Role of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to Create Predictors, Enhance Molecular Understanding, and Implement Purposeful Programs for Myocardial Recovery.

Heart failure (HF) affects millions of individuals and causes hundreds of thousands of deaths each year in the United States. Despite the public health burden, medical and device therapies for HF significantly improve clinical outcomes and, in a subset of patients, can cause reversal of abnormalities in cardiac structure and function, termed "myocardial recovery." By identifying novel patterns in high-dimensional data, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) algorithms can enhance the identification of key predictors and molecular drivers of myocardial recovery. Emerging research in the area has begun to demonstrate exciting results that could advance the standard of care. Although major obstacles remain to translate this technology to clinical practice, AI and ML hold the potential to usher in a new era of purposeful myocardial recovery programs based on precision medicine. In this review, we discuss applications of ML to the prediction of myocardial recovery, potential roles of ML in elucidating the mechanistic basis underlying recovery, barriers to the implementation of ML in clinical practice, and areas for future research.

Added prognostic value of visually estimated coronary artery calcium among heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac hybrid positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) has become a valid screening modality for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) following heart transplantation (HT). Visually estimated coronary artery calcium (VECAC) can be quantified from CT images obtained as part of PET/CT and has been shown to be associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes in coronary artery disease. We investigated the prognostic value of VECAC following HT. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 430 consecutive adult HT patients who underwent 13N-ammonia cardiac PET/CT from 2016 to 2019 with follow-up through October 15, 2022, was performed. VECAC categories included: VECAC 0, VECAC 1-9, VECAC 10-99, and VECAC 100+. The association between VECAC categories and outcomes was assessed using univariable and multivariable proportional hazards regression. The primary outcome was death/retransplantation. RESULTS: The cohort was 73% male, 33% had diabetes, 67% had estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min, median age was 61 years, and median time since HT was 7.5 years. VECAC alone was insufficiently sensitive to screen for CAV. During a median follow-up of 4.2 years ninety patients experienced death or retransplantation. Compared with those with VECAC 0, patients VECAC 10-99 (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.23-4.14, p = 0.009) and VECAC 100+ (HR 3.42, 95% CI 1.96-5.99, p < 0.001) experienced an increased risk of death/retransplantation. The association was similar for cardiovascular death and cardiovascular hospitalization. After adjusting for other predictors of death/retransplantation, VECAC 10-99 (VECAC 10-99: aHR 1.95, 95% CI 1.03-3.71 p = 0.04) and VECAC 100+ (VECAC 100+: aHR 2.33, 95% CI 1.17-4.63, p = 0.02) remained independently associated with death/retransplantation. CONCLUSIONS: VECAC is an independent prognostic marker of death/retransplantation following HT and merits inclusion as a part of post-HT surveillance PET/CT.

Validation of the HeartMate 3 survival risk score in a large left ventricular assist device center.

OBJECTIVE: The HeartMate 3 survival risk score was recently validated in the Multicenter study Of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 to predict patient-specific survival in HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device candidates. The HeartMate 3 survival risk score stratifies individuals into tertiles according to survival probability. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device recipients between September 2017 and August 2022. Baseline characteristics were collected from the electronic medical records. HeartMate 3 survival risk scores were calculated for all eligible patients. One- and 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were conducted. A univariate and multivariable Cox regression model was used to identify predictors. RESULTS: A total of 181 patients were included in this final analysis. The median age was 62 years, 83% were male, and 26% were Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Profile 1. The mean HeartMate 3 survival risk score for the entire cohort was 2.66 ± 0.66. Two-year survivals in the high, average, and low survival groups were 93.5% ± 3.2%, 81.6% ± 7.4%, and 82.0% ± 6.6%, respectively. As a continuous variable, the unadjusted HeartMate 3 survival risk score was a significant predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.08-4.45; P = .029). The areas under the curve were 0.70 and 0.66 at 1 and 2 years, respectively. We were unable to demonstrate the discriminatory ability of the HeartMate 3 survival risk score using the original stratification, but we found significantly increased survival in the high survival group using a binary cutoff (hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.01-20.9; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: The unadjusted HeartMate 3 survival risk score was associated with postimplant survival in patients outside of the Multicenter study Of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 but did not remain an independent predictor after adjusting for ischemic etiology and severe diabetes. The HeartMate 3 survival risk score was able to identify patients at high survival using a binary cutoff, but we were unable to demonstrate its discriminatory ability among the previously published risk tertiles.

Deep learning to detect left ventricular structural abnormalities in chest X-rays.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Early identification of cardiac structural abnormalities indicative of heart failure is crucial to improving patient outcomes. Chest X-rays (CXRs) are routinely conducted on a broad population of patients, presenting an opportunity to build scalable screening tools for structural abnormalities indicative of Stage B or worse heart failure with deep learning methods. In this study, a model was developed to identify severe left ventricular hypertrophy (SLVH) and dilated left ventricle (DLV) using CXRs. METHODS: A total of 71 589 unique CXRs from 24 689 different patients completed within 1 year of echocardiograms were identified. Labels for SLVH, DLV, and a composite label indicating the presence of either were extracted from echocardiograms. A deep learning model was developed and evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Performance was additionally validated on 8003 CXRs from an external site and compared against visual assessment by 15 board-certified radiologists. RESULTS: The model yielded an AUROC of 0.79 (0.76-0.81) for SLVH, 0.80 (0.77-0.84) for DLV, and 0.80 (0.78-0.83) for the composite label, with similar performance on an external data set. The model outperformed all 15 individual radiologists for predicting the composite label and achieved a sensitivity of 71% vs. 66% against the consensus vote across all radiologists at a fixed specificity of 73%. CONCLUSIONS: Deep learning analysis of CXRs can accurately detect the presence of certain structural abnormalities and may be useful in early identification of patients with LV hypertrophy and dilation. As a resource to promote further innovation, 71 589 CXRs with adjoining echocardiographic labels have been made publicly available.

Utility of a fusion protein T-cell co-stimulation blocker Belatacept in heart transplant recipients: Real world experience from a high volume center.

BACKGROUND: Belatacept (BTC), a fusion protein, selectively inhibits T-cell co-stimulation by binding to the CD80 and CD86 receptors on antigen-presenting cells (APCs) and has been used as immunosuppression in adult renal transplant recipients. However, data regarding its use in heart transplant (HT) recipients are limited. This retrospective cohort study aimed to delineate BTC's application in HT, focusing on efficacy, safety, and associated complications at a high-volume HT center. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients who underwent HT between January 2017 and December 2021 and subsequently received BTC as part of their immunosuppressive regimen. Twenty-one HT recipients were identified. Baseline characteristics, history of rejection, and indication for BTC use were collected. Outcomes included renal function, graft function, allograft rejection and mortality. Follow-up data were collected through December 2023. RESULTS: Among 776 patients monitored from January 2017 to December 2021 21 (2.7%) received BTC treatment. Average age at transplantation was 53 years (± 12 years), and 38% were women. BTC administration began, on average, 689 [483, 1830] days post-HT. The primary indications for BTC were elevated pre-formed donor-specific antibodies in highly sensitized patients (66.6%) and renal sparing (23.8%), in conjunction with reduced calcineurin inhibitor dosage. Only one (4.8%) patient encountered rejection within a year of starting BTC. Graft function by echocardiography remained stable at 6 and 12 months posttreatment. An improvement was observed in serum creatinine levels (76.2% of patients), decreasing from a median of 1.58 to 1.45 (IQR [1.0-2.1] to [1.1-1.9]) over 12 months (p = .054). eGFR improved at 3 and 6 months compared with 3 months pre- BTC levels; however, this was not statistically significant (p = .24). Treatment discontinuation occurred in seven patients (33.3%) of whom four (19%) were switched back to full dose CNI. Infections occurred in 11 patients (52.4%), leading to BTC discontinuation in 4 patients (19%). CONCLUSION: In this cohort, BTC therapy was used as alternative immunosuppression for management of highly sensitized patients or for renal sparing. BTC therapy when combined with CNI dose reduction resulted in stabilization in renal function as measured through renal surrogate markers, which did not, however, reach statistical significance. Patients on BTC maintained a low rejection rate and preserved graft function. Infections were common during BTC therapy and were associated with medication pause/discontinuation in 19% of patients. Further randomized studies are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of BTC in HT recipients.

Hemodynamic Optimization by Invasive Ramp Test in Patients Supported With HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device.

In patients supported by the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (HM3 LVAD), pump speed adjustments may improve hemodynamics. We investigated the hemodynamic implications of speed adjustments in HM3 recipients undergoing hemodynamic ramp tests. Clinically stable HM3 recipients who underwent routine invasive hemodynamic ramp tests between 2015 and 2022 at our center were included. Filling pressure optimization, defined as central venous pressure (CVP) <12 mm Hg and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) <18 mm Hg, was assessed at baseline and final pump speeds. Patients with optimized pressures were compared to nonoptimized patients. Overall 60 HM3 recipients with a median age of 62 years (56, 71) and time from LVAD implantation of 187 days (124, 476) were included. Optimized filling pressures were found in 35 patients (58%) at baseline speed. Speed was adjusted in 84% of the nonoptimized patients. Consequently, 39 patients (65%) had optimized pressures at final speed. There were no significant differences in hemodynamic findings between baseline and final speeds ( p > 0.05 for all). Six and 12 month readmission-free rates were higher in optimized compared with nonoptimized patients ( p = 0.03 for both), predominantly due to lower cardiac readmission-free rates ( p = 0.052). In stable outpatients supported with HM3 who underwent routine ramp tests, optimized hemodynamics were achieved in only 2 of 3 of the patients. Patients with optimized pressures had lower all-cause readmission rates, primarily driven by fewer cardiac-related hospitalizations.

Right heart failure after durable left ventricular assist device implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Right heart failure (RHF) is a well-known complication after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and portends increased morbidity and mortality. Understanding the mechanisms and predictors of RHF in this clinical setting may offer ideas for early identification and aggressive management to minimize poor outcomes. A variety of medical therapies and mechanical circulatory support options are currently available for the management of post-LVAD RHF. AREAS COVERED: We reviewed the existing definitions of RHF including its potential mechanisms in the context of durable LVAD implantation and currently available medical and device therapies. We performed a literature search using PubMed (from 2010 to 2023). EXPERT OPINION: RHF remains a common complication after LVAD implantation. However, existing knowledge gaps limit clinicians' ability to adequately address its consequences. Early identification and management are crucial to reducing the risk of poor outcomes, but existing risk stratification tools perform poorly and have limited clinical applicability. This is an area ripe for investigation with the potential for major improvements in identification and targeted therapy in an effort to improve outcomes.

The Hemodynamic Effects of Aortic Regurgitation in Patients Supported by a HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device.

BACKGROUND: Aortic regurgitation (AR) is a common complication following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We evaluated the hemodynamic implications of AR in patients with HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD at baseline and in response to speed changes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinically stable outpatients supported by HM3 who underwent a routine hemodynamic ramp test were retrospectively enrolled in this analysis. Patients were stratified based on the presence of at least mild AR at baseline speed. Hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters were compared between the AR and non-AR groups. Sixty-two patients were identified. At the baseline LVAD speed, 29 patients (47%) had AR, while 33 patients (53%) did not. Patients with AR were older and supported on HM3 for a longer duration. At baseline speed, all hemodynamic parameters were similar between the groups including central venous pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, pulmonary arterial pressures, cardiac output and index, and pulmonary artery pulsatility index (p > 0.05 for all). During the subacute assessment, AR worsened in some, but not all, patients, with increases in LVAD speed. There were no significant differences in 1-year mortality or hospitalization rates between the groups, however, at 1-year, ≥ moderate AR and right ventricular failure (RVF) were detected in higher rates among the AR group compared to the non-AR group (45% vs. 0%; p < 0.01, and 75% vs. 36.8%; p = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of stable outpatients supported with HM3 who underwent a routine hemodynamic ramp test, the presence of mild or greater AR did not impact the ability of HM3 LVADs to effectively unload the left ventricle during early subacute assessment. Although the presence of AR did not affect mortality and hospitalization rates, it resulted in higher rates of late hemodynamic-related events in the form of progressive AR and RVF.

A change of heart: Characteristics and outcomes of multiple cardiac retransplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Among heart transplant (HT) recipients who develop advanced graft dysfunction, cardiac re-transplantation may be considered. A smaller subset of patients will experience failure of their second allograft and undergo repeat re-transplantation. Outcomes among these individuals are not well-described. METHODS: Adult and pediatric patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry who received HT between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2020 were included. RESULTS: Between 1990 and 2020, 90 individuals received a third HT and three underwent a fourth HT. Recipients were younger than those undergoing primary HT (mean age 32 years). Third HT was associated with significantly higher unadjusted rates of 1-year mortality (18% for third HT vs. 13% for second HT vs. 9% for primary HT, p < .001) and 10-year mortality (59% for third HT vs. 42% for second HT vs. 37% for primary HT, p < .001). Mortality was highest amongst recipients aged >60 years and those re-transplanted for acute graft failure. Long-term rates of CAV, rejection, chronic dialysis, and hospitalization for infection were also higher. CONCLUSIONS: Third HT is associated with higher morbidity and mortality than primary HT. Further consensus is needed regarding appropriate organ stewardship for this unique subgroup.

Comparing 3-year survival and readmissions between HeartMate 3 and heart transplant as primary treatment for advanced heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 3-year survival and readmissions of patients who received the HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or underwent orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) as primary treatment for advanced heart failure. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 381 adult patients who received an HM3 LVAD or were listed for OHT between January 2014 and March 2021 at our center. To minimize crossover bias, OHT recipients with a prior LVAD were excluded, and HM3 patients were censored at the time of transplant. Cohorts were propensity score-matched to reduce confounding variables. The primary outcome was 3-year survival, and the secondary outcome was mean cumulative all-cause unplanned readmission. RESULTS: The study population comprised 185 HM3 patients (49%) and 196 OHT patients (51%), with 104 propensity score-matched patients in each group. After propensity score matching, there was no statistical difference in 3-year survival (83.7% for HM3 vs 87.0% for OHT; P = .91; relative risk [RR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-2.20). In the unmatched cohorts, patients age 18 to 49 years had comparable survival with HM3 and OHT (96.9% vs 95.9%; N = 91; P = 1.00; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.09-9.78). Patients age 50+ years had slightly inferior survival with HM3 (75.0% vs 83.9%; N = 290; P = .60; RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.85-2.68). The mean number of readmissions at 3 years was higher in the HM3 group (3.89 vs 2.05; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis suggests that for similar patients, HM3 may provide comparable 3-year survival to OHT as a primary treatment for heart failure but may result in more readmissions.

Pumping for Two: Pregnancy in Patients Supported With a Left Ventricular Assist Device.

This review discusses the challenges and outcomes associated with pregnancy during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. Women account for a third of the heart failure population in the United States. Left ventricular assist devices have emerged as a safe and effective treatment option for patients with advanced heart failure. Pregnancy during LVAD support can occur, and it presents significant risks to both mother and fetus, including hemodynamic stress, thrombotic events, medication-associated teratogenicity, and uterine impingement. This literature review identified 10 cases of confirmed pregnancy during LVAD support, of which eight resulted in successful births. Maternal and fetal mortality occurred in one case, and there was a spontaneous abortion in one case. The review highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary approach, promotion of shared decision-making, thoughtful anticoagulation, adjustment of LVAD speed, and medication optimization to maintain hemodynamic support during pregnancy. Hemodynamic changes during pregnancy include increased cardiac output, heart rate, and plasma volume, as well as decreased systemic vascular resistance, which can impact LVAD support. Despite reduced pulsatility in LVAD-supported patients, ovulation and reproductive capacity might be preserved, and viable pregnancies may be achieved with appropriate management. The review provides insights into the risks and considerations for a viable pregnancy during LVAD support, including the need for ongoing research to inform joined decision-making.

Do age and functional dependence affect outcomes of simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation?

Objective: This study assessed characteristics and outcomes of younger (18-65) versus older (>65) recipients of simultaneous heart-kidney (SHK) transplantation with varying functional dependence. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 1398 patients from the United Network for Organ Sharing database who received SHK between 2010 and 2021. Patients who were <18 year old, underwent transplant of additional organs simultaneously, or had previous heart transplant were excluded. The primary end point was all-cause mortality, and secondary end points included adverse events and cause of death. Outcomes were also evaluated by propensity score-matched comparison. Results: The number of annual SHK transplantation in the United States has significantly increased among both age groups over the past 2 decades (P < .0001). After propensity score matching of recipients aged 18 to 65 years (n = 1162) versus age >65 years (n = 236), baseline characteristics were similar and well-balanced between the 2 cohorts. Between matched cohorts, older recipients did not have increased posttransplant mortality compared with younger recipients (90-day survival, P = .85; 7-year survival, P = .61). Multivariable Cox regression analysis found that age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.039 [0.975-1.106], P = .2415) and pretransplant functional status with interaction term for age (some assistance, HR, 0.965 [0.902-1.033], P = .3079; total assistance, HR, 0.976 [0.914-1.041], P = .4610) were not significant risk factors for 7-year post-SHK transplantation mortality. Conclusions: Older and more functionally dependent recipients in this study did not have increased post-SHK transplantation mortality. These findings have important implications for organ allocation among elderly patients, as they support the need for thorough assessment of SHK candidates in terms of comorbidities, rather than exclusion solely based on age and functional dependence.

Long-term outcomes of patients bridged to recovery with venoarterial extracorporeal life support.

OBJECTIVE: Our study examines the long-term outcomes of patients discharged from the hospital without heart replacement therapy (HRT) after recovery from cardiogenic shock using venoarterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 615 cardiogenic shock patients who recovered from VA-ECLS at our institution between January 2015 and July 2021. Of those, 166 patients (27.0%) who recovered from VA-ECLS without HRT were included in this study. Baseline characteristics, discharge labs, vitals, electrocardiograms and echocardiograms were assessed. Patients were contacted to determine vital status. The primary outcome was post-discharge mortality. RESULTS: Of 166 patients, 158 patients (95.2%) had post-discharge follow-up, with a median time of follow-up of 2 years (IQR: [1 year, 4 years]). At discharge, the median ejection fraction (EF) was 52.5% (IQR: [32.5, 57.5]). At discharge, 92 patients (56%) were prescribed ß-blockers, 28 (17%) were prescribed an ACE inhibitor, ARB or ARNI, and 50 (30%) were prescribed loop diuretics. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 1-year survival rate of 85.6% (95% CI: [80.1%, 91.2%]) and a 5-year survival rate of 60.6% (95% CI: [49.9%, 71.3%]). A Cox regression model demonstrated that a history of congestive heart failure (CHF) was strongly predictive of increased mortality hazard (HR = 1.929; p = 0.036), while neither discharge EF nor etiology of VA-ECLS were associated with increased post-discharge mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients discharged from the hospital after full myocardial recovery from VA-ECLS support without HRT should have close outpatient follow-up due to the risk of recurrent heart failure and increased mortality in these patients.

Simultaneous heart-kidney transplant compared with heart transplant alone in patients with borderline renal function who are not dialysis dependent.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed characteristics and outcomes of patients who are not dependent on dialysis receiving simultaneous heart kidney transplantation versus heart transplantation alone (HTA) to identify optimal eGFR threshold where combined transplant strategy may be superior. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed 7896 adult patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/minute from the United Network for Organ Sharing database who received HTA or simultaneous heart kidney transplant between 2005 and 2021, excluding those who received pretransplant dialysis. Subjects were further stratified into 3 groups based on chronic kidney disease stage at time of transplant: Stage 3A (eGFR 45-59 mL/minute; n = 5044), Stage 3B (eGFR 30-44 mL/minute; n = 2193), and Stage 4 or 5 (eGFR <30 mL/minute; n = 659). Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiac allograft failure, and freedom from chronic dialysis or renal transplant following heart transplant. RESULTS: Simultaneous heart kidney transplant and HTA recipients differed in various baseline characteristics. Simultaneous heart kidney transplant recipients with eGFR <45 mL/minute had greater short- and long-term overall survival and cardiac allograft survival compared with HTA, as well as greater long-term freedom from chronic dialysis or renal transplant. These results were consistent with both propensity matched analyses and multivariable Cox regression analysis of 10 year outcomes. Optimal cutoff value for pretransplant eGFR in predicting elevated risk of renal failure in recipients of heart transplant alone was found to be eGFR ∼45 mL/minute. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to patients with eGFR <30 mL/minute, patients with eGFR 30 to 44 mL/minute who underwent simultaneous heart kidney transplant had superior outcomes compared with HTA, suggesting possible benefit of combined transplant strategy for this subset of heart transplant candidates.

Aortic Root Thrombosis in patients with HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device support.

BACKGROUND: Aortic root thrombosis(ART) is a complication of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device therapy. However, the incidence and related complications of ART in HeartMate 3 (HM3) patients remain unknown. METHODS: Patients who underwent HM3 implantation from November 2014 to August 2020 at a quaternary academic medical center were included. Demographics and outcomes were abstracted from the medical record. Echocardiograms and contrast-enhanced computed tomography studies were reviewed to identify patients who developed ART and/or moderate or greater aortic insufficiency (AI) on HM3 support. RESULTS: The study cohort included 197 HM3 patients with a median postimplant follow-up of 17.5 months. Nineteen patients (9.6%) developed ART during HM3 support, and 15 patients (7.6%) developed moderate or greater AI. Baseline age, gender, race, implantation strategy, and INTERMACS classification were similar between the ART and no-ART groups. ART was associated with an increased risk of death, stroke, or aortic valve (AV) intervention (subhazard ratio [SHR] 3.60 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.71-7.56]; p = 0.001) and moderate or greater AI (SHR 11.1 [CI 3.60-34.1]; p < 0.001) but was not associated with a statistically significantly increased risk of death or stroke on HM3 support (2.12 [0.86-5.22]; p = 0.10). Of the 19 patients with ART, 6 (31.6%) developed moderate or greater AI, necessitating more frequent AV interventions (ART: 5 AV interventions [3 surgical repairs, 1 surgical replacement, 1 transcatheter replacement; 26.3%]; no-ART: 0). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 10% of HM3 patients developed ART during device support. ART was associated with increased risk of a composite end-point of death, stroke, or AV intervention as well as moderate or greater AI.

Long-Term Outcomes of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Bicaval Heart Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Permanent pacemakers (PPMs) may be necessary in up to 10% of patients after heart transplantation (HT). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term outcomes and clinical courses of heart transplant recipients who received PPM. METHODS: All patients who required PPM after bicaval HT at Columbia University between January 2005 and December 2021 were included. Cases were compared to matched heart transplant recipients by age, sex, and year of transplantation. Patient and device characteristics including complications and device interrogations were reviewed. Outcomes of re-transplantation or graft failure/death were compared between groups. RESULTS: Of 1,082 heart transplant recipients, 41 (3.8%) received PPMs. The median time from transplantation to PPM was 118 days (IQR: 18-920 days). The most common indications were sinus node dysfunction (60%, n = 25) and atrioventricular (AV) nodal disease (41.5%, n = 17). Post-implantation complications included pocket hematoma (n = 3), lead under-sensing (n = 2), and pocket infection requiring explant (n = 1). Rates of death and re-transplantation at 10 years post-HT were similar between groups. In multivariable analysis, after adjustment for mechanical circulatory support, pretransplantation amiodarone use, donor ischemic time and age, only older donor age was associated with increased risk of PPM implantation (P = 0.03). There was a significant decrease in PPM placement after 2018 (1.2% vs 4.4%, P = 0.02), largely driven by a decline in early PPM placement. There were no differences in mortality or need for re-transplantation between groups. CONCLUSIONS: PPMs are implanted after HT for sinus and atrioventricular node dysfunctions with low incidence of device-related complications. Our study shows a decrease in PPM implantation after 2018, likely attributable to expectant management in the early postoperative period.

New system, old problem: Increased wait time for high-priority transplant candidates.

The 2018 heart allocation policy sought to improve risk stratification and reduce waitlist mortality for the sickest patients. This study sought to evaluate changes in wait times for the highest priority patients since policy implementation. All adult single-organ transplant recipients were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry from October 18, 2018, to July 8, 2022, and separated into 4 periods. Outcomes were compared by blood type and UNOS region. Over the study period, 897 of 9,143 patients were listed as status 1 with no significant change in median wait time by blood type or region. More patients were listed as status 2 (4,523/9,143), and each subsequent period postpolicy change was associated with a 4.2-day increase in mean status 2 waitlist time (95% confidence interval 3.0-5.5, p < 0.0001). Wait times were longest for candidates with blood type O and shortest for AB & A. Regional variations continued, however, wait time increased in every region over time.

Mechanical circulatory support device selection for bridging to cardiac transplantation: a clinical guide.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients listed for transplant require temporary or durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for bridging to cardiac transplantation. The choice of device for bridging to heart depends on a number of factors including level of support desired and patient-device hemocompatibility. AREAS COVERED: The authors summarize the current heart transplant landscape including the new UNOS listing criteria as well as indications for bridging to transplant with MCS devices. The authors also review the characteristics of commonly used MCS devices and discuss the limited evidence supporting their use in cardiogenic shock and specifically as a bridge to heart transplant. EXPERT OPINION: The new UNOS heart organ allocation policy has resulted in a growth in the use of temporary MCS devices as bridge to transplantation for patients with cardiogenic shock, while bridging with durable MCS devices has become more challenging. Patients supported on temporary MCS devices should be routinely assessed for potential of myocardial recovery prior to urgent transplantation. Emerging machine learning algorithms may help better identify individuals who are likely to recover on temporary or durable MCS therapy. Modifications to the current heart allocation policy may facilitate bridging of patients with durable left ventricular assist devices.

Pulsatility and flow patterns across macro- and microcirculatory arteries of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients.

BACKGROUND: Reduced arterial pulsatility in continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD) patients has been implicated in clinical complications. Consequently, recent improvements in clinical outcomes have been attributed to the "artificial pulse" technology inherent to the HeartMate3 (HM3) LVAD. However, the effect of the "artificial pulse" on arterial flow, transmission of pulsatility into the microcirculation and its association with LVAD pump parameters is not known. METHODS: The local flow oscillation (pulsatility index, PI) of common carotid arteries (CCAs), middle cerebral arteries (MCAs) and central retinal arteries (CRAs-representing the microcirculation) were quantified by 2D-aligned, angle-corrected Doppler ultrasound in 148 participants: healthy controls, n = 32; heart failure (HF), n = 43; HeartMate II (HMII), n = 32; HM3, n = 41. RESULTS: In HM3 patients, 2D-Doppler PI in beats with "artificial pulse" and beats with "continuous-flow" was similar to that of HMII patients across the macro- and microcirculation. Additionally, peak systolic velocity did not differ between HM3 and HMII patients. Transmission of PI into the microcirculation was higher in both HM3 (during the beats with "artificial pulse") and in HMII patients compared with HF patients. LVAD pump speed was inversely associated with microvascular PI in HMII and HM3 (HMII, r2 = 0.51, p < 0.0001; HM3 "continuous-flow," r2 = 0.32, p = 0.0009; HM3 "artificial pulse," r2 = 0.23, p = 0.007), while LVAD pump PI was only associated with microcirculatory PI in HMII patients. CONCLUSIONS: The "artificial pulse" of the HM3 is detectable in the macro- and microcirculation but without creating a significant alteration in PI compared with HMII patients. Increased transmission of pulsatility and the association between pump speed and PI in the microcirculation indicate that the future clinical care of HM3 patients may involve individualized pump settings according to the microcirculatory PI in specific end-organs.

Impact of preheart transplant spirometry and DCLO measurement on post-transplant pulmonary outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary function tests (PFT) are a frequent component of heart transplant evaluation. In cardiac surgery abnormal PFTs, especially reduced DLCO, have been associated with poor outcomes. We sought to evaluate the impact of pretransplant PFTs on post-transplant pulmonary outcomes and patient survival. METHODS: Among the 652 adult heart transplant recipients between January 1, 2010 and July 31, 2021, 462 had PFTs and constituted the patient cohort. Obstructive ventilatory defects (OVD), restrictive ventilatory defects (RVD), and reduced DLCO were defined according to established criteria. The primary outcome was the combined endpoint of a post-transplant pulmonary complication defined as reintubation, postoperative pneumonia, prolonged intubation, or tracheostomy. Secondary outcomes included 90-day all-cause mortality, length of stay, and the odds of individual pulmonary complications. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression, and multivariable logistic regression were performed to compare outcomes between the groups. RESULTS: Patients with severe OVD (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.18-5.23, p = 0.02) or severely reduced DLCO (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.19-3.20, p = 0.008) had increased odds of post-transplant pulmonary complications. Following multivariable adjustment, severe OVD (aOR 2.67, 95% CI 1.15-6.19, p = 0.02) and severely reduced DLCO (aOR 1.79, 95% CI 1.05-3.04) remained strongly associated with post-transplant pulmonary complications. Patients with any degree of extrinsic RVD, moderate or less OVD, or moderately reduced DLCO or less did not have increased odds of post-transplant pulmonary complications. Ninety-day post-transplant survival was significantly reduced for both severe OVD (97.2% vs 86.5%, p = 0.04) and severely reduced DLCO (97.3% vs 90.4%, p = 0.004). Post-transplant ICU and hospital length of stay were nominally longer for both groups as well. CONCLUSIONS: Severe OVD or severely reduced DLCO on preheart transplant PFTs were associated with increased odds of post-transplant pulmonary complications and early mortality.