Disparities in donor heart acceptance between the USA and Europe: clinical implications.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Given limited evidence and lack of consensus on donor acceptance for heart transplant (HT), selection practices vary widely across HT centres in the USA. Similar variation likely exists on a broader scale-across countries and HT systems-but remains largely unexplored. This study characterized differences in heart donor populations and selection practices between the USA and Eurotransplant-a consortium of eight European countries-and their implications for system-wide outcomes. METHODS: Characteristics of adult reported heart donors and their utilization (the percentage of reported donors accepted for HT) were compared between Eurotransplant (n = 8714) and the USA (n = 60 882) from 2010 to 2020. Predictors of donor acceptance were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Additional analyses estimated the impact of achieving Eurotransplant-level utilization in the USA amongst donors of matched quality, using probability of acceptance as a marker of quality. RESULTS: Eurotransplant reported donors were older with more cardiovascular risk factors but with higher utilization than in the USA (70% vs. 44%). Donor age, smoking history, and diabetes mellitus predicted non-acceptance in the USA and, by a lesser magnitude, in Eurotransplant; donor obesity and hypertension predicted non-acceptance in the USA only. Achieving Eurotransplant-level utilization amongst the top 30%-50% of donors (by quality) would produce an additional 506-930 US HTs annually. CONCLUSIONS: Eurotransplant countries exhibit more liberal donor heart acceptance practices than the USA. Adopting similar acceptance practices could help alleviate the scarcity of donor hearts and reduce waitlist morbidity in the USA.

Prioritizing direct heart procurement in organ donors after circulatory death does not jeopardize lung transplant outcomes.

Background: Controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) has become a standard in liver, kidney, and lung transplantation (LTx). Based on recent innovations in ex vivo heart preservation, heart transplant centers have started to accept cDCD heart allografts. Because the heart has very limited tolerance to warm ischemia, changes to the cDCD organ procurement procedures are needed. These changes entail delayed ventilation and prolonged warm ischemia for the lungs. Whether this negatively impacts lung allograft function is unclear. Methods: A retrospective analysis of cDCD lungs transplanted between 2012 and February 2022 at the Medical University of Vienna was performed. The heart + lung group consisted of cases in which the heart was procured by a cardiac team for subsequent normothermic ex vivo perfusion. A control group (lung group) was formed by cases where only the lungs were explanted. In heart + lung group cases, the heart procurement team placed cannulas after circulatory death and a hands-off time, collected donor blood for ex vivo perfusion, and performed rapid organ perfusion with Custodiol solution, after which the heart was explanted. Up to this point, the lung procurement team did not interfere. No concurrent lung ventilation or pulmonary artery perfusion was performed. After the cardiac procurement team left the table, ventilation was initiated, and lung perfusion was performed directly through both stumps of the pulmonary arteries using 2 large-bore Foley catheters. This study analyzed procedural explant times, postoperative outcomes, primary graft dysfunction (PGD), duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and early survival after LTx. Results: A total of 56 cDCD lungs were transplanted during the study period. In 7 cases (12.5%), the heart was also procured (heart + lung group); in 49 cases (87.5%), only the lungs were explanted (lung group). Basic donor parameters were comparable in the 2 groups. The median times from circulatory arrest to lung perfusion (24 minutes vs 13.5 minutes; P = .002) and from skin incision to lung perfusion (14 minutes vs 5 minutes; P = .005) were significantly longer for the heart + lung procedures. However, this did not affect post-transplantation PGD grade at 0 hours (P = .851), 24 hours (P = .856), 48 hours (P = .929), and 72 hours (P = .874). At 72 hours after transplantation, none of the lungs in the heart + lung group but 1 lung (2.2%) in lung group was in PGD 3. The median duration of mechanical ventilation (50 hours vs 41 hours; P = .801), length of ICU stay (8 days vs 6 days; P = .951), and total length of hospital stay (27 days vs 25 days; P = .814) were also comparable in the 2 groups. In-hospital mortality occurred in only 1 patient of the lung group (2.2%). Conclusions: Although prioritized cDCD heart explantation is associated with delayed ventilation and significantly longer warm ischemic time to the lungs, post-LTx outcomes within the first year are unchanged. Prioritizing heart perfusion and explantation in the setting of cDCD procurement can be considered acceptable.

Indications, Complications, and Outcomes of Cardiac Surgery After Heart Transplantation: Results From the Cash Study.

Background: Allograft pathologies, such as valvular, coronary artery, or aortic disease, may occur early and late after cardiac transplantation. Cardiac surgery after heart transplantation (CASH) may be an option to improve quality of life and allograft function and prolong survival. Experience with CASH, however, has been limited to single-center reports. Methods: We performed a retrospective, multicenter study of heart transplant recipients with CASH between January 1984 and December 2020. In this study, 60 high-volume cardiac transplant centers were invited to participate. Results: Data were available from 19 centers in North America (n = 7), South America (n = 1), and Europe (n = 11), with a total of 110 patients. A median of 3 (IQR 2-8.5) operations was reported by each center; five centers included ≥ 10 patients. Indications for CASH were valvular disease (n = 62), coronary artery disease (CAD) (n = 16), constrictive pericarditis (n = 17), aortic pathology (n = 13), and myxoma (n = 2). The median age at CASH was 57.7 (47.8-63.1) years, with a median time from transplant to CASH of 4.4 (1-9.6) years. Reoperation within the first year after transplantation was performed in 24.5%. In-hospital mortality was 9.1% (n = 10). 1-year survival was 86.2% and median follow-up was 8.2 (3.8-14.6) years. The most frequent perioperative complications were acute kidney injury and bleeding revision in 18 and 9.1%, respectively. Conclusion: Cardiac surgery after heart transplantation has low in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications in carefully selected patients. The incidence and type of CASH vary between international centers. Risk factors for the worse outcome are higher European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE II) and postoperative renal failure.

Medical decisions in organ donors and heart transplant candidates with history of COVID-19 infection: An international practice survey.

BACKGROUND: A growing proportion of transplant donors and recipients have a history of COVID-19 infection. This study sought to characterize clinical practice after recipient or donor COVID-19 infection. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to heart transplant clinicians through a professional society message board and social media. Responses were collected between September 29 and November 5, 2021. RESULTS: There were 222 health care professionals (68% transplant cardiologists, 22% transplant surgeons, 10% other) across diverse geographic regions who completed the survey. While there was significant variation in donor acceptance, as it relates to past and current COVID-19 infection, the respondents were fairly cautious: 28% would not typically accept a donor with a history of COVID-19 regardless of the infection course and > 80% would not accept donors who had evidence of myocardial dysfunction during past COVID-19 infection, or who died of COVID-19 or its complications. The timing of candidate reactivation on the waiting list after COVID-19 infection also varied and often diverged from scenarios addressed by social guidelines. Eighty-one percent of the respondents felt COVID-19 vaccine should be mandatory before transplant, but this rate varied by geographic region. CONCLUSION: Our results reflect evolving experience of the heart transplant field at a time of lack of high-quality evidence. In the absence of longer-term outcome data for donors and transplant candidates with history of COVID-19 infection, clinicians remain cautious; however, this approach will likely need to be refined as an increasing proportion of the population will continue to be infected with COVID-19.

The adapted Heart Donor Score.

The Heart Donor Score (HDS) predicts donor organ discard for medical reasons and survival after heart transplantation (HTX) in the Eurotransplant allocation system. Our aim was to adapt the HDS for application in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry. To adjust for differences between the Eurotransplant and UNOS registries, the "adapted HDS" was created (aHDS) by exclusion of the covariates "valve function," "left-ventricular hypertrophy," and exclusion of "drug abuse" from the variable "compromised history." Two datasets were analyzed to evaluate associations of the aHDS with donor organ discard (n = 70 948) and survival (n = 19 279). The aHDS was significantly associated with donor organ discard [odds ratio 2.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.68-2.76, P < 0.001; c-statistic: 0.937). The score performed comparably in donors <60 and ≥60 years of age. The aHDS was a significant predictor of survival as evaluated by univariate Cox proportional hazards analysis (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07, P = 0.023), although the association lost significance in a multivariable model. The aHDS predicts donor organ discard. Negative effects of most aHDS components on survival are likely eliminated by highly accurate donor selection processes.

Severe gastroparesis after orthotopic heart transplantation.

We present a case of severe gastroparesis in a recipient of orthotopic heart transplantation. Although a rare condition after heart transplantation, it is a potential cause of significant morbidity, including vomiting, aspiration and pneumonia. Moreover, impaired gastric emptying alters the pharmacokinetics of immunosuppressive medication with increased risk of severe side effects. Herein, we describe a diagnostic and therapeutic strategy that was successfully applied in a patient with gastroparesis.

Donor heart selection and outcomes: An analysis of over 2,000 cases.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making when offered a donor heart for transplantation is complex, and supportive data describing outcomes according to acceptance or non-acceptance choices are sparse. Our aim was to analyze donor heart acceptance decisions and associated outcomes at a single center, and after subsequent acceptance elsewhere. METHODS: This investigation was a retrospective analysis of data obtained from the University of Vienna Medical Center and Eurotransplant centers for the period 2001 to 2015. RESULTS: Our center accepted 31.8% (699 of 2,199) of donor hearts offered. Unlike other centers, the acceptance rate, with or without transplantation, did not increase over time. Of the donor hearts rejected by our center, 38.1% (572 of 1,500) were later accepted elsewhere. Acceptance rates were twice as high for donor hearts initially rejected for non-quality reasons (339 of 601, 56.4%) compared with initial rejection for quality reasons (233 of 899, 25.9%). Three-year patient survival rate was 79% at Vienna; for donor hearts initially rejected by Vienna for non-quality reasons or quality reasons, it was 73% and 63%, respectively (p < 0.001). Outcomes at other centers after transplantation of grafts rejected by Vienna varied according to the reason for rejection, with good 3-year survival rates for rejection due to positive virology (77%), high catecholamines (68%), long ischemic time (71%), or low ejection fraction (68%), but poor survival was observed for hearts rejected for hypernatremia (46%), cardiac arrest (21%), or valve pathology (50%). CONCLUSIONS: A less restrictive policy for accepting donor hearts at our center, particularly regarding rejection for non-quality reasons or for positive virology, high catecholamine levels, longer ischemic time, or low ejection fraction, could expand our donor pool while maintaining good outcomes.

Impact of Rabbit Antithymocyte Globulin Dose on Long-term Outcomes in Heart Transplant Patients.

BACKGROUND: Optimal dosing strategies have not been established for rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) after heart transplantation, and there is currently wide variability in rATG regimens with respect to both dose and duration. METHODS: In a retrospective, single-center analysis, 523 patients undergoing heart transplantation during 1996 to 2009 were stratified by cumulative rATG dose: less than 4.5 mg/kg (group A), 4.5 to 7.5 mg/kg (group B) or greater than 7.5 mg/kg (group C). RESULTS: Survival at 1 year after transplantation was 80% in group A, 90% in group B, and 88% in group C (P = 0.062). Incidence of acute rejection per 1000 patient-years was significantly higher in group A (hazards ratio [HR], 54.8; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 33.9-83.8) compared to groups B (19.6; 95% CI, 11.4-31.4) and C (23.6; 95% CI, 17.5-31.3). Incidence of severe infection 10 years after transplantation was higher in group C (45%) than groups A (37%) or B (23%) (P < 0.001); cytomegalovirus infection rates were 35%, 20% and 23%, respectively (P = 0.009). Multivariable Cox regression showed an HR of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.25-1.02) for acute rejection with group B versus group A, and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33-0.88; P = 0.013) for severe infection. The rate of malignancy per 1000 patient-years was higher in groups B (13.85) and C (14.95) than group A (7.83). CONCLUSIONS: These retrospective data suggest that a cumulative rATG dose of 4.5 to 7.5 mg/kg may offer a better risk-benefit ratio than lower or higher doses, with acceptable rates of infection and posttransplant malignancy. Prospective trials are needed.

Current strategies and future trends in immunosuppression after heart transplantation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Current immunosuppressive drugs have provided excellent outcomes after heart transplantation. However, more patients suffer from long-term complications of these drugs. A series of prospective randomized trials has been conducted and has offered disparate results. This report reviews the challenges of immunosuppressive therapy during the past decade, describes recent reports and explores potential future trends in immunosuppressive protocols in heart transplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: The traditional combination of cyclosporine, azathioprine and steroids has been changed to tacrolimus (Tac) or cyclosporine in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and steroids due to the results of several trials. The use of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors in combination with Tac or cyclosporine A has not shown a clear benefit compared with MMF. All different combinations have shown some positive effects counteracted by side-effects and negative synergism of combinations. Future protocols need to be adapted according to individual patient's needs and risks. SUMMARY: The changing population of heart transplantation patients has become older and sicker. Immunosuppression strategies should be developed for each patient based on their risk for rejection and their risk for developing important complications of immunosuppressive therapy.

The Seville expert workshop for progress in posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders.

: Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLDs) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality among solid-organ transplant patients, but approaches to diagnosis and management vary considerably. An international multidisciplinary panel evaluated current understanding of risk factors and classification systems and developed recommendations to aid in PTLD prevention. We considered evidence on PTLD risk factors including Epstein-Barr virus serostatus and immunosuppression and identified knowledge gaps for future research. Recommendations address prophylactic and preemptive strategies to minimize PTLD development, including modulation of immunosuppression and antiviral drug regimens. Finally, new classification criteria were outlined that may help facilitate standardized reporting and improve our understanding of PTLD.

Age and outcome after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation as bridge to transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of age on outcomes after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation as a bridge to transplantation (BTT) was determined. METHODS: From November 1998 to July 2007, 86 patients with advanced heart failure underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation as BTT and were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into 2 groups by age at LVAD implantation: 56 patients (65.1%) younger than 60, Group 1; and 30 (34.9%) aged 60 years or older, Group 2. RESULTS: Group 2 patients had a higher incidence of heart failure caused by ischemic heart disease (63.3% vs 32.1%, p = 0.005) and more severely impaired renal function by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease-derived glomerular filtration rates (51.9 +/- 15.9 vs. 68.0 +/- 20.5 ml/min/1.73 m(2), p < 0.001) than Group 1. Age was the only independent predictor of post-LVAD death (hazard ratio, 1.4 p = 0.003). The BTT rate was lower (33.3% vs 62.5%, p = 0.010), and incidence of post-LVAD renal failure was higher (53.3% vs 30.4%, p = 0.037) in Group 2 vs Group 1. Post-LVAD survival at 1, 3, and 6 months was 92.9%, 79.9%, and 74.0% for Group 1 and 90.0%, 62.0%, and 37.0% for Group 2 (p = 0.007). Post-transplant survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 87.8%, 82.3%, and 76.0% for Group 1 and 90.0%, 67.5%, 67.5% for Group 2 (p = 0.517). CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged 60 years and older have inferior post-LVAD survival; however, post-transplant survival is excellent. We advocate LVAD placement as bridge-to-transplant therapy only in carefully selected older patients most well suited for transplantation.

Safety and efficacy of statin therapy in patients switched from cyclosporine a to sirolimus after cardiac transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Statins are an established therapy after cardiac transplantation. Sirolimus (Srl) has been used successfully in cardiac transplant patients. However, potential side effects are hyperlipidemia and interactions with statins. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of statin therapy after switch to a Srl-based immunosuppression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight long-term patients were switched from Cyclosporine A to Srl. Also all patients received mycophenolate mofetil alone or mycophenolate mofetil plus steroid therapy. Reasons for switch were renal dysfunction, graftvasculopathy, or skin cancer. Patients were switched 7.8+/-4.7 years after transplant. Total observation period was 12 months before and after switch, respectively. Safety evaluation consisted of regular measurements of CPK and liver enzymes to evaluate the incidence myopathy and hepatoxicity. Efficacy analysis was performed by serial blood lipid assessments (low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol, and triglycerides). RESULTS: Forty-three percentage of patients received atorvastatin, 38% pravastatin, and 18% other drugs or therapy changes. Most lipid blood levels increased significantly after switch (cholesterol: 192.9+/-38.6 mg/dL vs. 221.8+/-49.2 mg/dL, P<0.0001; low-density lipoprotein: 108.0+/-35.6 mg/dL vs. 123.8+/-37.9 mg/dL, P<0.0001; and triglycerides: 178.3+/-88.2 mg/dL vs. 225.5+/-139.1 mg/dL, P<0.0001). Blood lipid levels after switch were not associated with statin type. Overall safety was acceptable, although incidence of myopathy doubled after switch (n=20 vs. 40; P<0.01). However, most cases were asymptomatic CPK elevations in the pravastatin group. Hepatotoxicity rate was 4% and only temporary. CONCLUSION: Statin therapy after switch from cyclosporine A to Srl in long-term cardiac transplant patients is safe. However, regular testing of blood lipids and CPK should be mandatory.

Effect of mycophenolate mofetil therapy on lymphocyte activation in heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolic acid is reported to provide effective immunosuppression by inhibiting inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase. In an attempt to monitor the effects of therapy with mycophenolate mofetil, we measured the expression of the activation markers CD25, CD38, CD69 and HLA-DR on lymphocytes of patients after heart transplantation. METHODS: Thirty-six patients enrolled in the study were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Patients in the control group (n = 15) received cyclosporine, azathioprine and prednisone. Patients in the study group (n = 21) were switched from azathioprine to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) 3 months after heart transplantation. The expressions of the activation markers CD25, CD38, CD69 and HLA-DR on B cells, T cells and natural killer (NK) cells in peripheral blood were determined by flow cytometry. RESULTS: In patients treated with MMF a significant reduction of the B-cell count was observed in comparison to a healthy control group and patients under therapy with azathioprine. The decline of B cells in the MMF group started 3 months after onset of therapy and, after 1 year, was nearly halved. In addition, the percentages of CD38-positive B cells, activated T cells (CD4(+)/CD25(+), CD8(+)/CD38(+)) and HLA-DR-expressing NK cells were reduced during therapy with MMF. CONCLUSIONS: Our studies have shown administration of MMF to be associated with a reduction of B lymphocytes and a downregulation of activation markers on B cells. In contrast to in vitro findings, our data indicate that the immunosuppressive effect of MMF in vivo is exhibited mainly on B cells.