The Impact of Ipsilateral Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Axillary Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Support as Bridge to Heart Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The axillary artery (AX) access for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) as a bridge to heart transplant (HT) allows mobility while awaiting a suitable donor. As end-stage heart failure patients often have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) on the left side, the left AX approach may be avoided due to the perception of difficult access and proximity of two devices. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients bridged to HT with a left-sided AX IABP with or without ipsilateral ICDs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed HT candidates at our institution supported by left-sided axillary IABP from November 2019 to February 2024, dividing them into two groups based on the presence (Group ICD, n = 48) or absence (Group No-ICD, N = 19) of an ipsilateral left-sided ICD. The exposure time was defined as the time from skin incision to the beginning of anastomoses of a Dacron graft. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 100% of the cohort, with median exposure times for AX access similar between groups (ICD, 12 [7.8, 18.2] vs. No ICD, 11 [7, 19] min; p = 0.75). The rate of procedural adverse events, such as significant access site bleeding and ipsilateral limb ischemia, did not significantly differ between both groups. Device malfunction rates were comparable (ICD, 29.2% vs. No ICD, 15.8%; p = 0.35). Posttransplant, in-hospital mortality, severe primary graft dysfunction, and stroke rates were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: The presence of an ipsilateral left-sided ICD does not adversely impact the procedural efficacy, complication rates, or posttransplant outcomes of left-sided AX IABP insertion in HT candidates.

Redo partial aortic root remodelling in type A dissection with an aorto-left atrial fistula.

A 72-year-old male with a history of a triple-vessel coronary artery bypass graft years ago presented with a DeBakey type 2 aortic dissection and an aorto-left atrial fistula with patent bypass grafts (left internal mammary artery and saphenous vein grafts). He developed pulmonary oedema and required intubation. The right axillary artery was cannulated. After the ascending aorta and left internal mammary artery were clamped, the aorta was transected, leaving aortic tissue around two saphenous vein grafts as two separate patches. An entry tear was found adjacent to the proximal anastomosis of the saphenous vein graft to the posterior descending artery. A fistula, which was located between a false lumen in the non-coronary sinus and the dome of the left atrium, was primarily closed. Because the adventitia was thinned out in the non-coronary sinus due to aortic dissection, partial aortic root remodelling was performed with resuspension of the commissures. Hemiarch repair was performed under moderate hypothermia and unilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion. After systemic perfusion was resumed, the locations of the saphenous vein graft buttons were determined. The ascending graft was cross-clamped again; the saphenous vein graft to the obtuse marginal branch graft was reimplanted using the Carrel patch technique while a saphenous vein graft to the posterior descending artery required interposition of a 10-mm Dacron graft to accommodate the length.

A heart transplant and concomitant hemiarch repair in a patient with a large ascending aortic aneurysm and a challenging sternal re-entry.

An orthotopic heart transplant and an aortic operation can be done concomitantly at centres that are experienced in both aortic operations and heart transplants with meticulous surgical strategy.

Neurological improvement following revision of vascular graft remnants in the upper extremity.

Remnant vascular grafts may result in significant neurological deficits owing to compression of adjacent neural structures. We report this finding in two cases after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation decannulation and removal of an arteriovenous fistula in the upper extremity. In both cases, removal of the graft, patch arteriotomy, and external neurolysis resulted in significant recovery of neurological function. We review the preoperative workup, diagnostic studies, and technical approach to treatment in an effort to increase recognition among vascular and cardiovascular surgeons and to demonstrate a safe and effective management option through a multidisciplinary approach.

Impact of Left Ventricular Unloading on Outcome of Heart Transplant Bridging With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support in New Allocation Policy.

BACKGROUND: The new heart allocation policy places veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO)-supported heart transplant (HT) candidates at the highest priority status. Despite increasing evidence supporting left ventricular (LV) unloading during VA-ECMO, the effect of LV unloading on transplant outcomes following bridging to HT with VA-ECMO remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: From October 18, 2018 to March 21, 2023, 624 patients on VA-ECMO at the time of HT were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing database and were divided into 2 groups: VA-ECMO alone (N=384) versus VA-ECMO with LV unloading (N=240). Subanalysis was performed in the LV unloading group: Impella (N=106) versus intra-aortic balloon pump (N=134). Recipient age was younger in the VA-ECMO alone group (48 versus 53 years, P=0.018), as was donor age (VA-ECMO alone, 29 years versus LV unloading, 32 years, P=0.041). One-year survival was comparable between groups (VA-ECMO alone, 88.0±1.8% versus LV unloading, 90.4±2.1%; P=0.92). Multivariable Cox hazard model showed LV unloading was not associated with posttransplant mortality after HT (hazard ratio, 0.92; P=0.70). Different LV unloading methods had similar 1-year survival (intra-aortic balloon pump, 89.2±3.0% versus Impella, 92.4±2.8%; P=0.65). Posttransplant survival was comparable between different Impella versions (Impella 2.5, versus Impella CP, versus Impella 5.0, versus Impella 5.5). CONCLUSIONS: Under the current allocation policy, LV unloading did not impact waitlist outcome and posttransplant survival in patients bridged to HT with VA-ECMO, nor did mode of LV unloading. This highlights the importance of a tailored approach in HT candidates on VA-ECMO, where routine LV unloading may not be universally necessary.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Heart Transplant Recipients and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies: Experience, Lessons Learnt, and Future Challenges.

Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs), including heart transplant (HT) recipients, infected with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at higher risk of hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, or death when compared with general population. Advances in diagnosis and treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have reduced COVID-19-related mortality rates from ~30% in the early pandemic to <3% in 2022 among HT recipients. We performed a retrospective chart review including adult HT recipients at Westchester Medical Center from January 1, 2020 to December 10, 2022, who received anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19, and those who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab for preexposure prophylaxis. Additionally, a comprehensive review of the literature involving SOTRs who received mAbs for COVID-19 was conducted. In this largest single-center study in this population, 42 adult HT recipients received casirivimab/imdevimab (36%), sotrovimab (31%), or bebtelovimab (29%) for treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Among these recipients, no infusion-associated adverse effects, progression of disease, COVID-19-associated hospitalizations, or death were noted. Preexposure prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab was given to 63 HT recipients in a dedicated infusion center (40%), inpatient setting (33%), or at time of annual heart biopsy (27%). No immediate adverse events were noted. There were 11 breakthrough infections, all mild. Overall, the data suggests that HT recipients receiving mAbs have reduced rates of hospitalization, need for intensive care unit care, or death. Use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs in SOTRs is resource intensive and requires a programmatic team approach for optimal administration and to minimize any risk of disparities in their use.