than Full Median Sternotomy (HM3 SWIFT).

OBJECTIVES: The HeartMate 3 (Abbott) left ventricular assist device provides substantial improvement in long-term morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced heart failure. The Implantation of the HeartMate 3 in Subjects With Heart Failure Using Surgical Techniques Other Than Full Median Sternotomy study compares thoracotomy-based implantation clinical outcomes with standard median sternotomy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study in patients eligible for HeartMate 3 implantation with thoracotomy-based surgical technique (bilateral thoracotomy or partial upper sternotomy with left thoracotomy). The composite primary end point was survival free of disabling stroke (modified Rankin score >3), or reoperation to remove or replace a malfunctioning device, or conversion to median sternotomy at 6-months postimplant (elective transplants were treated as a success). The primary end point (noninferiority, -15% margin) was assessed with >90% power compared with a propensity score-matched cohort (ratio 1:2) derived from the Multi-Center Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 continued access protocol. RESULTS: The study enrolled 102 patients between December 2020 and July 2022 in the thoracotomy-based arm at 23 North American centers. Follow-up concluded in December 2022. In the Implantation of the HeartMate 3 in Subjects With Heart Failure Using Surgical Techniques Other Than Full Median Sternotomy study group, noninferiority criteria was met (absolute between-group difference, -1.2%; Farrington Manning lower 1-sided 95% CI, -9.3%; P < .0025) and event-free survival was not different (85.0% vs 86.2%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.58-2.10). Length of stay with thoracotomy-based implant was longer (median, 20 vs 17 days; P = .03). No differences were observed for blood product utilization, adverse events (including right heart failure), functional status, and quality of life between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracotomy-based implantation of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device is noninferior to implantation via standard full sternotomy. This study supports thoracotomy-based implantation as an additional standard for surgical implantation of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device.

Validation of the HeartMate 3 survival risk score in a large left ventricular assist device center.

OBJECTIVE: The HeartMate 3 survival risk score was recently validated in the Multicenter study Of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 to predict patient-specific survival in HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device candidates. The HeartMate 3 survival risk score stratifies individuals into tertiles according to survival probability. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device recipients between September 2017 and August 2022. Baseline characteristics were collected from the electronic medical records. HeartMate 3 survival risk scores were calculated for all eligible patients. One- and 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were conducted. A univariate and multivariable Cox regression model was used to identify predictors. RESULTS: A total of 181 patients were included in this final analysis. The median age was 62 years, 83% were male, and 26% were Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Profile 1. The mean HeartMate 3 survival risk score for the entire cohort was 2.66 ± 0.66. Two-year survivals in the high, average, and low survival groups were 93.5% ± 3.2%, 81.6% ± 7.4%, and 82.0% ± 6.6%, respectively. As a continuous variable, the unadjusted HeartMate 3 survival risk score was a significant predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.08-4.45; P = .029). The areas under the curve were 0.70 and 0.66 at 1 and 2 years, respectively. We were unable to demonstrate the discriminatory ability of the HeartMate 3 survival risk score using the original stratification, but we found significantly increased survival in the high survival group using a binary cutoff (hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.01-20.9; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: The unadjusted HeartMate 3 survival risk score was associated with postimplant survival in patients outside of the Multicenter study Of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 but did not remain an independent predictor after adjusting for ischemic etiology and severe diabetes. The HeartMate 3 survival risk score was able to identify patients at high survival using a binary cutoff, but we were unable to demonstrate its discriminatory ability among the previously published risk tertiles.

Hemodynamic Optimization by Invasive Ramp Test in Patients Supported With HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device.

In patients supported by the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (HM3 LVAD), pump speed adjustments may improve hemodynamics. We investigated the hemodynamic implications of speed adjustments in HM3 recipients undergoing hemodynamic ramp tests. Clinically stable HM3 recipients who underwent routine invasive hemodynamic ramp tests between 2015 and 2022 at our center were included. Filling pressure optimization, defined as central venous pressure (CVP) <12 mm Hg and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) <18 mm Hg, was assessed at baseline and final pump speeds. Patients with optimized pressures were compared to nonoptimized patients. Overall 60 HM3 recipients with a median age of 62 years (56, 71) and time from LVAD implantation of 187 days (124, 476) were included. Optimized filling pressures were found in 35 patients (58%) at baseline speed. Speed was adjusted in 84% of the nonoptimized patients. Consequently, 39 patients (65%) had optimized pressures at final speed. There were no significant differences in hemodynamic findings between baseline and final speeds ( p > 0.05 for all). Six and 12 month readmission-free rates were higher in optimized compared with nonoptimized patients ( p = 0.03 for both), predominantly due to lower cardiac readmission-free rates ( p = 0.052). In stable outpatients supported with HM3 who underwent routine ramp tests, optimized hemodynamics were achieved in only 2 of 3 of the patients. Patients with optimized pressures had lower all-cause readmission rates, primarily driven by fewer cardiac-related hospitalizations.

Sex Disparities in the Management, Outcomes, and Transfer of Patients Hospitalized for Cardiogenic Shock.

Background: Previous studies have shown that women have worse outcomes for cardiogenic shock (CS) than men. Patients who receive care in CS "hubs" have also been shown to have improved outcomes when compared to those treated at "spokes." This study aimed to examine the presence of sex disparities in the outcomes of CS in relation to hospital type. Methods: Hospitalizations of adults with a diagnosis of CS were identified using data from the 2016-2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. CS "hubs" were defined as any centers receiving at least 1 interhospital transfer with CS, while those without such transfers were classified as "spokes." Data were combined across years and multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate the association of sex with in-hospital mortality, invasive procedures, and transfer to hubs. Results: There were a total of 618,411 CS hospitalizations (62.2% men) with CS related to acute myocardial infarction comprising 15.3 to 17.3% of women hospitalizations and 17.8 to 20.3% of men hospitalizations. In-hospital mortality was lower at hubs (34.5% for direct admissions, 31.6% for transfers) than at spokes (40.3%, all P < .01). Women underwent fewer invasive procedures (right heart catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical circulatory support) and had higher mortality than men. Female sex was independently associated with decreased transfers to hubs (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96) and increased mortality (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12). Conclusions: Women with CS were less likely to be treated at a hub or transferred to a hub, had higher in-hospital mortality, and had a lower likelihood of receiving CS-related procedures than men. Further research is needed to understand sex-specific gaps in CS outcomes.

Comparing 3-year survival and readmissions between HeartMate 3 and heart transplant as primary treatment for advanced heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 3-year survival and readmissions of patients who received the HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or underwent orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) as primary treatment for advanced heart failure. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 381 adult patients who received an HM3 LVAD or were listed for OHT between January 2014 and March 2021 at our center. To minimize crossover bias, OHT recipients with a prior LVAD were excluded, and HM3 patients were censored at the time of transplant. Cohorts were propensity score-matched to reduce confounding variables. The primary outcome was 3-year survival, and the secondary outcome was mean cumulative all-cause unplanned readmission. RESULTS: The study population comprised 185 HM3 patients (49%) and 196 OHT patients (51%), with 104 propensity score-matched patients in each group. After propensity score matching, there was no statistical difference in 3-year survival (83.7% for HM3 vs 87.0% for OHT; P = .91; relative risk [RR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-2.20). In the unmatched cohorts, patients age 18 to 49 years had comparable survival with HM3 and OHT (96.9% vs 95.9%; N = 91; P = 1.00; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.09-9.78). Patients age 50+ years had slightly inferior survival with HM3 (75.0% vs 83.9%; N = 290; P = .60; RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.85-2.68). The mean number of readmissions at 3 years was higher in the HM3 group (3.89 vs 2.05; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis suggests that for similar patients, HM3 may provide comparable 3-year survival to OHT as a primary treatment for heart failure but may result in more readmissions.