The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT): 2024 infection definitions for durable and acute mechanical circulatory support devices.

Infections remain a significant concern in patients receiving mechanical circulatory support (MCS), encompassing both durable and acute devices. This consensus manuscript provides updated definitions for infections associated with durable MCS devices and new definitions for infections in acute MCS, integrating a comprehensive review of existing literature and collaborative discussions among multidisciplinary specialists. By establishing consensus definitions, we seek to enhance clinical care, facilitate consistent reporting in research studies, and ultimately improve outcomes for patients receiving MCS.

Does lung procurement and exposure to Perfadex impact heart transplantation outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Some studies have shown increased incidence of Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) after heart and lung procurement for heart transplant recipients. There have been limited investigations of the impact of lung procurement on heart procurement and the potential effects of the exposure to the type of lung preservation solution, the volume of the lung preservation solution and adequacy of decompression of the heart during heart and lung procurement and the impact on heart transplant outcomes. METHODS: Adult heart transplant recipients in the UNOS database recorded from January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2022 formed the study cohort. Any heart that was procured with a lung team that utilized Perfadex preservation solution (XVIVO, Gothenburg, Sweden) was classified as exposed to Perfadex and otherwise classified as not exposed to Perfadex. Lung procurements performed with a preservation solution other than Perfadex or unknown were excluded (n = 2486). Simple comparisons were made with t-tests or chi-squared tests. Logistic regression models were used to predict 30 day and 1 year survival. Accelerated failure time models were employed to analyze time to death and time to rejection. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 34 192 heart transplants, of which 21 928 donors were not exposed to Perfadex (64.1%). There were statistically, but not clinically, significant differences in donor characteristics for these groups including in donor age (33.34 ± 11.01 not exposed vs. 30.70 ± 10.69 exposed; p < .001), diabetic donor (4% not exposed vs. 3% exposed; p = .004), and ischemic time (3.28 ± 1.09 h not exposed vs. 3.24 ± 1.05 h exposed; p = .002). In adjusted models, for all included donors, Perfadex exposure was associated with increased short term mortality, but no long term difference (1 year mortality OR 1.10, p = .014). CONCLUSION: Perfadex exposure was associated with increased short-term mortality for heart transplant recipients. Mechanistic investigation is warranted.

Impact of controlled hypothermic preservation on outcomes following heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) is a major cause of early mortality after heart transplant, but the impact of donor organ preservation conditions on severity of PGD and survival has not been well characterized. METHODS: Data from US adult heart-transplant recipients in the Global Utilization and Registry Database for Improved Heart Preservation-Heart Registry (NCT04141605) were analyzed to quantify PGD severity, mortality, and associated risk factors. The independent contributions of organ preservation method (traditional ice storage vs controlled hypothermic preservation) and ischemic time were analyzed using propensity matching and logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 1,061 US adult heart transplants performed between October 2015 and December 2022, controlled hypothermic preservation was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of severe PGD compared to ice (6.6% [37/559] vs 10.4% [47/452], p = 0.039). Following propensity matching, severe PGD was reduced by 50% (6.0% [17/281] vs 12.1% [34/281], respectively; p = 0.018). The Kaplan-Meier terminal probability of 1-year mortality was 4.2% for recipients without PGD, 7.2% for mild or moderate PGD, and 32.1%, for severe PGD (p < 0.001). The probability of severe PGD increased for both cohorts with longer ischemic time, but donor hearts stored on ice were more likely to develop severe PGD at all ischemic times compared to controlled hypothermic preservation. CONCLUSIONS: Severe PGD is the deadliest complication of heart transplantation and is associated with a 7.8-fold increase in probability of 1-year mortality. Controlled hypothermic preservation significantly attenuates the risk of severe PGD and is a simple yet highly effective tool for mitigating post-transplant morbidity.

Veno-venous ECLS rescue for a heart transplant recipient with COVID-19, a case report.

The potential for increased rates of morbidity of SARS-CoV-2 within immunocompromised populations has been of concern since the pandemic's onset. Transplant providers and patients can face particularly challenging situations, in the current settings as data continues to emerge for the prevention and treatment of the immunocompromised subpopulation. This case report details a patient 9-months post orthotopic heart transplant that developed SARS-CoV-2 infection despite two prior doses of the Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine, and had successful rescue from refractory hypoxemia with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECLS).

Do outcomes for heart transplantation differ based on donor and recipient race?

PURPOSE: There are limited data examining the impact of both donor and recipient race on outcomes following orthotopic heart transplant (OHT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between donor and recipient race and OHT outcomes. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was retrospectively reviewed from January 2000 to March 2018 for donor hearts. A comparison was conducted based on donor and recipient race (White, Black, Hispanic, Other/Unknown). Races for which there were limited numbers were excluded from the analysis (Asian, n = 1292; American Indian, n = 132; Pacific Islander, n = 132, Multiple ethnicities, n = 225). The primary endpoint was survival at 30 days, 1 year survival, and post-transplant rejection. Logistic and Cox models were used to quantify survival endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 41 841 OHT were included. Of the recipients, 29 894 (71%) were White, 8475 (20%) were Black, and 3472 (8%) were Hispanic. Of the donors 27 783 (66%) were White, 6277 (15%) were Black, 6576 (16%) were Hispanic, and 1205 (3%) were Unknown/Other race. In a comparison of recipient demographics, White recipients were older (54.09 ± 12.21 years) compared to Black (49.44 ± 12.83 years) and Hispanic (49.97 ± 13.27 years) recipients. All other differences between groups were not clinically significant. Black recipients were more likely to receive a heart with an "urgent" status (probability .80) compared to White (.73) and Hispanic (.75) recipients (p < .001). Hispanic recipients were more likely to receive a transplant when listed as "non-urgent" (Probability .47) compared to White (.37) and Black (.30) recipients (p < .001). In terms of outcomes, compared to White recipients, Hispanic patients experienced a decreased 30-day survival (OR 1.27; p = .011) and 1-year survival (OR 1.17; p = .016). In comparing Donor/Recipient combinations compared to a White Donor/White Recipient combination, overall survival was decreased in White donor/African American recipient (HR 1.36; p < .001), African American donor/African American recipient (HR 1.41; p < .001) and Hispanic donor/African American recipient (HR 1.30; p < .001) combinations (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: African American and Hispanic recipients have decreased survival compared to White recipients after heart transplant. The African American donor does not decrease survival. Racial differences still exist in donor and recipient characteristics and recipient outcomes after OHT. Increasing the donor pool for all races and ethnicities would potentially benefit all recipients. Continued study is warranted in order to minimize these differences among recipients and identify factors that could be contributing to decreased survival, in order to optimize outcomes for African American and Hispanic recipients post-transplant and eliminate disparities.

Acute complication posttransplant: primary allograft dysfunction.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Heart transplant is the gold standard treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure, improving both quality of life and survival. Despite advances in donor and recipient management, primary graft dysfunction (PGD) remains the most common cause of morbidity and mortality in the early posttransplant period. This review summarizes recent discoveries in the underlying pathophysiology, risk prediction and management of PGD. RECENT FINDINGS: The incidence of PGD appears to be rising and it is not clear whether this is due to better recognition or secular changes in transplant practice. The utilization of donation after circulatory death organs for transplant is a further consideration for the development of PGD. Organ transport systems and preservation techniques may help to prevent PGD. As some of the risk factors for developing PGD remain modifiable, we summarize the current evidence for prevention and management of PGD. SUMMARY: A better understanding will allow us to appropriately manage donors and recipients to reduce the complex interactions that lead to PGD. The development of an international consortium provides the opportunity for deep phenotyping and development of contemporary risk prediction models for PGD, which may reduce the incidence and consequent early mortality associated with heart transplantation.

A Paradigm Shift in Heart Preservation: Improved Post-transplant Outcomes in Recipients of Donor Hearts Preserved With the SherpaPak System.

Traditional ice storage has been the historic standard for preserving donor's hearts. However, this approach provides variability in cooling, increasing risks of freezing injury. To date, no preservation technology has been reported to improve survival after transplantation. The Paragonix SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System (SCTS) is a controlled hypothermic technology clinically used since 2018. Real-world evidence on clinical benefits of SCTS compared to conventional ice cold storage (ICS) was evaluated. Between October 2015 and January 2022, 569 US adults receiving donor hearts preserved and transported either in SCTS (n = 255) or ICS (n = 314) were analyzed from the Global Utilization And Registry Database for Improved heArt preservatioN (GUARDIAN-Heart) registry. Propensity matching and a subgroup analysis of >240 minutes ischemic time were performed to evaluate comparative outcomes. Overall, the SCTS cohort had significantly lower rates of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) ( p = 0.03). When propensity matched, SCTS had improving 1-year survival ( p = 0.10), significantly lower rates of severe PGD ( p = 0.011), and lower overall post-transplant MCS utilization ( p = 0.098). For patients with ischemic times >4 hours, the SCTS cohort had reduced post-transplant MCS utilization ( p = 0.01), reduced incidence of severe PGD ( p = 0.005), and improved 30-day survival ( p = 0.02). A multivariate analysis of independent risk factors revealed that compared to SCTS, use of ice results in a 3.4-fold greater chance of severe PGD ( p = 0.014). Utilization of SCTS is associated with a trend toward increased post-transplant survival and significantly lower severe PGD and MCS utilization. These findings fundamentally challenge the decades-long status quo of transporting donor hearts using ice.

Positive donor blood cultures are not associated with worse heart transplant survival.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence has demonstrated that transplantation of hearts with blood culture positive donors (BCPDs) to pediatric recipients is safe and effective. Few studies have analyzed the effect of BCPD on adult heart transplant recipients. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was retrospectively reviewed from September, 1987 to March, 2021. Exclusion criteria included pediatric donors/recipients, donor ejection fraction <10% or >85%, inactive listed recipients, donors missing blood cultures, and recipients missing follow-up time. Outcomes were compared with fully adjusted logistic models. To account for discrepancies in BCPD and non-BCPD covariates, an inverse proportionally weighted model with regression adjustment (IPWRA) was used. RESULTS: A total of 60 592 donors were non-BCPD, while 4009 were BCPD. 7% of hearts not transplanted were BCPD, while 6% of hearts transplanted were BCPD (p = .001). These rates have been nearly constant since 2005. There were no differences in short term survival between the two groups in the adjusted or IPWRA models (p = .103 and .277, respectively). Additionally, the BCPD group had longer ischemic time (3.24 vs. 3.06 h, p < .001), older donor age (32.73 vs. 31.65 years, p < .001), and older recipient age (52.76 vs. 52.09 years, p = .001). The IPWRA revealed an average additional 3.4 years of overall survival and 2.25 years of graft function for BCPD versus non-BCPD recipients, although these results failed to reach statistical significance (p = .387 and .527, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Given the need for more donor hearts, donors with positive blood cultures should be considered. Great care in evaluating such patients is advised to eliminate donors with untreated infections, while carefully selected donors can be considered and used.

Do vasoactive medications impact donor hearts clinical outcomes in pediatric heart transplantation?

OBJECTIVES: There is limited data examining donor vasopressor and/or inotrope medications (vasoactives) on pediatric orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) outcomes. We aim to evaluate the effects of vasoactives on pediatric OHT outcomes. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was retrospectively reviewed from January 2000 to March 2018 for donor hearts. Exclusion criteria included multiorgan transplants and recipient age >18. Donors receiving vasoactives at the time of procurement were compared to donors not on vasoactives, including the number of vasoactives and the type. End-points of interest were survival at 30 days and 1 year as well as post-transplant rejection at 1 year. Logistic and Cox models were used to quantify survival end-points. RESULTS: Of 6462 donors, 3187 (49.3%) were receiving at least one vasoactive. Comparing any vasoactive medication versus none, there was no difference in 30-day survival (p = .27), 1 year survival (p = .89), overall survival (p = .68), or post-transplant rejection (p = .98). There was no difference in 30-day survival for donors receiving 2 or more vasoactive infusions (p = .89), 1 year survival (p = .53), overall survival (p = .75), or post-transplant rejection at 1 year (p = .87). Vasopressin was associated with decreased 30-day mortality (OR = 0.22; p = .028), dobutamine with decreased 1-year mortality (OR = 0.37; p = .036), overall survival (HR = 0.51; p = .003), and decreased post-transplant rejection (HR = 0.63; p = .012). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in pediatric OHT outcomes when the cardiac donor is treated with vasoactive infusions at procurement. Vasopressin and dobutamine were associated with improved outcomes. This information can be used to guide medical management and donor selection.

Does donor treatment with inotropes and/or vasopressors impact post-transplant outcomes?

PURPOSE: The purpose was to evaluate the effects of the most commonly used cardiac donor inotropes/vasopressors on subsequent post-heart transplant survival. METHODS: Adult heart transplant recipients from January 2000 to June 2022 were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. Exclusion criteria included: multiorgan transplants, donor age < 15, and recipient age < 18. Donors receiving vasoactive medications at the time of procurement were compared to donors not receiving these medications. Those on vasoactive medications were stratified by medication: phenylephrine, dopamine, dobutamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine, the combination of these agents, and the concomitant administration of vasopressin with any single agent alone or in combination. The primary area of interest was short-and-long-term survival. Survival at 30 days, 1 year, and long-term (Median = 13.6 years) was compared using logistic and Cox models to quantify survival endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 45,198 donors met inclusion criteria and had data on the use of vasoactive agents available. Mean donor age was 32.3 years with 71% male. Vasoactive medications and potential combinations included phenylephrine in 8156 donors (18.0%), dopamine in 9550 (21.1%), dobutamine in 718 (1.6%), epinephrine in 332 (.73%), and norepinephrine in 4854 (10.7%). A total of 25,856 donors (57.2%) were receiving vasopressin at the time of procurement. There was no impact of donor inotropes on 30-day survival. Donors receiving one inotrope and no vasopressin were associated with increased 1 year mortality (OR 1.14; p = .021), as were donors receiving 2+ inotropes and no vasopressin (OR 1.26; p = .006). For individual agents, 1 year mortality was increased for dopamine (OR 1.11; p = .042) and epinephrine (OR 1.59; p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in heart transplant recipient survival at 30 days when the donor is receiving inotropes without vasopressin at the time of procurement. Inotropic support without vasopressin is associated with greater 1 year mortality. The impact of donor inotropic support on long term heart transplant survival, and the interaction with vasopressin warrants further study.

Multicenter Registry Using Propensity Score Analysis to Compare a Novel Transport/Preservation System to Traditional Means on Postoperative Hospital Outcomes and Costs for Heart Transplant Patients.

The standard method for cardiac allograft preservation for the past 50 years has been static storage using crushed ice. A heart transplant transportation system designed to improve preservation quality with temperature monitoring, the Paragonix SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System (SCTS), was evaluated for its impact on postoperative costs relative to conventional ice storage. Observational US multicenter registry data collected during the August 2015 to November 2021 timeframe from 12 transplant hospitals were analyzed using logistic regression analysis and propensity matching to balance measured baseline covariates and to reduce selection bias. Hospital cost and outcome data post-transplant were then evaluated using various statistical methods. One hundred seventy-four (174) patients were identified resulting in 87 matches. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The SCTS group had a significantly lower proportion of ICU days on post-transplant mechanical circulatory support ( p < 0.0001); significantly fewer patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ( p = 0.017); and significantly fewer patients experiencing severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) ( p = 0.03). Overall hospital plus mechanical circulatory support post-transplant costs were significantly lower by $26.7K in the CTS cohort ( p = 0.03). Use of the SCTS is associated with improved clinical outcomes resulting in significantly lower overall hospital care costs.

Donor heart selection: Evidence-based guidelines for providers.

The proposed donor heart selection guidelines provide evidence-based and expert-consensus recommendations for the selection of donor hearts following brain death. These recommendations were compiled by an international panel of experts based on an extensive literature review.

Pre-emptive intraoperative administration of PCC4 in cardiac surgery patients at high risk of bleeding: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Four-factor prothrombin complex (PCC4), a concentrate of factors II, VII, IX, and X and proteins C and S, has been used selectively for reversal of oral anticoagulation before surgery. There is data to support PCC4 as opposed to supplemental fresh frozen plasma (FFP) to manage postoperative bleeding following cardiac surgery. The preemptive, intraoperative use of PCC4 in cardiothoracic surgery has not been studied though it may prevent postoperative bleeding, the need for blood transfusion and the risk of transfusion-related acute lung injury, volume overload, and right ventricular (RV) heart failure. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the intraoperative administration of PCC4 to decrease bleeding and lower the rate of blood transfusion. METHODS: A single institution retrospective chart review was conducted from May 2020 to November 2021 of patients who received PCC4 intraoperatively during cardiothoracic surgery of high-risk variety. Patients were evaluated for the type of surgery, demographics, baseline anticoagulation, PCC4 dose, type and quantity of blood transfusion within 72 hours (h) postoperatively, chest tube output, the incidence of RV failure, hypersensitivity reactions, acute kidney injury (AKI), thrombosis, acute lung injury, and mortality within 45 days of the operative dose of PCC4. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients received PCC4 at a mean dose of 2920 units (U). Sixty-five percent of cases were left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) or heart transplants. The protocol is to use PCC4 30 units (U)/kg immediately after the completion of protamine administration. Inclusion criteria are cardiothoracic surgery with increased risk of postoperative right heart failure commonly secondary to blood product transfusion, or cardiothoracic surgery associated with increased risk of bleeding, including heart transplant, LVAD implant, aortic dissection, and redo sternotomy (e.g., coronary artery bypass). Total chest tube output was recorded as a mean of 757 ml for 24 h after surgery (32 ml/h). Overall median event rates of FFP and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions were 0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0-3 U) and 4 (IQR: 2-5 U). Overall, 43% and 89% of cases received FFP and RBC, respectively. There was one occurrence of RV failure, one occurrence of AKI requiring renal replacement therapy, one occurrence of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, one occurrence of venous thromboembolism related to a central venous access line, and one death unrelated to surgery or PCC4 that was attributed to advanced heart failure not amenable to advanced therapies. CONCLUSION: Overall patients received a low rate of blood transfusion, had minimal chest tube output, and there was a small incidence of right heart failure. Patients did not have an increased risk of adverse effects such as AKI or venous thromboembolism. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the observed dose and timing of PCC4 versus routine postoperative bleeding management with blood product transfusion is recommended.