Consensus Statement: Technical Standards for Thoracoabdominal Normothermic Regional Perfusion.

BACKGROUND: Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) has emerged as a powerful technique for optimizing organ procurement from donation after circulatory death donors. Despite its rapid adoption, standardized guidelines for TA-NRP implementation are lacking, prompting the need for consensus recommendations to ensure safe and effective utilization of this technique. METHODS: A working group composed of members from The American Society of Transplant Surgeons, The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and The American Association for Thoracic Surgery was convened to develop technical guidelines for TA-NRP. The group systematically reviewed existing literature, consensus statements, and expert opinions to identify key areas requiring standardization, including predonation evaluation, intraoperative management, postdonation procedures, and future research directions. RESULTS: The working group formulated recommendations encompassing donor evaluation and selection criteria, premortem testing and therapeutic interventions, communication protocols, and procedural guidelines for TA-NRP implementation. These recommendations aim to facilitate coordination among transplant teams, minimize variability in practice, and promote transparency and accountability throughout the TA-NRP process. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus guidelines presented herein serve as a comprehensive framework for the successful and ethical implementation of TA-NRP programs in organ procurement from donation after circulatory death donors. By providing standardized recommendations and addressing areas of uncertainty, these guidelines aim to enhance the quality, safety, and efficiency of TA-NRP procedures, ultimately contributing to improved outcomes for transplant recipients.

Consensus Statement: Technical Standards for Thoracoabdominal Normothermic Regional Perfusion.

BACKGROUND: Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) has emerged as a powerful technique for optimizing organ procurement from donation after circulatory death donors. Despite its rapid adoption, standardized guidelines for TA-NRP implementation are lacking, prompting the need for consensus recommendations to ensure safe and effective utilization of this technique. METHODS: A working group composed of members from The American Society of Transplant Surgeons, The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and The American Association for Thoracic Surgery was convened to develop technical guidelines for TA-NRP. The group systematically reviewed existing literature, consensus statements, and expert opinions to identify key areas requiring standardization, including predonation evaluation, intraoperative management, postdonation procedures, and future research directions. RESULTS: The working group formulated recommendations encompassing donor evaluation and selection criteria, premortem testing and therapeutic interventions, communication protocols, and procedural guidelines for TA-NRP implementation. These recommendations aim to facilitate coordination among transplant teams, minimize variability in practice, and promote transparency and accountability throughout the TA-NRP process. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus guidelines presented herein serve as a comprehensive framework for the successful and ethical implementation of TA-NRP programs in organ procurement from donation after circulatory death donors. By providing standardized recommendations and addressing areas of uncertainty, these guidelines aim to enhance the quality, safety, and efficiency of TA-NRP procedures, ultimately contributing to improved outcomes for transplant recipients.

Impact of minimally invasive lung transplantation on early outcomes and analgesia use: A matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive (MI) approaches to lung transplantation (LTx) offer the prospect of faster recovery compared to traditional incisions, however, little data exist describing the impact of surgical technique on early outcomes and analgesia use. METHODS: A prospectively maintained institutional registry identified 170 patients who underwent LTx between January, 2017 and June, 2022. Post-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome, repeat, and multiorgan transplants were excluded (n = 27) leaving 37 MILTx and 106 traditional LTx patients. Propensity score matching by age, sex, body mass index, diagnosis, lung allocation score, double vs. single lung, hypertension, diabetes, and hospitalization status created 37 pairs. RESULTS: Before matching, MILTx patients were more often male (70% vs 43%) and more likely to receive grafts from younger (31 vs 42 years), circulatory death donors (19% vs 6%) compared with traditional LTx patients (all p < 0.05). After matching, there were no differences in graft warm ischemia or operative duration (both p > 0.05). Postoperatively, MILTx experienced shorter intensive care unit (ICU) (4.3 [IQR 3.1-5.5] vs 8.2 [IQR 3.7-10.8] days) and hospital lengths of stay (LOS) (13 [IQR 11-15] vs 17 [IQR 12-25] days) (both p < 0.05). Among patients surviving to discharge, MILTx patients required fewer opioid prescriptions at discharge (38% vs 66%, p = 0.008) and had improved pulmonary function at 3 months (Forced expiratory volume in 1 second 82 [IQR 72-102] vs 77 [IQR 52-88]% predicted; forced vital capacity 78 [IQR 65-92] vs 70 [IQR 62-80]% predicted] (both p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive LTx techniques demonstrate potential advantages over traditional approaches, including reduced ICU and hospital LOS, lower opioid use on discharge, and improved early pulmonary function.

Robotic-assisted lung transplantation: First in man.

Lung transplantation remains the best option for patients with end-stage lung disease. However, this operation has historically carried significant potential morbidity. To improve near-term patient outcomes, attempts have been made to decrease invasiveness, but this is limited by the complex nature of the operation and the anatomy of the chest. To facilitate further reduction in incision size and augment our existing minimally invasive approach, we developed a novel technique utilizing the Da Vinci robotic system to implant a right lung in a 69-year-old recipient.

Heart transplantation in patients from socioeconomically distressed communities.

BACKGROUND: Studies examining heart transplantation disparities have focused on individual factors such as race or insurance status. We characterized the impact of a composite community socioeconomic disadvantage index on heart transplantation outcomes. METHODS: From the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR), we identified 49,340 primary, isolated adult heart transplant candidates and 32,494 recipients (2005-2020). Zip code-level socioeconomic disadvantage was characterized using the Distressed Community Index (DCI: 0-most prosperous, 100-most distressed) based on education, poverty, unemployment, housing vacancies, median income, and business growth. Patients from distressed communities (DCI ≥ 80) were compared to all others. RESULTS: Patients from distressed communities were more often non-white, less educated, and had public insurance (all p < 0.01). Distressed patients were more likely to require ventricular assist devices at listing (29.4 vs 27.1%) and before transplant (44.8 vs 42.0%, both p < 0.001), and they underwent transplants at lower-volume centers (23 vs 26 cases/year, p < 0.01). Distressed patients had higher 1-year waitlist mortality or deterioration (12.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.6-13.0] vs 10.9% [95% CI 10.5-11.3]) and inferior 5-year survival (75.3% [95% CI 74.0-76.5] vs 79.5% [95% CI 79.0-80.0]) (both p < 0.001). After adjustment, living in a distressed community was independently associated with an increased risk of waitlist mortality or deterioration hazard ratio (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.18) and post-transplant mortality (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Patients from socioeconomically distressed communities have worse waitlist and post-transplant mortality. These findings should not be used to limit access to heart transplantation, but rather highlight the need for further studies to elucidate mechanisms underlying the impact of community-level socioeconomic disparity.

Limited cumulative experience with ex vivo lung perfusion is associated with inferior outcomes after lung transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) allows for prolonged preservation and evaluation/resuscitation of donor lungs. We evaluated the influence of center experience with EVLP on lung transplant outcomes. METHODS: We identified 9708 isolated, first-time adult lung transplants from the United Network for Organ Sharing database (March 1, 2018-March 1, 2022), 553 (5.7%) involved using donor lungs after EVLP. Using the total volume of EVLP lung transplants per center during the study period, centers were dichotomized into low- (1-15 cases) and high-volume (>15 cases) EVLP centers. RESULTS: Forty-one centers performed EVLP lung transplants, including 26 low-volume and 15 high-volume centers (median volume, 3 vs 23 cases; P < .001). Recipients at low-volume centers (n = 109) had similar baseline comorbidities compared with high-volume centers (n = 444). Low-volume centers used numerically more donation after circulatory death donors (37.6 vs 28.4%; P = .06) and more donors with Pao2/Fio2 ratio <300 (24.8 vs 9.7%; P < .001). After EVLP lung transplants, low-volume centers had worse 1-year survival (77.8% vs 87.5%; P = .007), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.63 (95% CI, 1.06-2.50, adjusting for recipient age, sex, diagnosis, lung allocation score, donation after circulatory death donor, donor Pao2/Fio2 ratio, and total annual lung transplant volume per center). When compared to non-EVLP lung transplants, 1-year survival of EVLP lung transplants was significantly worse at low-volume centers (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.47-2.97) but similar at high-volume centers (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.82-1.58). CONCLUSIONS: The use of EVLP in lung transplantation remains limited. Increasing cumulative EVLP experience is associated with improved outcomes of lung transplantation using EVLP-perfused allografts.

Bicuspid aortic stenosis: National three-year outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement among Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized trials of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacements have excluded bicuspid anatomy. We compared 3-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients aged more than 65 years with bicuspid aortic stenosis. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid data were used to identify 6450 patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (n = 3771) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 2679) for bicuspid aortic stenosis (2012-2019). Propensity score matching with 21 baseline characteristics including frailty created 797 pairs. RESULTS: Unmatched patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement were older than patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (78 vs 70 years), with more comorbidities and frailty (all P < .001). After matching, transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with a similar mortality risk compared with surgical aortic valve replacement within the first 6 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08, 95% CI, 0.67-1.69) but a higher mortality risk between 6 months and 3 years (HR, 2.16, 95% CI, 1.22-3.83). Additionally, transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with a lower risk of heart failure readmissions before 6 months (HR, 0.51, 95% CI, 0.31-0.87) but a higher risk between 6 months and 3 years (HR, 4.78, 95% CI, 2.21-10.36). The 3-year risks of aortic valve reintervention (HR, 1.03, 95% CI, 0.30-3.56) and stroke (HR, 1.21, 95% CI, 0.75-1.96) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Among matched Medicare beneficiaries undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic stenosis, 3-year mortality was higher after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with a similar risk of mortality and a lower risk of heart failure readmissions during the first 6 months after the intervention. Randomized comparative data are needed to best inform treatment choice.

Preserved 2-y Liver Transplant Outcomes Following Simultaneous Thoracoabdominal DCD Organ Procurement Despite Effects on Liver Utilization Rate.

Background: Current techniques for donation after circulatory determination of death (DCD) heart procurement, through either direct procurement and machine perfusion or thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), have demonstrated excellent heart transplant outcomes. However, the impact of thoracoabdominal DCD (TA-DCD) heart procurement on liver allograft outcomes and utilization is poorly understood. Methods: One hundred sixty simultaneous heart and liver DCD donors were identified using the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database between December 2019 and July 2021. Liver outcomes from TA-DCD donors were stratified by heart procurement technique and evaluated for organ utilization, graft survival, and patient survival. Results were compared with abdominal-only DCD (A-DCD; n = 1332) and donation after brain death (DBD; n = 12 891) liver transplants during the study interval. Kaplan-Meier methods with log-rank testing were used to evaluate patient and graft survival. Results: One hundred thirty-three of 160 livers procured from TA-DCD donors proceeded to transplant. TA-DCD donors were younger (mean 28.26 y; P < 0.0001) with lower body mass index (mean 26.61; P < 0.0001) than A-DCD and DBD donors. TA-DCD livers had equivalent patient survival ( P = 0.893) and superior graft survival (P = 0.009) compared with A-DCD. TA-DCD livers had higher rates of organ discard for long warm ischemia time (37.0%) than A-DCD (20.5%) and DBD (0.5%; P < 0.0001), with direct procurement and machine perfusion procurements leading to a higher discard rate (18.5%) than NRP procurements (7.4%). Conclusions: Liver transplants after TA-DCD donation demonstrated equivalent patient outcomes and excellent graft outcomes. NRP procurements resulted in the lowest rate of organ discard after DCD donation and may represent an optimal strategy to maximize organ utilization.

Lung transplantation outcomes in patients from socioeconomically distressed communities.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated racial and gender disparities in lung allocation, but contemporary data regarding socioeconomic disparities in post-transplant outcomes are lacking. We evaluated the impact of a composite socioeconomic disadvantage index on post-transplant outcomes. METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients identified 27,763 adult patients undergoing isolated primary lung transplantation between 2005 and 2020. Zip code-level socioeconomic distress was characterized using the Distressed Communities Index (DCI: 0-no distress, 100-severe distress) based on education level, poverty, unemployment, housing vacancies, median income, and business growth, and patients were stratified into high (DCI ≥60) or low (DCI <60) distressed groups. RESULTS: Recipients from high-distress communities (n = 8006, 28.8%) were younger (59years [interquartile range {IQR} 50-64] vs 61years [IQR 52-66]), less often white (73 vs 85%), less likely to have a college degree (45 vs 59%), and more likely to have public insurance (57 vs 49%, all p < 0.001) compared to those from low-distress communities. Additionally, high-distress recipients were more likely to have group A diagnoses (32 vs 27%) and undergo bilateral lung transplants (72.4 vs 69.3%, all p < 0.001). Post-transplant survival at 5years was 55.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 54.4-56.9) in high-distress recipients and 58.2% (95% CI: 57.4-58.9) in low-distress recipients (p = 0.003). After adjustment, high distress level was independently associated with an increased risk of 5-year mortality (hazard ratio:1.09, 95% CI:1.04-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Recipients from distressed communities are at increased mortality risk following lung transplantation. Efforts should be focused on increased resource allocation and further study to better understand factors which may mitigate this disparity.

Simultaneous Lung-Kidney Transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous lung-kidney transplantation is rarely performed. Contemporary national practice trends and outcomes are unclear. METHODS: From the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we identified 108 lung-kidney transplant recipients (2005-2022). They were compared with isolated lung recipients with pretransplantation dialysis or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≤30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (n = 372) and isolated non-dialysis-dependent lung recipients with 30 < eGFR < 50 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (n = 1416), respectively. Lung-kidney recipients were also compared with recipients of the contralateral kidney from the same donors (n = 90). RESULTS: Lung-kidney transplantation was performed by 36 centers, with increasing annual volume (1 in 2005, 16 in 2022; P < .01). Forty percent (44/108) of lung-kidney recipients received pretransplantation dialysis, and of those without pretransplantation dialysis, median eGFR was 30.7 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Lung-kidney recipients had improved survival compared with isolated lung recipients with eGFR ≤30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or pretransplantation dialysis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92). However, no survival benefit was observed when lung-kidney recipients were compared with isolated lung recipients with 30 < eGFR < 50 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and no pretransplantation dialysis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55-1.41). Compared with isolated kidney recipients using the contralateral kidney from the same donors, lung-kidney recipients had a higher risk of kidney allograft loss (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.22-8.78), a difference largely accounted for by patient death with a functioning kidney allograft. CONCLUSIONS: Recipients of lung-kidney transplants had improved survival compared with isolated lung recipients with eGFR ≤30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or pretransplantation dialysis. However, lung-kidney recipients had a higher rate of kidney allograft loss than recipients of the contralateral kidney allograft from the same donors.

Risk of prolonged ischemic time linked to use of cardiopulmonary bypass during implantation for lung transplantation in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Some degree of ischemia is inevitable in organ transplantation, and for most, if not all organs, there is a relationship between ischemic time and transplant outcome. The contribution of ischemic time to lung injury is unclear, with conflicting recent data. In this study, we investigate the impact of ischemia time on survival after lung transplantation in a large national cohort. METHODS: We studied the outcomes for 1,565 UK adult lung transplants over a 12-year period, for whom donor, transplant, and recipient data were available from the UK Transplant Registry. We examined the effect of ischemia time (defined as donor cross-clamp to recipient reperfusion) and whether standard cardiopulmonary bypass was used using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for other risk factors. RESULTS: The total ischemic time increased from a median under 5 hours in 2003 to over 6.2 hours in 2013. Our findings show that, when the cardiopulmonary bypass was used, there was an increase in the hazard of death (of 13% [95% CI: 5%-21%] for 1-year patient survival) for each hour of total ischemic time. However, if the cardiopulmonary bypass was not used for implantation, this link disappeared-there was no statistically significant change in mortality with increasing ischemic time. CONCLUSIONS: We document that avoidance of bypass may remove ischemic time, within the limits of our observed range of ischemic times, as a risk factor for poor outcomes. Our data add to the evidence that bypass may be harmful to the donor lung.

A national pilot of donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplantation within the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom (UK) was one of the first countries to pioneer heart transplantation from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors. To facilitate equity of access to DCD hearts by all UK heart transplant centers and expand the retrieval zone nationwide, a Joint Innovation Fund (JIF) pilot was provided by NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) and NHS England (NHSE). The activity and outcomes of this national DCD heart pilot program are reported. METHODS: This is a national multi-center, retrospective cohort study examining early outcomes of DCD heart transplants performed across 7 heart transplant centers, adult and pediatric, throughout the UK. Hearts were retrieved using the direct procurement and perfusion (DPP) technique by 3 specialist retrieval teams trained in ex-situ normothermic machine perfusion. Outcomes were compared against DCD heart transplants before the national pilot era and against contemporaneous donation after brain death (DBD) heart transplants, and analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, chi-square test, and Wilcoxon's rank-sum. RESULTS: From September 7, 2020 to February 28, 2022, 215 potential DCD hearts were offered of which 98 (46%) were accepted and attended. There were 77 potential donors (36%) which proceeded to death within 2 hours, with 57 (27%) donor hearts successfully retrieved and perfused ex situ and 50 (23%) DCD hearts going on to be transplanted. During this same period, 179 DBD hearts were transplanted. Overall, there was no difference in the 30-day survival rate between DCD and DBD (94% vs 93%) or 90 day survival (90% vs 90%) respectively. There was a higher rate of ECMO use post-DCD heart transplants compared to DBD (40% vs 16%, p = 0.0006), and DCD hearts in the pre pilot era, (17%, p = 0.002). There was no difference in length of ICU stay (9 DCD vs 8 days DBD, p = 0.13) nor hospital stay (28 DCD vs 27 DBD days, p = 0.46). CONCLUSION: During this pilot study, 3 specialist retrieval teams were able to retrieve DCD hearts nationally for all 7 UK heart transplant centers. DCD donors increased overall heart transplantation in the UK by 28% with equivalent early posttransplant survival compared with DBD donors.

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.

Donation after circulatory death heart procurement strategy impacts utilization and outcomes of concurrently procured abdominal organs.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart procurement techniques on the utilization and outcomes of concurrently procured DCD livers and kidneys remains unclear. METHODS: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we identified 246 DCD donors whose heart was procured using direct procurement and ex-situ machine perfusion and 128 DCD donors whose heart was procured using in-situ thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (12/2019-03/2022). We evaluated the transplantation rate of concurrently procured DCD livers and kidneys (defined as the number of organs transplanted/total number of organs available for procurement) and their post-transplant outcomes. RESULTS: The transplantation rate of concurrently procured DCD livers was higher with in-situ perfusion compared to direct procurement (67.1% vs 56.5%, p = 0.045). After excluding pediatric, multiorgan, and repeat transplant recipients, there was no difference in 6-month liver graft failure rate (direct procurement 0.9% vs in-situ perfusion 0%, p > 0.99). Recipients of kidneys procured with in-situ perfusion had less delayed graft function (11.3% vs 41.5%, p < 0.0001) shorter length of stay, and lower serum creatinine at discharge (both p < 0.05). Six-month recipient survival in the direct procurement and in-situ perfusion group were similar after DCD liver and kidney transplantation (p = 0.24 and 0.79 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to direct procurement, DCD heart procurement with in-situ thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion was associated with increased utilization of DCD livers and a lower incidence of delayed graft function in concurrently procured DCD kidneys. Broader implementation of DCD heart transplantation must maximize the transplant potential of concurrently procured abdominal organs and ensure their successful outcomes.

Heart retransplant recipients with renal dysfunction benefit from simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Given ongoing donor shortages, appropriate patient selection for dual-organ transplantation is critical. We evaluated outcomes of heart retransplant with simultaneous kidney transplant (HRT-KT) vs isolated heart retransplant (HRT) across varying levels of renal dysfunction. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database identified 1189 adult patients undergoing heart retransplantation between 2005 and 2020. Recipients undergoing HRT-KT (n = 251) were compared to those undergoing HRT (n = 938). The primary outcome was 5-year survival; subgroup analyses and multivariable adjustment were performed utilizing the following 3 estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) groups: <30 ml/min/1.73m2, 30-45 ml/min/1.73m2, and >45 ml/min/1.73m2. RESULTS: HRT-KT recipients were older and had longer waitlist times, longer inter-transplant periods, and lower eGFR levels. HRT-KT recipients were less likely to require pretransplant ventilator (1.2% vs 9.0%, p < 0.001) or ECMO (2.0% vs 8.3%, p < 0.001) support but were more likely to have severe functional limitation (63.4% vs 52.6%, p = 0.001). After retransplantation, HRT-KT recipients had less treated acute rejection (5.2% vs 9.3%, p = 0.02) and more dialysis requirement (29.1% vs 20.2%, p < 0.001) before discharge. Survival at 5-years was 69.1% after HRT and 80.5% after HRT-KT (p < 0.001). After adjustment, HRT-KT was associated with improved 5-year survival among recipients with eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73m2 (HR:0.42, 95% CI: 0.26-0.67) and 30 to 45 ml/min/1.73m2 (HR:0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.65), but not among those with eGFR>45 ml/min/1.73sm2 (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.30-1.54). CONCLUSION: Simultaneous kidney transplantation is associated with improved survival following heart retransplantation in patients with eGFR <45 ml/min/1.73m2 and should be strongly considered to optimize organ allocation stewardship.