Outcomes and quality of life in patients receiving durable left ventricular assist device with biventricular support.

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring biventricular support (BIVAD) face higher morbidity than those undergoing durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation alone. The goal of the current study was to evaluate quality of life (QOL) of patients with LVAD therapy in the modern era, stratified by use of biventricular support. METHODS: All patients undergoing LVAD at our center were reviewed between October 2017 and September 2021. Patients were stratified by perioperative use of BIVAD. Patients were administered a telephone survey consisting of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12) as well as free-responses regarding satisfaction surrounding their operation. Outcomes included survival, KCCQ-12 metrics, and thematic analysis of free response questions. RESULTS: 92 patients were identified, of whom 26 (28%) received BIVAD support. BIVAD patients had more preoperative ECMO use (54% vs. 12%, p < 0.001) and lower INTERMACS scores (Category 1: 46% vs. 14%, p = 0.001). Three-year survival was 73.8% among LVAD-alone patients and 50.1% among BIVAD patients (log-rank p = 0.022). Median composite KCCQ-12 score was 78 (57-88). No differences in composite or any component scores were noted between groups. 76% of patients report they would be moderately or extremely like to go through surgery again if given repeat choice. The most common themes expressed were overall gratitude (24%) and disappointment with device-related restrictions (20%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients requiring BIVAD therapy have more advanced shock, longer associated hospital courses, and lower long-term survival. However, those that survive enjoy similar overall quality of life, and many endorse positive outlooks on their surgical course. Continued assessments of quality of life are important in providing patient-centered LVAD care.

Outcomes and quality of life in patients receiving mitral surgery for asymptomatic disease.

Objectives: We sought to characterize the demographics, outcomes, and quality of life of asymptomatic patients undergoing mitral valve surgery at our center over a 10-year period. Methods: Adults undergoing mitral surgery were retrospectively reviewed between 2010 and 2019. Patients were included if deemed asymptomatic by review of referring cardiologist and surgeon consultation. Patients were administered a telephone survey consisting of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire as well as free-response regarding satisfaction surrounding their operation. Outcomes included survival, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire metrics, and thematic analysis of free response questions. Results: A total of 145 patients were identified who were deemed asymptomatic. Their average age was 60.3 ± 12.1 years, and 71% were male. No patients had endocarditis, and 34% had decreased ejection fraction (<60%). Repair was achieved in 95% of patients. Median length of stay was 6 (5-8) days. Ten-year survival was 91%, with no differences noted by ejection fraction. Composite Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score was 100 (96-100). The lowest component score was "Quality of Life," with 22% of patients reporting being "mostly satisfied" with present cardiac status. Most common themes expressed were gratitude with surgery results (58%), satisfaction with being able to stay active (23%), and happiness with early disease treatment (21%). Only 1 patient (0.7%) expressed regret with surgery choice. Conclusions: Mitral surgery for asymptomatic disease can be performed with good long-term outcomes in select patients, and the majority experience excellent quality of life and satisfaction with current health. Continued assessments of quality of life are important in evaluating outcomes of mitral surgery as indications grow.

Non-inferior outcomes in lower urgency patients transplanted with extended criteria donor hearts.

BACKGROUND: Recent work has suggested that outcomes among heart transplant patients listed at the lower-urgency (United Network for Organ Sharing Status 4 or 6) status may not be significantly impacted by donor comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to investigate outcomes of extended criteria donors (ECD) in lower versus higher urgency patients undergoing heart transplantation. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was queried for all adult patients undergoing heart transplantation from October 18, 2018 through December 31, 2021. Patients were stratified by degree of urgency (higher urgency: UNOS 1 or 2 vs lower urgency: UNOS 4 or 6) and receipt of ECD hearts, as defined by donor hearts failing to meet established acceptable use criteria. Outcomes were compared using propensity score matched cohorts. RESULTS: Among 9,160 patients included, 2,320 (25.4%) were low urgency. ECD hearts were used in 35.5% of higher urgency (HU) patients and 39.2% of lower urgency (LU) patients. While ECD hearts had an impact on survival among high-urgency patients (p < 0.01), there was no difference in 1- and 2-year survival (p > 0.05) found among low urgency patients receiving ECD versus standard hearts. Neither ECDs nor individual ECD criteria were independently associated with mortality in low urgency patients (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Post-transplant outcomes among low urgency patients are not adversely affected by receipt of ECD vs. standard hearts. Expanding the available donor pool by optimizing use of ECDs in this population may increase transplant frequency, decrease waitlist morbidity, and improve postoperative outcomes for the transplant community at large.

Heart Retransplantation Under the 2018 Adult Heart Allocation Policy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to characterize the impact of the 2018 adult heart allocation policy change on waiting list and posttransplant outcomes of heart retransplantation in the United States. METHODS: All adults listed for heart retransplantation from May 2015 to June 2022 were identified using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Patients were stratified into eras (era 1 and era 2) based on the heart allocation change on October 18, 2018. Competing risks regressions and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess differences across eras in waiting list outcomes and 1-year posttransplant survival, respectively. RESULTS: The analysis included 356 repeat heart transplant recipients, with 207 (58%) receiving retransplantation during era 2. Patients who received a retransplant in era 2 were more commonly bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (21% vs 8%, P < .01) and intra-aortic balloon pump (29% vs 13%, P < .001) and had a lower likelihood of death/deterioration on the waiting list (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.82) compared with those in era 1. Rates of 30-day mortality (7% vs 7%, P = .99) and 1-year survival (82% vs 87%, P = .27) were not significantly different among retransplantation recipients across eras. After adjustment, retransplantation in era 2 was not associated with an increased hazard of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.55-2.30). The gap in 1-year mortality between primary transplant and retransplant recipients increased from era 1 to 2. CONCLUSIONS: Heart retransplantation candidates have experienced improved waiting list outcomes after the 2018 adult heart allocation policy, without significant changes to posttransplant survival.

Decreased survival of simultaneous heart-kidney transplant recipients in the new heart allocation era.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) modified their heart allocation policy to reduce waitlist mortality. The rates of simultaneous heart-kidney transplant (SHKT) have dramatically increased in recent years, despite increased rates of posttransplant renal failure in the new policy era. This study sought to investigate the impact of the new allocation system on waitlist and posttransplant outcomes of simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation. METHODS: Adult patients listed for SHKT between 2012 and 2021 were included. Patients were cross-validated across both Thoracic and Kidney UNOS databases to confirm accurate listing and transplant data. Patients were stratified according to listing era. The Fine and Gray model was used to assess waitlist outcomes and posttransplant renal graft function. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used to compare posttransplant survival. RESULTS: A total of 2,588 patients were included, of whom 1,406 (54.1%) were listed between 2012 and 2018 (era 1) and 1,182 (45.9%) between 2019 and 2021 (era 2). Era 2 was associated with increased likelihood of transplant (adjusted Sub-hazard ratios (aSHR): 1.52; p < 0.01) and decreased waitlist mortality (aSHR: 0.63; p < 0.01). Posttransplant survival at 2 years was decreased in era 2 (78.8% vs 86.9%; p < 0.01). Undersized hearts (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.02; p < 0.01), use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (HR: 2.67; p < 0.1), and transplants performed following the policy change (HR: 1.45; p = 0.03) were associated with increased mortality. Actuarial survival (combined waitlist and posttransplant) was significantly lower in the modern era (71.6% vs 62.2%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The allocation policy change has improved waitlist outcomes in patients listed for SHKT but potentially at the cost of worsened posttransplant outcomes.

Impella 5.5 as a bridge to heart transplantation: Waitlist outcomes in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing allocation policy change has led to a significant increase in the use of mechanical circulatory support devices in patients listed for orthotopic heart transplantation. However, there has been a paucity of data regarding the newest generation Impella 5.5, which received FDA approval in 2019. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried for all adults awaiting orthotopic heart transplantation who received Impella 5.5 support during their listing period. Waitlist, device, and early post-transplant outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 464 patients received Impella 5.5 support during their listing period with a median waitlist time of 19 days. Among them, 402 (87%) patients were ultimately transplanted, with 378 (81%) being directly bridged to transplant with the device. Waitlist death (7%) and clinical deterioration (5%) were the most common reasons for waitlist removal. Device complications and failure were uncommon (<5%). The most common post-transplant complication was acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (16%). Survival at 1-year post-transplant survival was 89.5%. CONCLUSION: Since its approval, the Impella 5.5 has been increasingly used as a bridge to transplant. This analysis demonstrates robust waitlist and post-transplant outcomes with minimal device-related and postoperative complications.

Outcomes of COVID-19-Positive Donor Heart Transplantation in the United States.

Background Little is known regarding the impact of donor COVID-19 status on recipient outcomes after heart transplantation. In this study, we characterize outcomes of the first 110 heart transplants from organ donors positive for COVID-19 (COVID-19+) in the United States. Methods and Results Retrospective analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database was performed for single-organ adult heart transplants from January 2020 to March 2022. Donor COVID-19+ status was defined as a positive nucleic acid amplification, antigen, or other COVID-19 test within 7 days of transplant. Nearest-neighbor propensity score matching used to adjust for differences between recipients of COVID-19+ and nonpositive donor hearts. Overall, 7251 heart transplants were included in analysis, with 110 using COVID-19+ donor hearts. Recipients of COVID-19+ allografts were younger (54 [interquartile range, 41-61]) versus 57 [46-64] years; P=0.02) but had similar rates of female sex and non-White race compared with those receiving allografts from negative donors. Nearest-neighbor propensity score matching resulted in 100 well-matched pairs of recipients of COVID-19+ versus nonpositive donor organs. The 2 matched groups had similar median lengths of stay (15 [11-23] days versus 15 [13-23] days; P=0.40), rates of graft failure (1% versus 0%; P=0.99), 30-day death (3% versus 3%; P=0.99), and 3-month survival (88% versus 94%; P=0.23) compared with recipients of nonpositive donors. No deaths occurred due to COVID-19 infection among the 8 (7%) total deceased recipients of COVID-19+ allografts to date. Conclusions Short-term outcomes of heart transplant recipients receiving COVID-19+ donor organs are reassuring. However, continued monitoring for long-term survival and potential complications are warranted.

Comparison of Intraaortic Balloon Pump and Impella 5.5 as Heart Transplant Bridging Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Temporary mechanical circulatory support is increasingly utilized as a bridge to heart transplantation. The Impella 5.5 (Abiomed) has achieved anecdotal success as a bridge since receiving US Food and Drug Administration approval. The purpose of the current study was to compare waitlist and posttransplant outcomes of patients bridged with intraaortic balloon pumps (IABPs) to those receiving Impella 5.5 therapy. METHODS: Patients listed for heart transplantation between October 2018 and December 2021 who received IABP or Impella 5.5 at any time during waitlist course were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Propensity-matched groups of recipients with each device were created. Competing-risks regression for mortality, transplantation, and removal from waitlist for illness was performed according to the method of Fine and Gray. Posttransplant survival was censored at 2 years. RESULTS: Overall, 2936 patients were identified, of whom 2484 (85%) were supported with IABP and 452 (15%) received Impella 5.5. Patients with Impella 5.5 support had more functional impairment, higher wedge pressures, higher rates of preoperative diabetes and dialysis, and more ventilator support (all P < .05). Waitlist mortality was significantly worsened in the Impella group and transplantation was less frequent (P < .001). However, survival at 2 years after transplant was similar in both complete (90% vs 90%, P = .693) and propensity-matched cohorts (88% vs 83%, P = .874). CONCLUSIONS: Patients bridged with Impella 5.5 were sicker than IABP-bridged patients and less frequently transplanted; however, posttransplant outcomes were similar in propensity-matched cohorts. The role of these bridging strategies in patients listed for heart transplantation should be continually assessed with future allocation system changes.

Prosthesis Choice in Dialysis Patients Undergoing Mitral Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Patients with renal disease on dialysis have significant comorbidity limiting life expectancy; however, these patients may experience accelerated prosthetic valve degeneration. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of prosthesis choice on outcomes in dialysis patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR) at our high-volume academic center. METHODS: Adults undergoing MVR were retrospectively reviewed between January 2002 and November 2019. Patients were included if they had documented renal failure and dialysis requirements before presentation. Patients were stratified by mechanical vs bioprosthetic prosthesis. Death and recurrent severe valve failure (3+ or greater) or redo mitral operation were used as primary outcomes. RESULTS: There were 177 dialysis patients identified who underwent MVR. Of these, 118 (66.7%) received bioprosthetic valves, whereas 59 (33.3%) received mechanical valves. Those who received mechanical valves were younger (48 vs 61 years; P < .001) and had less diabetes (32% vs 51%; P = .019). Prevalence of endocarditis and atrial fibrillation was similar. Postoperative length of stay was not different between groups. Risk-adjusted hazard for 5-year mortality was similar between groups (P = .668). Early mortality was high, with both groups having <50% actuarial survival at 2 years. No differences were noted in rates of structural valve deterioration or reintervention. More stroke events were noted on follow-up in patients receiving mechanical valves (15% vs 6%; P = .041). Endocarditis was the leading reason for reintervention; 4 patients received repeated surgery for bioprosthetic valve failure. CONCLUSIONS: MVR in dialysis patients carries significant morbidity and increased midterm mortality. Decreased life expectancy should be considered in the tailoring of prosthesis choice to dialysis-dependent patients.

Use of extended criteria donor hearts in combined heart-kidney transplant confers greater risk of mortality.

BACKGROUND: Extended criteria donors (ECD) hearts have demonstrated acceptable outcomes in select populations. However, their use in patients undergoing simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation (SHKT) has not been explored. This study is assessed the effect of ECD hearts in patients undergoing SHKT vs isolated heart transplants (IHT). METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was queried for all adult patients undergoing IHT and SHKT. Patients were stratified by receipt of ECD heart, defined as donor hearts failing to meet established acceptable use criteria. Interaction effects between ECDs and simultaneous kidney transplants were generated. Postoperative outcomes, risk factors, and patient/graft survival were compared across cohorts using Fine-Gray, Kaplan Meier, and Cox Proportional Hazards analyses. RESULTS: Among 26,207 patients included, 1,766 (7%) underwent SHKT. ECD hearts were used in 25% of both IHT and SHKT cohorts. Five-year survival among SHKT/ECD patients (67.3%) was reduced (p < 0.01) compared to SHKT/SDC (80.3%), IHT/ECD (78.1%) and IHT/SCD (80.0%) groups. Among SHKT patients, use of ECD hearts was associated with increased risk (SHR: 1.48; p < 0.01) of renal graft failure compared to SCD hearts. Among SHKT patients, receipt of an ECD heart, and individual ECD criteria (coronary disease and size mismatch >20%), predicted mortality. The interaction effect of receiving both ECD and SHKT predicted mortality and graft failure (HR 1.43; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing SHKT with an ECD heart face greater risks of mortality and graft failure in comparison to those undergoing IHT with ECD hearts. Careful selection of donor organs should be applied to this high-risk cohort.

Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status Independently Predicts Outcomes After Mitral Valve Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status has increasingly recognized influence on outcomes after cardiac surgery. However, singular metrics fail to fully capture the socioeconomic context within which patients live, which vary greatly between neighborhoods. We sought to explore the impact of neighborhood-level socioeconomic status on patients undergoing mitral valve surgery in the United States. METHODS: Adults undergoing first-time, isolated mitral valve surgery were queried from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database between 2012 and 2018. Socioeconomic status was quantified using the Area Deprivation Index, a weighted composite including average housing prices, household incomes, education, and employment levels. The associations between regional deprivation, access to mitral surgery, valve repair rates, and outcomes were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 137,100 patients included, patients with socioeconomic deprivation had fewer elective presentations, more comorbidity burden, and more urgent/emergent surgery. Patients from less disadvantaged areas received operations from higher volume surgeons and had higher repair rates (highest vs lowest quintile: 72% vs 51%, P < .001, more minimally-invasive approach (33% vs 20%, P < .001), lower composite complication rate (42% vs 50%, P < .001), and lower 30-day mortality (1.8% vs 3.9%, P < .001). After hierarchical multivariable adjustment, the Area Deprivation Index significantly predicted 30-day mortality and repair rate (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a risk-adjusted national analysis of mitral surgery, patients from more deprived areas were less likely to undergo mitral repair and more likely to have complications. Further work at targeting neighborhood-level disparity is important to improving mitral surgical outcomes in the United States.

Subacute groin complications related to ECMO cannulation are associated with longer hospitalizations.

Subacute groin complications associated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannulation are well recognized, yet their effects on clinical outcomes remain unknown. This single-center, retrospective study reviewed all patients receiving venoarterial ECMO from 01/2017 to 02/2020. Cohorts analyzed included transplanted patients (TPs) and non-transplanted patients (N-TPs) who did or did not develop ECMO-related subacute groin complications. Standard descriptive statistics were used for comparisons. Logistic regressions identified associated risk factors. Overall, 82/367 (22.3%) ECMO patients developed subacute groin complications, including 25/82 (30.5%) seromas/lymphoceles, 32/82 (39.0%) hematomas, 18/82 (22.0%) infections, and 7/82 (8.5%) non-specified collections. Of these, 20/82 (24.4%) underwent surgical interventions, most of which were muscle flaps (14/20, 70.0%). TPs had a higher incidence of subacute groin complications than N-TPs (14/28, 50.0% vs. 68/339, 20.1%, P = 0.001). Seromas/lymphoceles more often developed in TPs than N-TPs (10/14, 71.4% vs. 15/68, 22.1%, P = 0.001). Most patients with subacute groin complications survived to discharge (60/68, 88.2%). N-TPs who developed subacute groin complications had longer post-ECMO lengths of stay than those who did not (34 days, IQR 16-53 days vs. 17 days, IQR 8-34 days, P < 0.001). Post-ECMO length of stay was also longer among patients who underwent related surgical interventions compared to those who did not (50 days, IQR 35-67 days vs. 29 days, IQR 16-49 days, P = 0.007). Transplantation was the strongest risk factor for developing subacute groin complications (OR 3.91, CI95% 1.52-10.04, P = 0.005). Subacute groin complications and related surgical interventions are common after ECMO cannulation and are associated with longer hospital stays. When surgical management is warranted, muscle flaps may reduce lengths of stay compared to other surgical interventions.

Higher Rates of Dialysis and Subsequent Mortality in the New Allocation Era for Heart Transplants.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, a United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) policy change increased prioritization of patients bridged with temporary mechanical circulatory support devices, such as venoarterial ECMO, for cardiac transplantation. Considering increased waitlist acuity, we sought to characterize whether this was associated with an increased risk for development of postoperative acute renal failure requiring dialysis (AKI-D) and risk of death after transplantation. METHODS: Dialysis-naive adults receiving single-organ heart transplant between November 2009 and February 2020 were stratified by receipt of AKI-D. Era 1 and era 2 were defined by the periods of UNOS allocation before and after policy change, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine risk factors for AKI-D. Rates of AKI-D were compared by propensity score-matched cohorts. Survival was compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A total of 20 698 patients were included. Venoarterial ECMO use significantly increased in era 2 (5.6% vs 0.58%; P < .01). Overall prevalence of AKI-D was greater in era 2 (13.5% vs 10.2%; P < .01). Use of preoperative ECMO, intra-aortic balloon pump, and ventilators and longer ischemia times were identified as independent risk factors for development of AKI-D. Five- and 10-year survival rates were significantly decreased for patients with AKI-D. There was no short-term survival difference of patients with AKI-D between era 2 and the more contemporary era 1. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in whom AKI-D develops after transplantation have significantly worse short- and long-term outcomes. Preoperative use of ECMO, preoperative ventilator support, and longer ischemia times are risk factors for development of AKI-D, and their prevalence has increased since the allocation policy change.

Waitlist Trends in Heart-Liver Transplantation With Updated US Heart Allocation System.

BACKGROUND: In October 2018, the United States implemented a change in the donor heart allocation policy from a three-tiered to a six-tiered status system. The purpose of the current study was to examine changes in waitlist patterns among patients listed for concomitant heart-liver transplantation with implementation of the new allocation system. METHODS: Patients listed for heart-liver transplantation between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2021, were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Patients were grouped by era according to initial list date before or after October 18, 2018. Competing risks regression for mortality, transplantation, removal from waitlist due to illness was performed according to the method of Fine and Gray. Waitlist data were censored at 3 years from initial listing. RESULTS: Overall, 523 patients were identified, of whom 310 were listed before (era 1, 59%) and 213 after (era 2, 41%) allocation change. Patients in era 1 were older, had more restrictive cardiomyopathy, and more preoperative inotrope use (all P < .05). However, patients in era 2 has longer ischemic times (3.5 ± 1.1 vs 3.1 ± 1.1 hours, P < .01) and more intraaortic balloon pump use (8.9% vs 3.9%, P = .016). Era 2 was associated with lower subdistribution hazard for death (hazard ratio 0.37; 95% CI, 0.13-1.02; P = .054) and increased transplantation (hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI, 1.06-1.72; P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the US donor heart allocation policy was associated with more preoperative intraaortic balloon pump use for patients listed for heart-liver transplantation. Despite that, the modern era was associated with lower waitlist mortality and more frequent transplantation, without increased risk of delisting due to illness.

Modern outcomes of heart-lung transplantation: assessing the impact of the updated US allocation system.

OBJECTIVES: In 2018, the United Network for Organ Sharing modified their heart allocation policy to reduce waitlist mortality and prioritize patients with the greatest acuity. Considering declining rates of combined heart-lung transplantation, this study sought to investigate the impact of the new allocation system on waitlist and post-transplant outcomes of patients listed for combined heart-lung transplantation. METHODS: Adult patients listed for combined heart-lung transplant between 2012 and 2021 were included. Patients were stratified according to listing era. Competing risk regression was used to assess waitlist outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to establish risk factors for post-transplant mortality. RESULTS: A total of 511 patients were included, of whom 295 (57.8%) were listed in era 1 and 216 (42.2%) in era 2. Era 2 was associated with increased likelihood of transplant (adjusted standard hazard ratio (aSHR): 1.60 [1.23-2.07]; P < 0.01) and decreased waitlist mortality (aSHR: 0.43 [0.25-0.73]; P < 0.01). Despite longer ischaemic times and increased use of preoperative veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in era 2, early post-transplant survival was equivalent. Predicted heart mass ratio <0.8 (Hazard ratio (HR); 3.24; P = 0.01), ventilator support (HR: 3.83; P < 0.01) and greater ischaemic times (HR: 1.80; P < 0.01) independently predicted the mortality. Procedures at high centre volumes (HR: 0.36; P = 0.04) were associated with decreased mortality. Use of ECMO was not predictive of mortality in the modern era. CONCLUSIONS: The allocation policy change has led to improvements in waitlist outcomes in patients listed for heart-lung transplantation. Despite increased ischaemic times and use of ECMO, early post-transplant survival was equivalent.

Lack of volume-outcome association in ECMO bridge to heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. As the 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation policy change elevated waitlist status for patients receiving mechanical circulatory support (MCS), we aimed to determine if a center's annual heart transplant volume was associated with ECMO-support duration and posttransplant outcomes. METHODS: Adults heart transplant candidates between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2021, were isolated in the UNOS database. VA-ECMO use was identified at the time of listing for transplant. Average annual transplant volume was calculated by the center, with stratification as high (≥20 cardiac transplants, high volume center [HVC]) or low (<20 cardiac transplants, low volume center [LVC]) volume centers. Results are reported as mean (interquartile range) or n (%). RESULTS: In total, 543 patients at HVCs and 275 at LVCs were listed for transplant supported with VA-ECMO. Those listed at HVCs were more likely to be supported by intra-aortic balloon pump (103 [19%] vs. 32 [11.6%], p = .008) and inotropes (267 [49.2%] vs. 106 [38.5%], p = .004) at time of listing. Patients at HVCs received ECMO support for 6 [4-9] days, compared to 8 [4-15] days at low-volume centers (p = .030), and but were cannulated a similar time before listing (2 [1-5] vs. 3 [1-7] days, p = .517). There were no differences in rates of transplant (p = .2126), waitlist mortality (p = .8645), delisting due to clinical deterioration (p = .8419), or recovery (p = .1773) between groups. Among transplanted patients, there were no differences in support duration (6 [4-8] vs. 6 [4-10], p = .187), or time from registration to transplant (5 [2-20] vs. 7 [3-22] days, p = .560). Posttransplant survival did not vary (p = .293). CONCLUSIONS: LVCs can successfully bridge patients to transplant with VA-ECMO and achieve comparable outcomes to HVCs.

Interaction between donor obesity and prolonged donor ischemic time in heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of donor obesity on outcomes following heart transplantation in the setting of routine (<4 h) and prolonged (≥4 h) organ ischemic times. METHODS: Retrospective review of the 2000-2020 United Network for Organ Sharing Database was performed to identify adult heart transplant recipients and donors. Nearest-neighbor propensity score matching by donor obesity was performed separately among routine and prolonged cohorts, with Kaplan-Meier survival estimates used to assess survival at 5 years following transplantation. RESULTS: A total of 43,304 heart transplant recipients were included in analysis, with 15,925 (36.8 %) receiving obese donor hearts. After propensity-score matching, 30-day mortality and 5-year survival following transplantation were not statistically different between recipients of obese and non-obese donor hearts when organ ischemic times were routine. In the setting of prolonged organ ischemic times, those receiving obese donor hearts experienced lower 30-day mortality (5.1 % vs 6.7 %, p = 0.04) and improved 5-year survival (74.9 % vs 71.2 %, p < 0.01) compared to non-obese donor hearts. CONCLUSIONS: Recipients of obese donor hearts experienced improved outcomes compared to those receiving non-obese donor hearts when organ ischemic times exceeded 4 h. These findings suggest that the detrimental impact of prolonged organ ischemic time may be attenuated by donor obesity.

Failure to rescue: obesity increases the risk of mortality following early graft failure in heart transplantation in UNOS database patients.

OBJECTIVES: Early graft failure (EGF) is a devastating postoperative complication following heart transplant. Institutional studies have modelled donor and recipient risk factors predictive of graft failure. To date, no studies have assessed specific recipient profiles associated with mortality after recipients suffer from EGF. The objective of this study was to identify this recipient profile. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing database undergoing heart transplant from August 2000 to September 2019. EGF was defined as graft dysfunction at 24 hours post-heart transplant. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. To isolate recipient characteristics associated with mortality, we performed the univariate analysis on 24 recipient characteristics adjusted for high-risk donor characteristics (ischaemic time, donor age, race mismatch, BUN/creatinine ratio) predictive of 1-year mortality (P < 0.2). We then performed backward stepwise multivariable regression adjusted for identified donor characteristics to determine recipient characteristics associated with mortality after EGF (P < 0.05). RESULTS: We identified 302 patients diagnosed with post-transplant EGF. Among these patients, mortality was 82% within 90 days of transplantation. Adjusted univariate analysis identified 7 factors associated with mortality. Adjusted backward stepwise multivariable regression identified BMI > 30 as predictive of mortality at 90 days after EGF. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who develop EGF after heart transplant are at high risk for mortality. Careful discussion regarding transplant candidacy and risk is warranted in obese patients. In addition, minimizing donor factors associated with graft dysfunction is critical during preoperative planning in these recipients.

Repair of Isolated Native Mitral Valve Endocarditis: A Propensity Matched Study.

In the setting of chronic primary mitral regurgitation, the benefit of mitral valve repair over replacement is well established. However, data comparing outcomes for mitral valve surgery for endocarditis is limited. We sought to determine whether mitral valve repair offers traditional advantages over replacement in the endocarditis population. Retrospective review of our institutional mitral valve database (N = 8,181) was performed between 1998 and 2019 for all adult patients undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery for endocarditis. Patients were stratified by mitral valve repair or replacement and propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics and degree of valve damage. Overall, 267 surgeries (124 repair, 153 replacement) met inclusion criteria during the study period. Following propensity matching, the repair cohort was associated with shorter initial ventilator times (5.6 vs 7.9 hours, p = 0.05), shorter ICU (28 vs 52 hours, p = 0.03), and hospital lengths of stays (7 vs 11 days, p < 0.01). Thirty-day mortality (0% vs 2.1%, p = 0.01) and 10-year survival (88% vs 86%, p = 0.55) were similar between cohorts. Patients in the repair cohort were less likely to require repeat mitral valve intervention at our institution for recurrent endocarditis than those in the replacement cohort (0% vs 10.6%, p = 0.03). Mitral valve repair is safe, when feasible, in the setting of isolated native valve endocarditis and may provide patients faster recovery. Experienced mitral surgeons should approach this patient population with a "repair if feasible" methodology.