Determinants of survival following heart transplantation in adults with congenital heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Adult patients surviving with congenital heart disease (ACHD) is growing. We examine the factors associated with heart transplant outcomes in this challenging population with complex anatomy requiring redo-surgeries. METHODS: We reviewed the United Network for Organ Sharing-Standard Transplant Analysis and Research database and analyzed 35,952 heart transplants from January 1st, 2000, to September 30th, 2018. We compared transplant characteristics for ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) (n = 14,236), nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) (n = 20,676), and ACHD (n = 1040). Mean follow-up was 6.20 ± 4.84 years. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox-proportional hazards analysis were used to analyze survival data. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis confirmed that ACHD was associated greater in-hospital death compared to ICM (HR = 0.54, P < 0.001) and NICM (HR = 0.46, P < 0.001). Notable factors associated with increased mortality were history of cerebrovascular disease (HR = 1.11, P = 0.026), prior history of malignancy (HR = 1.12, P = 0.006), pre-transplant biventricular support (HR = 1.12, P = 0.069), postoperative stroke (HR = 1.47, P < 0.001) and postoperative dialysis (HR = 1.71, P < 0.001). ACHD transplants had a longer donor heart ischemic time (P < 0.001) and trend towards more deaths from primary graft dysfunction (P = 0.07). In-hospital deaths were more likely with ACHD and use of mechanical support such as use of right ventricular assist device (HR = 2.20, P = 0.049), biventricular support (HR = 1.62, P < 0.001) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (HR = 2.36, P < 0.001). Conditional survival after censoring hospital deaths was significantly higher in ACHD (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Heart transplant in ACHD is associated with a higher post-operative mortality given anatomical complexity but a better long-term conditional survival. Normothermic donor heart perfusion may improve outcomes in the ACHD population by reducing the impact of longer ischemic times.

International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Evaluation and Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2024.

The "International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Evaluation and Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2024" updates and replaces the "Listing Criteria for Heart Transplantation: International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2006" and the "2016 International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation Listing Criteria for Heart Transplantation: A 10-year Update." The document aims to provide tools to help integrate the numerous variables involved in evaluating patients for transplantation, emphasizing updating the collaborative treatment while waiting for a transplant. There have been significant practice-changing developments in the care of heart transplant recipients since the publication of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines in 2006 and the 10-year update in 2016. The changes pertain to 3 aspects of heart transplantation: (1) patient selection criteria, (2) care of selected patient populations, and (3) durable mechanical support. To address these issues, 3 task forces were assembled. Each task force was cochaired by a pediatric heart transplant physician with the specific mandate to highlight issues unique to the pediatric heart transplant population and ensure their adequate representation. This guideline was harmonized with other ISHLT guidelines published through November 2023. The 2024 ISHLT guidelines for the evaluation and care of cardiac transplant candidates provide recommendations based on contemporary scientific evidence and patient management flow diagrams. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association modular knowledge chunk format has been implemented, allowing guideline information to be grouped into discrete packages (or modules) of information on a disease-specific topic or management issue. Aiming to improve the quality of care for heart transplant candidates, the recommendations present an evidence-based approach.

Impact of clinical variables on outcomes in refractory cardiac arrest patients undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Background: In the past two decades, extracorporeal resuscitation (ECPR) has been increasingly used in the management of refractory cardiac arrest (CA) patients. Decision algorithms have been used to guide the care such patients, but the effectiveness of such decision-making tools is not well described. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of survival with a good neurologic outcome of patients treated with ECPR meeting all criteria of a clinical decision-making tool for the initiation of ECPR to those for whom ECPR was implemented outside of the algorithm. Methods: All patients who underwent E-CPR between January 2014 and December 2021 at the Montreal Heart Institute were included in this retrospective analysis. We dichotomized the cohort according to adherence or non-adherence with the ECPR decision-making tool, which included the following criteria: age ≤65 years, initial shockable rhythm, no-flow time <5 min, serum lactate <13 mmol/L. Patients were included in the "IN" group when they met all criteria of the decision-making tool and in the "OUT" group when at least one criterion was not met. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was survival with intact neurological status at 30 days, defined by a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) Scale 1 and 2. Results: A total of 41 patients (IN group, n = 11; OUT group, n = 30) were included. A total of 4 (36%) patients met the primary outcome in the IN group and 7 (23%) in the OUT group [odds ratio (OR): 1.88 (95% CI, 0.42-8.34); P = 0.45]. However, survival with a favorable outcome decreased steadily with 2 or more deviations from the decision-making tool [2 deviations: 1 (11%); 3 deviations: 0 (0%)]. Conclusion and relevance: Most patients supported with ECPR fell outside of the criteria encompassed in a clinical decision-making tool, which highlights the challenge of optimal selection of ECPR candidates. Survival rate with a good neurologic outcome did not differ between the IN and OUT groups. However, survival with favorable outcome decreased steadily after one deviation from the decision-making tool. More studies are needed to help select proper candidates with refractory CA patients for ECPR.

Learning Curve in Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Low Volumes Do Not Equate Bad Outcomes

ABSTRACT Introduction: Most implantations of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are performed in low-volume centers. This study aimed to evaluate the procedural learning curve of HeartMate II (HM2) implantations by comparing outcomes between two time periods in a low-volume center. Methods: All 51 consecutive patients undergoing HM2 implantation between January 2009 and December 2017 were reviewed and allocated into 2 groups: early-era group (from 2009 to 2014; n=25) and late-era group (from 2015 to 2017; n=26). The primary outcome was the 90-day mortality rate, and the secondary outcome was a composite of mortality, neurological event, reoperation for bleeding, need for temporary right ventricular assist device, and pump thrombosis at 90 days. Median follow-up time was 51 months (0-136). A cumulative sum (CUSUM) control analysis was used to establish a threshold of implantations that optimizes outcomes. Results: Patients in the early era had a higher rate of diabetes, previous stroke, and inotrope support before HM2 implantation. The 90-day mortality rate was not significantly higher in the early era (24% vs. 15%, P=0.43), but the composite endpoint was significantly higher (76% vs. 42%, P=0.01). The CUSUM analysis found a threshold of 23 operations after which the composite endpoint was optimized. Conclusion: Patients undergoing HM2 implantation in a low-volume center have improving outcomes with number of cases and optimized results after a threshold of 23 cases. Significant changes in patient selection, surgical techniques, and patient management might lead to improved outcomes after LVAD implantation.