Improved immunogenicity following the third dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in heart transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVES: The immunogenicity of two-dose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine is lower among heart transplant (HTx) recipients, compared with the general population. Our aim was to assess the immunogenicity of a third-dose vaccine in HTx recipients. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of HTx recipients who received a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Immunogenicity was assessed by serum levels of anti-spike immunoglobulin G (S-IgG), taken at baseline and 14-28 days after the third dose. Titres above 50 U/ml were interpreted positive. RESULTS: We Included 42 HTx recipients at a median age of 65 years [interquartile range (IQR) 58-70]. At baseline, the median of 27 days (IQR 13-42) before the third dose and the median titre of the whole group was 18 U/ml (IQR 4-130). Only 14 patients (33%) were S-IgG seropositive. After the third dose, the proportion of seropositive patients increased significantly to 57% (P = 0.05) and the median titre increased significantly to 633 U/ml (IQR 7-6104, P < 0.0001). Younger age at HTx (OR per 1-year decrease 1.07, P = 0.05), low tacrolimus serum level (OR per 1-unit decrease 2.28, P = 0.02), mammalian target of rapamycin use (OR 13.3, P = 0.003), lack of oral steroids use (OR 4.17, P = 0.04) and lack of calcineurin inhibitor use (71% of responders vs 100% non-responders received calcineurin inhibitors, P = 0.01) were predictors of seropositive result after the third dose. However, no significant association was detected following adjustment for baseline S-IgG titre. CONCLUSIONS: Third-dose booster of BNT162b2 vaccine significantly increased immunogenicity among HTx recipients who previously received a two-dose vaccine.

Six-months immunogenicity of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in heart transplanted and ventricle assist device-supported patients.

AIMS: To assess the 6 months immunogenicity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccine in a population of heart transplanted (HTx) recipients and left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-supported patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective single-centre cohort study of HTx recipients and LVAD-supported patients who received a two-dose SARSCoV-2 mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech). Whole blood for anti-spike IgG (S-IgG) antibodies were drawn at 6 months after the first vaccine dose. S-IgG data at 6 weeks were available for a subgroup of HTx recipients. S-IgG ≥ 50 AU/mL were interpreted positive. The cohort included 53 HTx recipients and 18 LVAD-supported patients. The median time from HTx or LVAD implantation to the 1st vaccine dose was 90 (IQR 30, 172) months and 22 (IQR 6, 78) months, respectively. The seropositivity rates of S-IgG antibodies and their titre levels in HTx recipients and LVAD-supported patients were 45% and 83% respectively, (P = 0.006), and 35 (IQR 7, 306) AU/mL and 311 (IQR 86, 774) AU/mL, respectively, (P = 0.006). Reduced SARSCoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity in HTx recipients was associated with older age [odds ratio (OR) 0.917 confidence interval (CI 0.871, 0.966), P = 0.011] and with the use of anti-metabolites-based immunosuppressive regimens [OR 0.224 (CI 0.065, 0.777), P = 0.018]. mTOR inhibitors were associated with higher immunogenicity [OR 3.1 (CI 1.01, 9.65), P = 0.048]. Out of 13 HTx recipients who were S-IgG seropositive at 6 weeks after the first vaccine dose, 85% remained S-IgG seropositive at 6 month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: At 6 months post-vaccination, S-IgG immunogenicity in HTx recipients is low, particularly in older HTx recipients and in those treated with anti-metabolites drugs.

HFA of the ESC position paper on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 3: at the hospital and discharge.

The growing population of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-supported patients increases the probability of an LVAD- supported patient hospitalized in the internal or surgical wards with certain expected device related, and patient-device interaction complication as well as with any other comorbidities requiring hospitalization. In this third part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the hospitalized LVAD-supported patient are presented including blood pressure assessment, medical therapy of the LVAD supported patient, and challenges related to anaesthesia and non-cardiac surgical interventions. Finally, important aspects to consider when discharging an LVAD patient home and palliative and end-of-life approaches are described.

Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology position paper on the management of left ventricular assist device-supported patients for the non-left ventricular assist device specialist healthcare provider: Part 2: at the emergency department.

The improvement in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology and scarcity of donor hearts have increased dramatically the population of the LVAD-supported patients and the probability of those patients to present to the emergency department with expected and non-expected device-related and patient-device interaction complications. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the 'destination therapy' indication, increases the risk for those patients to suffer from other co-morbidities common in the older population. In this second part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the LVAD-supported patient presenting to the emergency department with bleeding, neurological event, pump thrombosis, chest pain, syncope, and other events are presented. The very challenging issue of declaring death in an LVAD-supported patient, as the circulation is artificially preserved by the device despite no other signs of life, is also discussed in detail.

HFA of the ESC Position paper on the management of LVAD supported patients for the non LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 1: Introduction and at the non-hospital settings in the community.

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of the LVAD-supported patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD-supported patients. The expected and non-expected device-related and patient-device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of the LVAD implanting centres. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the 'destination therapy' indication, increases the risk for those patients to experience comorbidities common in the older population. The probability of an LVAD-supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local emergency department, internal, or surgical ward of a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this trilogy is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician: ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, internists, anaesthesiologists, and surgeons, to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD-supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually to the discharge home from the hospital back to the general practitioner. In this first part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, after the introduction on the assist devices technology in general, definitions and structured approach to the assessment of the LVAD-supported patient in the ambulance and emergency department is presented including cardiopulmonary resuscitation for LVAD-supported patients.

Guidance on the management of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider: executive summary.

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD supported patients. Device-related, and patient-device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of LVAD implanting centres. The probability of an LVAD supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local ambulance team, emergency department medical team and internal or surgical wards in a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this paper is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician - ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, and internists - to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department, and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually back to the general practitioner.

Immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in heart transplant recipients - a prospective cohort study.

AIMS: To assess the short-term immunogenicity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccine in a population of heart transplant (HTx) recipients. A prospective single-centre cohort study of HTx recipients who received a two-dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech). METHODS AND RESULTS: Whole blood for anti-spike IgG (S-IgG) antibodies was drawn at days 21-26 and at days 35-40 after the first vaccine dose. Geometric mean titres (GMT) ≥50 AU/mL were interpreted positive. Included were 42 HTx recipients at a median age of 61 [interquartile range (IQR) 44-69] years. Median time from HTx to the first vaccine dose was 9.1 (IQR 2.6-14) years. Only 15% of HTx recipients demonstrated the presence of positive S-IgG antibody titres in response to the first vaccine dose [GMT 90 (IQR 54-229) AU/mL]. Overall, 49% of HTx recipients induced S-IgG antibodies in response to either the first or the full two-dose vaccine schedule [GMT 426 (IQR 106-884) AU/mL]. Older age [68 (IQR 59-70) years vs. 46 (IQR 34-63) years, P = 0.034] and anti-metabolite-based immunosuppression protocols (89% vs. 44%, P = 0.011) were associated with low immunogenicity. Importantly, 36% of HTx recipients who were non-responders to the first vaccine dose became S-IgG seropositive in response to the second vaccine dose. Approximately a half of HTx recipients did not generate S-IgG antibodies following SARS-CoV-2 two-dose vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: The generally achieved protection from SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination should be regarded with caution in the population of HTx recipients. The possible benefit of additive vaccine should be further studied.

Health-related quality of life in left ventricular assist device-supported patients.

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the different health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) aspects in patients with both short-term and long-term duration LVAD support at pre-specified time intervals. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a single-centre HR-QoL analysis of short-term and long-term LVAD-supported patients using the short version of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12) and the Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire along with a survey to evaluate patients' social and driving routines. Data were collected at baseline and at 6 or 12 month follow-up. Included were 46 patients with a median time from LVAD implantation of 1.1 [inter-quartile range (IQR) 0.5, 2.6] years. The median KCCQ-12 summary score was 56 (IQR 29, 74) with most favourable scores in the symptom frequency domain [75 (IQR 50, 92)] and worse scores in the physical limitation [42 (IQR 25, 75)] and QoL [44 (IQR 25, 75)] domains. No significant changes were apparent during study follow-up [KCCQ-12 summary score 56 (IQR 35, 80)], and no significant correlation between the KCCQ-12 summary score and ventricular assist device-support duration was detected (r = -0.036, P = 0.812). Sexual dysfunction was noted across all domains with a cumulative score of 31 (IQR 22, 42). Seventy-six per cent of patients resumed driving after LVAD implantation, and 43% of patients reported they socialize with family and friends more frequently since surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term and long-term LVAD-supported patients had impaired HR-QoL and sexual function at baseline and at follow-up yet reported an improvement in social interactions and independency. A broader spectrum of patient's reported HR-QoL measures should be integrated into the pre-LVAD implantation assessment and preparation.