Summary of a consensus conference on heart-liver transplantation.

Patients with severe heart disease may have coexisting liver disease from various causes. The incidence of combined heart-liver transplant (CHLT) is increasing as more patients with congenital heart disease survive to adulthood and develop advanced heart failure with associated liver disease from chronic right-sided heart or Fontan failure. However, the criteria for CHLT have not been established. To address this unmet need, a virtual consensus conference was organized on June 10, 2022, endorsed by the American Society of Transplantation. The conference represented a collaborative effort by experts in cardiothoracic and liver transplantation from across the United States to assess interdisciplinary criteria for liver transplantation in the CHLT candidate, surgical considerations of CHLT, current allocation system that generally results in the liver following the heart for CHLT, and optimal post-CHLT management. The conference served as a forum to unify criteria between the different specialties and to forge a pathway for patients who may need dual organ transplantation. Due to the continuing shortage of available donor organs, ethical issues related to multiorgan transplantation were also debated. The findings and consensus statements are presented.

Redefining the molecular rejection states in 3230 heart transplant biopsies: Relationships to parenchymal injury and graft survival.

The first-generation Molecular Microscope (MMDx) system for heart transplant endomyocardial biopsies used expression of rejection-associated transcripts (RATs) to diagnose not only T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) but also acute injury. However, the ideal system should detect rejection without being influenced by injury, to permit analysis of the relationship between rejection and parenchymal injury. To achieve this, we developed a new rejection classification in an expanded cohort of 3230 biopsies: 1641 from INTERHEART (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02670408), plus 1589 service biopsies added to improve the power of the machine learning algorithms. The new system used 6 rejection classifiers instead of RATs and generated 7 rejection archetypes: No rejection, 48%; Minor, 24%; TCMR1, 2.3%; TCMR2, 2.7%; TCMR/mixed, 2.7%; early-stage ABMR, 3.9%; and fully developed ABMR, 16%. Using rejection classifiers eliminated cross-reactions with acute injury, permitting separate assessment of rejection and injury. TCMR was associated with severe-recent injury and late atrophy-fibrosis and rarely had normal parenchyma. ABMR was better tolerated, seldom producing severe injury, but in later biopsies was often associated with atrophy-fibrosis, indicating long-term risk. Graft survival and left ventricular ejection fraction were reduced not only in hearts with TCMR but also in hearts with severe-recent injury and atrophy-fibrosis, even without rejection.

Does bortezomib influence pre-transplant desensitization therapy or benefit post-heart transplant outcomes for highly sensitized patients?

BACKGROUND: The use of bortezomib which is a proteasome inhibitor has been demonstrated to be efficacious in small number of patients as a desensitization strategy in heart transplant. We reviewed our single center's experience using Bortezomib along with plasmapheresis as desensitization therapy for highly sensitized patients to assess pre- and post-transplant outcomes. METHOD: We assessed 43 highly sensitized patients awaiting HTx (defined as cPRA > 50%) between 2010 and 2021 who underwent desensitization therapy with bortezomib. Only those patients who subsequently underwent HTx were included in this study. Enrolled patients received up to four doses of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 ) over 2 weeks in conjunction with plasmapheresis. The efficacy of PP/BTZ was assessed by comparing the calculated panel reactive antibodies to HLA class I or class II antigens. Post-transplant outcomes including overall survival and incidence of rejection were compared to those of non-sensitized patients (PRA < 10%, n = 649) from the same center. RESULTS: The average cPRA prior to PP/BTZ was 94.5%. Post-PP/BTZ there was no statistically significant decline in mean cPRA, class I cPRA, or class II cPRA, though the average percentage decrease in class I cPRA (8.7 ± 17.0%) was higher than the change in class II cPRA (4.4 ± 13.3%). Resulted were also replicated with C1q-binding antibodies showing more effect on I class compared to class II (15.0 ± 37.4% vs. 6.8 ± 33.6%) as well as with 1:8 dilutional assay (14.0 ± 23.0% vs. 9.1 ± 34.9%). Additionally, PP/BTZ treated patients and the control group of non-sensitized patients had similar overall 1 year survival (95.4 vs. 92.5%) but patients with PP/BTZ had increased incidence of AMR (79.1% vs. 97.1%, p = < .001), any treated rejection (62.8% vs. 86.7%, p = < .001) and de novo DSA development (81.4% vs. 92.5%, p = .007). Major side effects of PP/BTZ included thrombocytopenia (42%), infection requiring antibiotics (28%), and neuropathy (12%). CONCLUSION: The use of bortezomib in highly sensitized patients does not significantly lower circulating antibodies prior to heart transplantation. However, its use may improve the chances of obtaining an immuno-compatible donor heart and contribute to acceptable post-transplant outcomes.

The evolving use of biomarkers in heart transplantation: Consensus of an expert panel.

In heart transplantation, the use of biomarkers to detect the risk of rejection has been evolving. In this setting, it is becoming less clear as to what is the most reliable test or combination of tests to detect rejection and assess the state of the alloimmune response. Therefore, a virtual expert panel was organized in heart and kidney transplantation to evaluate emerging diagnostics and how they may be best utilized to monitor and manage transplant patients. This manuscript covers the heart content of the conference and is a work product of the American Society of Transplantation's Thoracic and Critical Care Community of Practice. This paper reviews currently available and emerging diagnostic assays and defines the unmet needs for biomarkers in heart transplantation. Highlights of the in-depth discussions among conference participants that led to development of consensus statements are included. This conference should serve as a platform to further build consensus within the heart transplant community regarding the optimal framework to implement biomarkers into management protocols and to improve biomarker development, validation and clinical utility. Ultimately, these biomarkers and novel diagnostics should improve outcomes and optimize quality of life for our transplant patients.

Addressing sex-based disparities in solid organ transplantation in the United States - a conference report.

Solid organ transplantation provides the best treatment for end-stage organ failure, but significant sex-based disparities in transplant access exist. On June 25, 2021, a virtual multidisciplinary conference was convened to address sex-based disparities in transplantation. Common themes contributing to sex-based disparities were noted across kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation, specifically the existence of barriers to referral and wait listing for women, the pitfalls of using serum creatinine, the issue of donor/recipient size mismatch, approaches to frailty and a higher prevalence of allosensitization among women. In addition, actionable solutions to improve access to transplantation were identified, including alterations to the current allocation system, surgical interventions on donor organs, and the incorporation of objective frailty metrics into the evaluation process. Key knowledge gaps and high-priority areas for future investigation were also discussed.

The impact of the United Network of Organ Sharing allocation change on waitlist trajectories of inpatients listed with inotropic support: A single-center analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation scheme prior to October 18, 2018, heart transplant (HTx) candidates with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS), or pulmonary artery (PA) catheter inotropic support all received Status 1A priority. In revised scheme, patients with PA catheter and inotropic support are Status 3 after those on ECMO (Status 1) or temporary MCS (Status 2). We examined the impact of the allocation change on HTx candidates listed Status 1A versus Status 3 at a high-volume transplant center. METHODS: Between January 2017 and January 2021, 75 patients were listed with a PA catheter and inotropic support prior to the allocation change (Era 1) and 48 were listed after (Era 2). Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared for these 123 patients. RESULTS: Heart transplant (HTx) candidates in Era 2 had higher median inotrope doses at listing. There was no significant difference in inpatient wait list days (12 vs. 20 days, P = .15), transition to temporary MCS (33.3% vs. 22.7%, P = .15), or wait list mortality (6.3% vs. 4.0%, P = .68). There was also no significant difference in survival to transplantation (91.7% vs. 94.7%, P = .71). There were no differences in post-transplant outcomes including 1-year survival (88.6% vs. 93.0%, P = .38). CONCLUSION: At a high-volume transplant center, the UNOS allocation change did not result in increased wait list time, use of temporary MCS, or mortality on the waitlist or post-transplant for candidates on inotropic support with continuous hemodynamic monitoring.

Simultaneous heart-kidney transplant in patients with borderline estimated glomerular filtration rate without dialysis dependency.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate patient selection for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation (sHK) in patients with moderate renal dysfunction remains challenging. METHODS: From the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2003-2020), we identified 5678 adults with an estimated pre-transplant glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between 30 and 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 and no pre-transplant dialysis. Patients undergoing sHK (n = 293) were compared with those undergoing heart transplantation alone (n = 5385) using 1:3 propensity score matching. RESULTS: The sHK utilization rate increased from 1.8% in 2003 to 12.2% in 2020 (p < .001). After matching, 1 and 5-year survival was 87.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83.3-91.0) and 80.0% (95% CI 74.2-84.6) after sHK, and 87.3% (95% CI 85.2-89.1) and 71.8% (95% CI 68.4-74.9) after heart transplant alone (p = .04). In the subgroup analysis, sHK was associated with a 5-year survival benefit only in patients with 30 < eGFR ≤ 35 mL/min/1.73 m2 (p = .05) but not in those with 35 < eGFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (p = .45). Patients who underwent heart transplants alone also had a higher incidence of becoming chronic dialysis-dependent after transplant within 5-year follow-up (10.2%, 95% CI 8.0-12.6 vs. 3.8%, 95% CI 1.7-7.1, p = .004). The 5-year incidence of subsequent kidney waitlisting and transplants after heart transplants alone was 5.6% and 1.9%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Among propensity-matched patients without pre-transplant dialysis, compared to heart transplants alone, sHK had improved 5-year survival in those with 30 < eGFR ≤ 35 but not in those with 35 < eGFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 . One-year survival was similar irrespective of eGFR. Receiving a kidney after a heart transplant alone is rare under the current allocation system.

Guidelines and principles for the care of the cardiothoracic transplant patient in the intensive care unit.

Heart and lung transplant recipients require care provided by clinicians from multiple different specialties, each contributing unique expertise and perspective. The period the patient spends in the intensive care unit is one of the most critical times in the perioperative trajectory. Various organizational models of intensive care exist, including those led by intensivists, surgeons, transplant cardiologists, and pulmonologists. Coordinating timely efficient intensive care is an essential and logistically difficult goal. The present work product of the American Society of Transplantation's Thoracic and Critical Care Community of Practice, Critical Care Task Force outlines operational guidelines and principles that may be applied in different organizational models to optimize the delivery of intensive care for the cardiothoracic organ recipient.

Proceedings from the metrics forum in heart transplantation for performance monitoring.

Regulatory oversight for heart transplant programs is currently under review by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). There is concern whether 1-year patient and graft survival truly represent heart transplant center performance. Thus, a forum was organized by the Thoracic and Critical Care Community of Practice (TCC COP) of the American Society of Transplantation (AST) for the heart transplant community to voice their opinions on matters involving program performance monitoring by UNOS. A TCC COP work group was formed to review outcome metrics for adult heart transplantation and culminated in a virtual community forum (72 participants representing 61 heart transplant programs) on November 12-13, 2020. One-year posttransplant survival is still considered an appropriate and important measure to assess program performance. Waitlist mortality and offer acceptance rate as pretransplant metrics could also be useful measures of program performance, recognizing that outside factors may influence these metrics. In depth discussion of these metrics and other issues including auditing thresholds, innovations to reduce risk-averse behavior and personally designed program scorecards are included in this meeting proceedings.

Characteristics and outcomes of heart transplant recipients with a pretransplant history of malignancy.

We aimed to investigate the characteristics and outcomes of HTx recipients with a history of pretransplant malignancy (PTM). Among 1062 HTx recipients between 1997 and 2013, 73 (7.1%) patients had PTMs (77 cancer cases). We analyzed post-HTx outcome, recurrence of PTM, and development of de novo malignancies. Post-HTx outcome included overall survival, 10-year survival, 10-year freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), non-fatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), any treated rejection (ATR), acute cellular rejection (ACR), and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Four most common PTMs were lymphoproliferative disorders (18.2%), prostate cancers (18.2%), non-melanoma skin cancers (18.2%), and breast cancers (13.0%). Median time from PTM and HTx was 9.0 years. During a median follow-up of 8.6 years after HTx, patients with PTM, compared to those without, showed significantly higher incidence of posttransplant malignancies (43.8% vs. 20.8%, p < .001) including 9.6% (n = 7) of PTM recurrences. However, patients with PTM, compared to those without, showed comparable overall survival, 10-year survival, 10-year freedom from CAV, NF-MACE, ATR, ACR, and AMR. Therefore, a history of PTM should not disqualify patients from HTx listing, while further research is necessary for early detection of posttransplant malignancies in these patients.

Heart transplantation in muscular dystrophy: Single-center analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac involvement may occur in many forms of muscular dystrophy (MD). While cardiac disease may progress to warrant heart transplantation (HTx), there may be contraindications related to extra-cardiac disease including pulmonary and skeletal muscle involvement that limit overall survival and impairs post-transplant rehabilitation efforts. This study describes the MD HTx experience at a single high-volume center. METHODS: We examined the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with MD with heart failure (HF) (n = 28), patients with MD status post HTx (n = 20) and non-MD HTx control group (n = 40) matched 2:1 for age at transplant, sex, listing status, and antibody sensitization. RESULTS: Patients with MD who underwent HTx had increased ventilator days (2 vs. 1 days, p = .013), increased hospital length of stay (20 vs. 12 days, p = .022), and increased discharge to inpatient rehab (60% vs. 8%, p < .001). By 1 year post HTx, patients with MD more often required assistive devices for walking (55% vs. 10%, p = .01). Nonetheless, post-HTx survival was similar at 1 year (100% vs. 97.5%, p = .48) and 5 years (95.0% vs. 87.5%, p = .36). Of the HTx recipients with MD, 95% were followed by a neurologist, 60% by a neuromuscular specialist as part of the Muscular Dystrophy Association Clinic at our center. CONCLUSION: Transplantation is a feasible option for patients with MD and advanced HF. MD patients who undergo transplantation may benefit from multidisciplinary specialized care to optimize MD-related morbidity.

Long-term outcomes after heart transplantation using ex vivo allograft perfusion in standard risk donors: A single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: The Organ Care System (OCS) is an ex vivo perfusion platform for donor heart preservation. Short/mid-term post-transplant outcomes after its use are comparable to standard cold storage (CS). We evaluated long-term outcomes following its use. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2013, 38 patients from a single center were randomized as a part of the PROCEED II trial to receive allografts preserved with CS (n = 19) or OCS (n = 19). Endpoints included 8-year survival, survival free from graft-related deaths, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), non-fatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), and rejections. RESULTS: Eight-year survival was 57.9% in the OCS group and 73.7% in the CS group (p = .24). Freedom from CAV was 89.5% in the OCS group and 67.8% in the CS group (p = .13). Freedom from NF-MACE was 89.5% in the OCS group and 67.5% in the CS group (p = .14). Eight-year survival free from graft-related death was equivalent between the two groups (84.2% vs. 84.2%, p = .93). No differences in rejection episodes were observed (all p > .5). CONCLUSIONS: In select patients receiving OCS preserved allografts, late post-transplant survival trended lower than those transplanted with an allograft preserved with CS. This is based on a small single-center series, and larger numbers are needed to confirm these findings.

Heart transplant recipient 1-year outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic initially brought forth considerable challenges to the field of heart transplantation. To prevent the spread of the virus and protect immunocompromised recipients, our center made the following modifications to post-transplant outpatient management: eliminating early coronary angiograms, video visits for postoperative months 7, 9, and 11, and home blood draws for immunosuppression adjustments. To assess if these changes have impacted patient outcomes, the current study examines 1-year outcomes for patients transplanted during the pandemic. Between March and September 2020, we assessed 50 heart transplant patients transplanted during the pandemic. These patients were compared to patients who were transplanted during the same months between 2011 and 2019 (n = 482). Endpoints included subsequent 1-year survival, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy, any-treated rejection, acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), and hospital and ICU length of stay. Patients transplanted during the pandemic had similar 1-year endpoints compared to those of patients transplanted from years prior apart from 1-year freedom from NF-MACE which was significantly higher for patients transplanted during the pandemic. Despite necessary changes being made to outpatient management of heart transplant recipients, heart transplantation continues to be safe and effective with similar 1-year outcomes to years prior.

Heart transplantation after total artificial heart bridging-Outcomes over 15 years.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited on outcomes after heart transplantation in patients bridged-to-transplantation (BTT) with a total artificial heart (TAH-t). METHODS: The UNOS database was used to identify 392 adult patients undergoing heart transplantation after TAH-t BTT between 2005 and 2020. They were compared with 11 014 durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) BTT patients and 22 348 de novo heart transplants (without any durable VAD or TAH-t BTT) during the same period. RESULTS: TAH-t BTT patients had increased dialysis dependence compared to LVAD BTT and de novo transplants (24.7% vs. 2.7% vs. 3.8%) and higher levels of baseline creatinine and total bilirubin (all p < .001). After transplantation, TAH-t BTT patients were more likely to die from multiorgan failure in the first year (25.0% vs. 16.1% vs. 16.1%, p = .04). Ten-year survival was inferior in TAH-t BTT patients (TAH-t BTT 53.1%, LVAD BTT 61.8%, De Novo 62.6%, p < .001), while 10-year survival conditional on 1-year survival was similar (TAH-t BTT 66.8%, LVAD BTT 68.7%, De Novo 69.0%, all p > .20). Among TAH-t BTT patients, predictors of 1-year mortality included higher baseline creatinine and total bilirubin, mechanical ventilation, and cumulative center volume <20 cases of heart transplantation involving TAH-t BTT (all p < .05). CONCLUSION: Survival after TAH-t BTT is acceptable, and patients who survive the early postoperative phase experience similar hazards of mortality over time compared to de novo transplant patients and durable LVAD BTT patients.

Molecular Diagnosis of Rejection in Heart Transplantation.

Despite the overall success of heart transplantation as a definitive treatment for endstage heart failure, cardiac allograft rejection remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Endomyocardial biopsy has been the standard of care for rejection monitoring, but is associated with several diagnostic limitations and serious procedural complications. The use of molecular diagnostics has emerged over the past decade as a tool to potentially circumvent some of these limitations. We present an update on novel molecular approaches to detecting transplant rejection, focusing on 4 categories: microarray technology, gene expression profiling, cell-free DNA and microRNA.

Cardiac microstructural alterations in immune-inflammatory myocardial disease: a retrospective case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Immune-inflammatory myocardial disease contributes to multiple chronic cardiac processes, but access to non-invasive screening is limited. We have previously developed a method of echocardiographic texture analysis, called the high-spectrum signal intensity coefficient (HS-SIC) which assesses myocardial microstructure and previously associated with myocardial fibrosis. We aimed to determine whether this echocardiographic texture analysis of cardiac microstructure can identify inflammatory cardiac disease in the clinical setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case-control study of 318 patients with distinct clinical myocardial pathologies and 20 healthy controls. Populations included myocarditis, atypical chest pain/palpitations, STEMI, severe aortic stenosis, acute COVID infection, amyloidosis, and cardiac transplantation with acute rejection, without current rejection but with prior rejection, and with no history of rejection. We assessed the HS-SIC's ability to differentiate between a broader diversity of clinical groups and healthy controls. We used Kruskal-Wallis tests to compare HS-SIC values measured in each of the clinical populations with those in the healthy control group and compared HS-SIC values between the subgroups of cardiac transplantation rejection status. RESULTS: For the total sample of N = 338, the mean age was 49.6 ± 20.9 years and 50% were women. The mean ± standard error of the mean of HS-SIC were: 0.668 ± 0.074 for controls, 0.552 ± 0.049 for atypical chest pain/palpitations, 0.425 ± 0.058 for myocarditis, 0.881 ± 0.129 for STEMI, 1.116 ± 0.196 for severe aortic stenosis, 0.904 ± 0.116 for acute COVID, and 0.698 ± 0.103 for amyloidosis. Among cardiac transplant recipients, HS-SIC values were 0.478 ± 0.999 for active rejection, 0.594 ± 0.091 for prior rejection, and 1.191 ± 0.442 for never rejection. We observed significant differences in HS-SIC between controls and myocarditis (P = 0.0014), active rejection (P = 0.0076), and atypical chest pain or palpitations (P = 0.0014); as well as between transplant patients with active rejection and those without current or prior rejection (P = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: An echocardiographic method can be used to characterize tissue signatures of microstructural changes across a spectrum of cardiac disease including immune-inflammatory conditions.

Transplant centers that assess frailty as part of clinical practice have better outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Frailty predicts adverse post-kidney transplant (KT) outcomes, yet the impact of frailty assessment on center-level outcomes remains unclear. We sought to test whether transplant centers assessing frailty as part of clinical practice have better pre- and post-KT outcomes in all adult patients (≥18 years) and older patients (≥65 years). METHODS: In a survey of US transplant centers (11/2017-4/2018), 132 (response rate = 65.3%) centers reported their frailty assessment practices (frequency and specific tool) at KT evaluation and admission. Assessment frequency was categorized as never, sometime, and always; type of assessment tool was categorized as none, validated (for post-KT risk prediction), and any other tool. Center characteristics and clinical outcomes for adult patients during 2017-2019 were gleaned from the transplant national registry (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of waitlist outcomes (waitlist mortality, transplantation) in candidates and IRRs of post-KT outcomes (all-cause mortality, death-censored graft loss) in recipients by frailty assessment frequency. We also estimated IRRs of waitlist outcomes by type of assessment tool at evaluation. All models were adjusted for case mix and center characteristics. RESULTS: Assessing frailty at evaluation was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (always IRR = 0.91,95%CI:0.84-0.99; sometimes = 0.89,95%CI:0.83-0.96) and KT rate (always = 0.94,95%CI:0.91-0.97; sometimes = 0.88,95%CI:0.85-0.90); the associations with waitlist mortality rate (always = 0.86,95%CI:0.74-0.99; sometimes = 0.83,95%CI:0.73-0.94) and KT rate (always = 0.82,95%CI:0.77-0.88; sometimes = 0.92,95%CI:0.87-0.98) were stronger in older patients. Furthermore, using validated (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.88-0.92) or any other tool (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.87-0.93) at evaluation was associated lower KT rate, while only using a validated tool was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (IRR = 0.89,95%CI:0.83-0.96), especially in older patients (IRR = 0.82,95%CI:0.72-0.93). At admission for KT, always assessing frailty was associated with a lower graft loss rate (IRR = 0.71,95%CI:0.54-0.92) but not with mortality (IRR = 0.93,95%CI:0.76-1.13). CONCLUSIONS: Assessing frailty at evaluation is associated with lower KT rate, while only using a validated frailty assessment tool is associated with better survival, particularly in older candidates. Centers always assessing frailty at admission are likely to have better graft survival rates. Transplant centers may utilize validated frailty assessment tools to secure KT access for appropriate candidates and to better allocate health care resources for patients identified as frail, particularly for older patients.

Heterogeneity of liver fibrosis in patients with congestive hepatopathy: A biopsy and explant comparison series.

PURPOSE: Patients with end-stage heart failure and concomitant irreversible liver injury may be candidates for combined heart liver transplant (CHLT). Determining appropriate candidates for CHLT is essential given organ scarcity. Transjugular liver biopsy (TJLB) is used to evaluate the severity of parenchymal liver injury in transplant candidates. In patients with congestive hepatopathy (CH), the fibrosis pattern may be heterogenous. METHODS: We reviewed all CHLT cases between 2007 and 2017, as well as lone-heart transplant cases with post-mortem autopsy. Pre-transplant TJLB was compared to explant to assess the performance of biopsy fibrosis staging. RESULTS: 12 patients were included. Median age at time of transplant was 58 and the cohort was predominantly male (75%). Seven (64%) TJLB were predominantly stage 4 fibrosis and 4 (36%) were stage 1. Advanced fibrosis was the dominant pattern in 7 (70%) explants and 5 (50%) explants had heterogenous fibrosis. In 50% of CH cases, there was discordance between the TJLB and explant. In the autopsy cases, the TJLB and autopsy findings differed. CONCLUSIONS: In this series of matched TJLB and explanted livers, we found variable performance of TJLB in predicting the predominant fibrosis stage present in the liver.

Identification and Characterization of Trajectories of Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy After Heart Transplantation: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a major contributor of heart transplant recipient mortality. Little is known about the prototypes of CAV trajectories at the population level. We aimed to identify the different evolutionary profiles of CAV and to determine the respective contribution of immune and nonimmune factors in CAV development. METHODS: Heart transplant recipients were from 4 academic centers (Pitié-Salpêtrière and Georges Pompidou Hospital, Paris, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, and Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles; 2004-2016). Patients underwent prospective, protocol-based monitoring consisting of repeated coronary angiographies together with systematic assessments of clinical, histological, and immunologic parameters. The main outcome was a prediction for CAV trajectory. We identified CAV trajectories by using unsupervised latent class mixed models. We then identified the independent predictive variables of the CAV trajectories and their association with mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1301 patients were included (815 and 486 in the European and US cohorts, respectively). The median follow-up after transplantation was 6.6 (interquartile range, 4-9.1) years with 4710 coronary angiographies analyzed. We identified 4 distinct profiles of CAV trajectories over 10 years. The 4 trajectories were characterized by (1) patients without CAV at 1 year and nonprogression over time (56.3%), (2) patients without CAV at 1 year and late-onset slow CAV progression (7.6%), (3) patients with mild CAV at 1 year and mild progression over time (23.1%), and (4) patients with mild CAV at 1 year and accelerated progression (13.0%). This model showed good discrimination (0.92). Among candidate predictors assessed, 6 early independent predictors of these trajectories were identified: donor age (P<0.001), donor male sex (P<0.001), donor tobacco consumption (P=0.001), recipient dyslipidemia (P=0.009), class II anti-human leukocyte antigen donor-specific antibodies (P=0.004), and acute cellular rejection ≥2R (P=0.028). The 4 CAV trajectories manifested consistently in the US independent cohort with similar discrimination (0.97) and in different clinical scenarios, and showed gradients for overall-cause mortality (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large multicenter and highly phenotyped prospective cohort of heart transplant recipients, we identified 4 CAV trajectories and their respective independent predictive variables. Our results provide the basis for a trajectory-based assessment of patients undergoing heart transplantation for early risk stratification, patient monitoring, and clinical trials. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04117152.

Statistical performance of 16 posttransplant risk scores in a contemporary cohort of heart transplant recipients.

Accurate risk stratification of early heart transplant failure is required to avoid futile transplants and rationalize donor selection. We aimed to evaluate the statistical performance of existing risk scores on a contemporary cohort of heart transplant recipients. After an exhaustive search, we identified 16 relevant risk scores. From the UNOS database, we selected all first noncombined adult heart transplants performed between 2014 and 2017 for validation. The primary endpoint was death or retransplant during the first year posttransplant. For all scores, we analyzed their association with outcomes, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and discrimination (concordance index and overlap of individual scores). The cohort included 9396 patients. All scores were significantly associated with the primary outcome (P < .001 for all scores). Their likelihood ratios, both negative and positive, were poor. The discriminative performance of all scores was limited, with concordance index ranging from 0.544 to 0.646 (median 0.594) and an important overlap of individual scores between patients with or without the primary endpoint. Subgroup analyses revealed important variation in discrimination according to donor age, recipient age, and the type of assist device used at transplant. Our findings raise concerns about the use of currently available scores in the clinical field.