Beta blockers are associated with lower all-cause mortality among HFpEF patients.

BACKGROUND: The evidence regarding beta blocker (BB) benefit in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains inconclusive, leading to consideration of BB withdrawal in this population. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the association of BB on all-cause mortality in HFpEF patients. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of 20,206 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50% who were hospitalized with decompensated HF between January 2011 and March 2020. Survival is reported at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years. A secondary analysis comparing mortality for patients on BB with additional indications including hypertension (HTN), coronary artery disease (CAD), and atrial fibrillation (AF) was completed. Mortality was compared between patients on BB and additional therapies of spironolactone or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARBs). RESULTS: BB showed lower all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years (p < 0.0001). This association with lower all-cause mortality was validated by a supplementary propensity score-matched analysis. At 3 years, there was significant mortality reduction with addition of BB to either spironolactone (p = 0.0359) or ACEi/ARBs (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In a large single-center retrospective registry, BB use was associated with lower mortality in HFpEF patients with a recent decompensated HF hospitalization. The mortality benefit persisted in those treated with spironolactone or ACEi/ARBs, and in those with AF. This provocative data further highlights the uncertainty of the benefit of BB use in this cohort and calls for re-consideration of BB withdrawal, especially in those tolerating it well, without conclusive, large, and randomized trials showing lack of benefit or harm.

Clinical Outcomes Associated With Diltiazem Use in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction After Implementation of a Clinical Support System.

BACKGROUND: Despite atrial fibrillation guideline recommendations, many patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF) continue to receive IV diltiazem for acute rate control. OBJECTIVE: Our institution recently implemented a clinical decision support system (CDSS)-based tool that recommends against the use of diltiazem in patients with an EF ≤ 40%. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of adherence to the aforementioned CDSS-based tool. METHODS: This multi-hospital, retrospective study assessed patients who triggered the CDSS alert and compared those who did and did not discontinue diltiazem. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinical deterioration. The primary endpoint was compared utilizing a Fisher's Exact Test, and a multivariate logistic regression model was developed to confirm the results of the primary analysis. RESULTS: A total of 246 patients were included in this study with 146 patients in the nonadherent group (received diltiazem) and 100 patients in the adherent group (did not receive diltiazem). There was a higher proportion of patients experiencing clinical deterioration in the alert nonadherence group (33% vs 21%, P = 0.044), including increased utilization of inotropes and vasopressors, and higher rate of transfer to ICU. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In patients with heart failure with reduced EF, diltiazem use after nonadherence to a CDSS alert resulted in an increased risk of clinical deterioration. This study highlights the need for improved provider adherence to diltiazem clinical decision support systems.

Outcomes of Impella 5.0 and 5.5 for cardiogenic shock: A single-center 137 patient experience.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) supported with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 and identified risk factors for in-hospital mortality. METHODS: Adults with CS who were supported with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 at a single institution were included. Patients were stratified into three groups according to their CS etiology: (1) acute myocardial infarction (AMI), (2) acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), and (3) postcardiotomy (PC). The primary outcome was survival, and secondary outcomes included adverse events during Impella support and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-seven patients with CS secondary to AMI (n = 47), ADHF (n = 86), and PC (n = 4) were included. The ADHF group had the highest survival rates at all time points. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was the most common complication during Impella support in all 3 groups. Increased rates of AKI and de novo renal replacement therapy were observed in the PC group, and the AMI group experienced a higher incidence of bleeding requiring transfusion. Multivariable analysis demonstrated diabetes mellitus, elevated pre-insertion serum lactate, and elevated pre-insertion serum creatinine were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality, but the etiology of CS did not impact mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that Impella 5.0 and 5.5 provide effective mechanical support for patients with CS with favorable outcomes, with nearly two-thirds of patients alive at 180 days. Diabetes, elevated pre-insertion serum lactate, and elevated pre-insertion serum creatinine are strong risk factors for in-hospital mortality.

Concomitant use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous microaxial assist device support for cardiogenic shock.

Objectives: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support is an emerging treatment modality for cardiogenic shock (CS). Survival outcomes by CS etiology with this support strategy have not been well described. Methods: This study was a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) supported with VA-ECMO with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support from December 2020 to January 2023. Results: A total of 44 patients were included (AMI-CS, n = 20, and ADHF-CS, n = 24). Patients with AMI-CS and ADHF-CS had similar survival at 90 days postdischarge (P = .267) with similar destinations after support (P = .220). Patients with AMI-CS initially supported with VA-ECMO were less likely to survive 90 days postdischarge (P = .038) when compared with other cohorts. Limb ischemia and acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in patients presenting with AMI-CS (P =.013; P = .030). Subanalysis of ADHF-CS patients into acute-on-chronic decompensated HF and de novo HF demonstrated no difference in survival or destination. Conclusions: VA-ECMO with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support can be used to successfully manage patients with CS. There is no difference in survival or destination for AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with this support strategy. AMI-CS patients with initial VA-ECMO support have increased mortality in comparison to other cohorts. Future multicenter studies are required to fully analyze the differences between AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with this support strategy.

Impact of post-transplant stroke and subsequent functional independence on outcomes following heart transplantation under the 2018 United States heart allocation system.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the clinical trends, risk factors, and effects of post-transplant stroke and subsequent functional independence on outcomes following orthotopic heart transplantation under the 2018 heart allocation system. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried to identify adult recipients from October 18, 2018 to December 31, 2021. The cohort was stratified into 2 groups with and without post-transplant stroke. The incidence of post-transplant stroke was compared before and after the allocation policy change. Outcomes included post-transplant survival and complications. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for post-transplant stroke. Sub-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of functional independence among recipients with post-transplant stroke. RESULTS: A total of 9,039 recipients were analyzed in this study. The incidence of post-transplant stroke was higher following the policy change (3.8% vs 3.1%, p = 0.017). Thirty-day (81.4% vs 97.7%) and 1-year (66.4% vs 92.5%) survival rates were substantially lower in the stroke cohort (p < 0.001). The stroke cohort had a higher rate of post-transplant renal failure, longer hospital length of stay, and worse functional status. Multivariable analysis identified extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, durable left ventricular assist device, blood type O, and redo heart transplantation as strong predictors of post-transplant stroke. Preserved functional independence considerably improved 30-day (99.2% vs 61.2%) and 1-year (97.7% vs 47.4%) survival rates among the recipients with post-transplant stroke (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a higher incidence of post-transplant stroke under the 2018 allocation system, and it is associated with significantly worse post-transplant outcomes. However, post-transplant stroke recipients with preserved functional independence have improved survival, similar to those without post-transplant stroke.

Improved waitlist and comparable post-transplant outcomes in simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation under the 2018 heart allocation system.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the clinical trends and the impact of the 2018 heart allocation policy change on both waitlist and post-transplant outcomes in simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation in the United States. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried to compare adult patients before and after the allocation policy change. This study included 2 separate analyses evaluating the waitlist and post-transplant outcomes. Multivariable analyses were performed to determine the 2018 allocation system's risk-adjusted hazards for 1-year waitlist and post-transplant mortality. RESULTS: The initial analysis investigating the waitlist outcomes included 1779 patients listed for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation. Of these, 1075 patients (60.4%) were listed after the 2018 allocation policy change. After the policy change, the waitlist outcomes significantly improved with a shorter waitlist time, lower likelihood of de-listing, and higher likelihood of transplantation. In the subsequent analysis investigating the post-transplant outcomes, 1130 simultaneous heart-kidney transplant recipients were included, where 738 patients (65.3%) underwent simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation after the policy change. The 90-day, 6-month, and 1-year post-transplant survival and complication rates were comparable before and after the policy change. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that the 2018 allocation system positively impacted risk-adjusted 1-year waitlist mortality (sub-hazard ratio, 0.66, 95% CI, 0.51-0.85, P < .001), but it did not significantly impact risk-adjusted 1-year post-transplant mortality (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.72-1.47, P = .876). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates increased rates of simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation with a shorter waitlist time after the 2018 allocation policy change. Furthermore, there were improved waitlist outcomes and comparable early post-transplant survival after simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation under the 2018 allocation system.

Donation after circulatory death improves probability of heart transplantation in waitlisted candidates and results in post-transplant outcomes similar to those achieved with brain-dead donors.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitate the impact of heart donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor utilization on both waitlist and post-transplant outcomes in the United States. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried to identify all adult waitlisted and transplanted candidates between October 18, 2018, and December 31, 2022. Waitlisted candidates were stratified according to whether they had been approved for donation after brain death (DBD) offers only or also approved for DCD offers. The cumulative incidence of transplantation was compared between the 2 cohorts. In a post-transplant analysis, 1-year post-transplant survival was compared between unmatched and propensity-score-matched cohorts of DBD and DCD recipients. RESULTS: A total of 14,803 candidates were waitlisted, including 12,287 approved for DBD donors only and 2516 approved for DCD donors. Overall, DCD approval was associated with an increased sub-hazard ratio (HR) for transplantation and a lower sub-HR for delisting owing to death/deterioration after risk adjustment. In a subgroup analysis, candidates with blood type B and status 4 designation received the greatest benefit from DCD approval. A total of 12,238 recipients underwent transplantation, 11,636 with DBD hearts and 602 with DCD hearts. Median waitlist times were significantly shorter for status 3 and status 4 recipients receiving DCD hearts. One-year post-transplant survival was comparable between unmatched and propensity score-matched cohorts of DBD and DCD recipients. CONCLUSIONS: The use of DCD hearts confers a higher probability of transplantation and a lower incidence of death/deterioration while on the waitlist, particularly among certain subpopulations such as status 4 candidates. Importantly, the use of DCD donors results in similar post-transplant survival as DBD donors.

Cardiogenic shock etiology and exit strategy impact survival in patients with Impella 5.5.

BACKGROUND: Despite historical differences in cardiogenic shock (CS) outcomes by etiology, outcomes by CS etiology have yet to be described in patients supported by temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with Impella 5.5. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to identify differences in survival and post-support destination for these patients in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) CS at a high-volume, tertiary, transplant center. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who received Impella 5.5 at our center from November 2020 to June 2022 was conducted. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients underwent Impella 5.5 implantation for CS; 23 (34%) for AMI and 44 (66%) for ADHF. AMI patients presented with higher SCAI stage, pre-implant lactate, and rate of prior MCS devices, and fewer days from admission to implantation. Survival was lower for AMI patients at 30 days, 90 days, and discharge. No difference in time to all-cause mortality was found when excluding patients receiving transplant. There was no significant difference in complication rates between groups. CONCLUSIONS: ADHF-CS patients with Impella 5.5 support have a significantly higher rate of survival than patients with AMI-CS. ADHF patients were successfully bridged to heart transplant more often than AMI patients, contributing to increased survival.

Persistence of pulmonary hypertension in patients undergoing ventricular assist devices and orthotopic heart transplantation.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is common in advanced heart failure and often improves quickly after left ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation or orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT), but long-term effects and outcomes are not well-described. This study evaluated PH persistence after VAD as destination therapy (VAD-DT), bridge to transplant (VAD-OHT), or OHT-alone. The study constituted a retrospective review of patients who underwent VAD-DT (n = 164), VAD-OHT (n = 111), or OHT-alone (n = 138) at a single tertiary-care center. Right heart catheterization (RHC) data was collected pre-, post-intervention (VAD and/or OHT), and 1-year from final intervention (latest-RHC) to evaluate the longitudinal hemodynamic course of right ventricular function and pulmonary vasculature. PH (Group II and Group I) definitions were adapted from expert guidelines. All groups showed significant improvements in mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP), pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP), cardiac output, and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) at each RHC with greatest improvement at post-intervention RHC (post-VAD or post-OHT). PH was reduced from 98% to 26% in VAD-OHT, 92%-49% in VAD-DT, and 76%-28% in OHT-alone from preintervention to latest-RHC. At latest-RHC mPAP remained elevated in all groups despite normalization of PAWP and PVR. VAD-supported patients exhibited suppressed pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PaPi < 3.7) with improvement only posttransplant at latest-RHC. Posttransplant patients with PH at latest-RHC (n = 60) exhibited lower survival (HR: 2.1 [95% CI: 1.3-3.4], p < 0.001). Despite an overall significant improvement in pulmonary pressures and PH proportion, a notable subset of patients exhibited PH post-intervention. Post-intervention PH was associated with lower posttransplant survival.

Association of pre-left ventricular assist device defibrillator shocks for ventricular arrhythmia with clinical outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation.

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillation (ICD) shocks after left ventricular assist device therapy (LVAD) are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Little is known about the association of pre-LVAD ICD shocks on post-LVAD clinical outcomes and whether LVAD therapy affects the prevalence of ICD shocks. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine whether pre-LVAD ICD shocks are associated with adverse clinical outcomes post-LVAD and to compare the prevalence of ICD shocks before and after LVAD therapy. Methods: Patients 18 years or older with continuous-flow LVADs and ICDs were retrospectively identified within the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system from 2006-2020. We analyzed the association between appropriate ICD shocks within 1 year pre-LVAD with a primary composite outcome of death, stroke, and pump thrombosis and secondary outcomes of post-LVAD ICD shocks and ICD shock hospitalizations. Results: Among 309 individuals, average age was 57 ± 12 years, 87% were male, 80% had ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 42% were bridge to transplantation. Seventy-one patients (23%) experienced pre-LVAD shocks, and 69 (22%) experienced post-LVAD shocks. The overall prevalence of shocks pre-LVAD and post-LVAD were not different. Pre-LVAD ICD shocks were not associated with the composite outcome. Pre-LVAD ICD shocks were found to predict post-LVAD shocks (hazard ratio [HR] 5.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.42-9.48; P <.0001) and hospitalizations related to ICD shocks from ventricular arrhythmia (HR 10.34; 95% CI 4.1-25.7; P <.0001). Conclusion: Pre-LVAD ICD shocks predicted post-LVAD ICD shocks and hospitalizations but were not associated with the composite outcome of death, pump thrombosis, or stroke at 1 year. The prevalence of appropriate ICD shocks was similar before and after LVAD implantation in the entire cohort.

Impact of Female Sex on Cardiogenic Shock Outcomes: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Report.

BACKGROUND: Studies reporting cardiogenic shock (CS) outcomes in women are scarce. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared survival at discharge among women vs men with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) and heart failure (HF-CS). METHODS: The authors analyzed 5,083 CS patients in the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed with the use of baseline characteristics. Logistic regression was performed for log odds of survival. RESULTS: Among 5,083 patients, 1,522 were women (30%), whose mean age was 61.8 ± 15.8 years. There were 30% women and 29.1% men with AMI-CS (P = 0.03). More women presented with de novo HF-CS compared with men (26.2% vs 19.3%; P < 0.001). Before PSM, differences in baseline characteristics and sex-specific outcomes were seen in the HF-CS cohort, with worse survival at discharge (69.9% vs 74.4%; P = 0.009) and a higher rate of maximum Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions stage E (26% vs 21%; P = 0.04) in women than in men. Women were less likely to receive pulmonary artery catheterization (52.9% vs 54.6%; P < 0.001), heart transplantation (6.5% vs 10.3%; P < 0.001), or left ventricular assist device implantation (7.8% vs 10%; P = 0.01). Regardless of CS etiology, women had more vascular complications (8.8% vs 5.7%; P < 0.001), bleeding (7.1% vs 5.2%; P = 0.01), and limb ischemia (6.8% vs 4.5%; P = 0.001). More vascular complications persisted in women after PSM (10.4% women vs 7.4% men; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Women with HF-CS had worse outcomes and more vascular complications than men with HF-CS. More studies are needed to identify barriers to advanced therapies, decrease complications, and improve outcomes of women with CS.

Reduction of HLA donor specific antibodies in heart transplant patients treated with proteasome inhibitors for antibody mediated rejection.

In this project, we describe proteasome inhibitor (PI) treatment of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in heart transplantation (HTX). From January 2018 to September 2021, 10 patients were treated with PI for AMR: carfilzomib (CFZ) n = 8; bortezomib (BTZ) n = 2. Patients received 1-3 cycles of PI. All patients had ≥1 strong donor-specific antibody (DSA) (mean fluorescence intensity [MFI] > 8000) in undiluted serum. Most DSAs (20/21) had HLA class II specificity. The MFI of strong DSAs had a median reduction of 56% (IQR = 13%-89%) in undiluted serum and 92% (IQR = 53%-95%) at 1:16 dilution. Seventeen DSAs in seven patients were reduced > 50% at 1:16 dilution after treatment. Four DSAs from three patients did not respond. DSA with MFI > 8000 at 1:16 dilution was less responsive to treatment. 60% (6/10) patients presented with graft dysfunction; 4/6 recovered ejection fraction > 40% after treatment. Pathologic AMR was resolved in 5/7 (71.4%) of patients within 1 year after treatment. 9/10 (90%) patients survived to 1 year after AMR diagnosis. Using PI in AMR resulted in significant DSA reduction with some resolution of graft dysfunction. Larger studies are needed to evaluate PI for AMR.

Concomitant Use of VA-ECMO and Impella Support for Cardiogenic Shock.

Background: VA-ECMO with concomitant Impella support (ECpella) is an emerging treatment modality for cardiogenic shock (CS). Survival outcomes by CS etiology with ECpella support have not been well-described. Methods: This study was a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) supported with ECpella from December 2020 to January 2023. Primary outcomes included 90-day survival post-discharge and destination after support. Secondary outcomes included complications post-ECpella support. Results: A total of 44 patients were included (AMI-CS, n = 20, and ADHF-CS, n = 24). Patients with AMI-CS and ADHF-CS had similar survival 90 days post-discharge (p = .267) with similar destinations after ECpella support (p = .220). Limb ischemia and acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in patients presenting with AMI-CS (p=.013; p = .030). Patients with initial Impella support were more likely to survive ECpella support and be bridged to transplant (p=.033) and less likely to have a cerebrovascular accident (p=.016). Sub-analysis of ADHF-CS patients into acute-on-chronic decompensated heart failure and de novo heart failure demonstrated no difference in survival or destination. Conclusion: ECpella can be used to successfully manage patients with CS. There is no difference in survival or destination for AMI-CS and ADHF-CS in patients with ECpella support. Patients with initial Impella support are more likely to survive ECpella support and bridge to transplant. Future multicenter studies are required to fully analyze the differences between AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with ECpella support.

Pulmonary Artery Catheter Use and Risk of In-hospital Death in Heart Failure Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) are increasingly used to guide management decisions in cardiogenic shock (CS). The goal of this study was to determine if PAC use was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality in CS owing to acute heart failure (HF-CS). METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study included patients with CS hospitalized between 2019 and 2021 at 15 US hospitals participating in the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), accounting for multiple variables at admission. The association between the timing of PAC placement and in-hospital death was also analyzed. A total of 1055 patients with HF-CS were included, of whom 834 (79%) received a PAC during their hospitalization. In-hospital mortality risk for the cohort was 24.7% (n = 261). PAC use was associated with lower adjusted in-hospital mortality risk (22.2% vs 29.8%, OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.94). Similar associations were found across SCAI stages of shock, both at admission and at maximum SCAI stage during hospitalization. Early PAC use (≤6 hours of admission) was observed in 220 PAC recipients (26%) and associated with a lower adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality compared with delayed (≥48 hours) or no PAC use (17.3% vs 27.7%, OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: This observational study supports PAC use, because it was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality in HF-CS, especially if performed within 6 hours of hospital admission. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: An observational study from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry of 1055 patients with HF-CS showed that pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use was associated with a lower adjusted in-hospital mortality risk (22.2% vs 29.8%, odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.94) compared with outcomes in patients managed without PAC. Early PAC use (≤6 hours of admission) was associated with a lower adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality compared with delayed (≥48 hours) or no PAC use (17.3% vs 27.7%, odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.81).

Impact of 2018 allocation system change on outcomes in patients with durable left ventricular assist device as bridge to transplantation: A UNOS registry analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study compared outcomes of patients waitlisted for orthotopic heart transplantation with durable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) before and after the October 18, 2018 heart allocation policy change. METHODS: The United Network of Organ Sharing database was queried to identify 2 cohorts of adult candidates with durable LVAD listed within seasonally-matched, equal-length periods before (old policy era [OPE]) and after the policy change (new policy era [NPE]). The primary outcomes were 2-year survival from the time of initial waitlisting, as well as 2-year post-transplant survival. Secondary outcomes included incidence of transplantation from the waitlist and de-listing due to either death or clinical deterioration. RESULTS: A total of 2,512 candidates were waitlisted, 1,253 within the OPE and 1,259 within the NPE. Candidates under both policies had similar 2-year survival after waitlisting, as well as a similar cumulative incidence of transplantation and de-listing due to death and/or clinical deterioration. A total of 2,560 patients were transplanted within the study period, 1,418 OPE and 1,142 within the NPE. Two-year post-transplant survival was similar between policy eras, however, the NPE was associated with a higher incidence of post-transplant stroke, renal failure requiring dialysis, and a longer hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: The 2018 heart allocation policy has conferred no significant impact on overall survival from the time of initial waitlisting among durable LVAD-supported candidates. Similarly, the cumulative incidence of transplantation and waitlist mortality have also been largely unchanged. For those undergoing transplantation, a higher degree of post-transplant morbidity was observed, though survival was not impacted.

Clinical trends, risk factors, and temporal effects of post-transplant dialysis on outcomes following orthotopic heart transplantation in the 2018 United States heart allocation system.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the current clinical trends, risk factors, and temporal effects of post-transplant dialysis on outcomes following orthotopic heart transplantation after the 2018 United States adult heart allocation policy change. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry was queried to analyze adult orthotopic heart transplant recipients after the October 18, 2018 heart allocation policy change. The cohort was stratified according to the need for post-transplant de novo dialysis. The primary outcome was survival. Propensity score-matching was performed to compare the outcomes between 2 similar cohorts with and without post-transplant de novo dialysis. The impact of post-transplant dialysis chronicity was evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for post-transplant dialysis. RESULTS: A total of 7,223 patients were included in this study. Out of these, 968 patients (13.4%) developed post-transplant renal failure requiring de novo dialysis. Both 1-year (73.2% vs 94.8%) and 2-year (66.3% vs 90.6%) survival rates were lower in the dialysis cohort (p < 0.001), and the lower survival rates persisted in a propensity-matched comparison. Recipients requiring only temporary post-transplant dialysis had significantly improved 1-year (92.5% vs 71.6%) and 2-year (86.6 % vs 52.2%) survival rates compared to the chronic post-transplant dialysis group (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated low pretransplant estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) and bridge with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were strong predictors of post-transplant dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that post-transplant dialysis is associated with significantly increased morbidity and mortality in the new allocation system. Post-transplant survival is affected by the chronicity of post-transplant dialysis. Low pretransplant eGFR and ECMO are strong risk factors for post-transplant dialysis.

Basiliximab induction versus no induction in adult heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Induction immunosuppression in heart transplant recipients varies greatly by center. Basiliximab (BAS) is the most commonly used induction immunosuppressant but has not been shown to reduce rejection or improve survival. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare rejection, infection, and mortality within the first 12 months following heart transplant in patients who received BAS or no induction. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult heart transplant recipients given BAS or no induction from January 1, 2017 to May 31, 2021. The primary endpoint was incidence of treated acute cellular rejection (ACR) at 12-months post-transplant. Secondary endpoints included ACR at 90 days post-transplant, incidence of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) at 90 days and 1 year, incidence of infection, and all-cause mortality at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients received BAS, and 26 patients received no induction within the specified timeframe. There was a lower incidence of ACR within the first year in the BAS group compared to the no induction group (27.7 vs. 68.2%, p < .002). BAS was independently associated with a lower probability of having a rejection event during the first 12-months post-transplant (hazard ratio (HR) .285, 95% confidence interval [CI] .142-.571, p < .001). There was no difference in the rate of infection and in mortality after hospital discharge at 1-year post-transplant (6% vs. 0%, p = .20). CONCLUSION: BAS appears to be associated with greater freedom from rejection without an increase in infections. BAS may be a preferred to a no induction strategy in patients undergoing heart transplantation.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Graft Dysfunction Early After Heart Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a prevailing option for the management of severe early graft dysfunction. This systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis aims to evaluate (1) mortality, (2) rates of major complications, (3) prognostic factors, and (4) the effect of different VA-ECMO strategies on outcomes in adult heart transplant (HT) recipients supported with VA-ECMO. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a systematic search and included studies of adults (≥18 years) who received VA-ECMO during their index hospitalization after HT and reported on mortality at any timepoint. We pooled data using random effects models. To identify prognostic factors, we analysed IPD using mixed effects logistic regression. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the GRADE framework. We included 49 observational studies of 1477 patients who received VA-ECMO after HT, of which 15 studies provided IPD for 448 patients. There were no differences in mortality estimates between IPD and non-IPD studies. The short-term (30-day/in-hospital) mortality estimate was 33% (moderate certainty, 95% confidence interval [CI] 28%-39%) and 1-year mortality estimate 50% (moderate certainty, 95% CI 43%-57%). Recipient age (odds ratio 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.04) and prior sternotomy (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.99-2.49) are associated with increased short-term mortality. There is low certainty evidence that early intraoperative cannulation and peripheral cannulation reduce the risk of short-term death. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of patients who receive VA-ECMO for early graft dysfunction do not survive 30 days or to hospital discharge, and one-half do not survive to 1 year after HT. Improving outcomes will require ongoing research focused on optimizing VA-ECMO strategies and care in the first year after HT.

Outcomes of systemic bivalirudin and sodium bicarbonate purge solution for Impella 5.5.

BACKGROUND: Impella 5.5 (Abiomed; Danvers, MA) (IMP5) is a commonly used, surgically implanted, tMCS device that requires systemic anticoagulation and purge solution to avoid pump failure. To avoid heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) from unfractionated heparin (UFH) use, our program has explored the utility of bivalirudin (BIV) for systemic anticoagulation and sodium bicarbonate-dextrose purge solution (SBPS) in IMP5.5. METHODS: This single center, retrospective study included 34 patients supported on IMP5.5 with BIV based AC and SBPS between December 1st 2020 to December 1st 2021.The efficacy and safety end points were incidence of development of HIT, Tissue Plasminogen Activator (tPA) use for suspected pump thrombosis, stroke, and device failure as well as clinically significant bleeding. RESULTS: The median duration of IMP5.5 support was 9.8 days (IQR: 6-15). Most patients were bridged to HTX (58%) followed by recovery (27%) and LVAD implantation (15%). Patients were therapeutic on bivalirudin for 64% of their IMP5.5 support. One patient (2.9%) suffered from ischemic stroke and 26.5% (9) patients developed clinically significant bleeding. tPA was administered to 7(21%) patients. One patient in the entire cohort developed HIT. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience supports the use of systemic BIV and SBPS as a method to avoid heparin exposure in a patient population predisposed to the development of HIT.

Redo orthotopic heart transplantation in the current era.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the trends, outcomes, and risk factors for mortality after redo orthotopic heart transplantation. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was used to identify adult orthotopic heart transplantation recipients from 2000 to 2020 and stratify into primary and redo cohorts. Five-year post-transplant survival was compared between 2 propensity-matched cohorts. Multivariable modeling was performed to identify risk-adjusted predictors of redo post-transplant mortality, both conditional and nonconditional on shorter-term survival. RESULTS: A total of 40,711 recipients were analyzed, 39,657 (97.4%) primary and 1054 (2.6%) redo. Redo recipients had a lower median age and were more frequently bridged with intravenous inotropes, intra-aortic balloon pump, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (all P < .05). One- and 5-year survivals were lower after redo orthotopic heart transplantation (90.0% vs 83.4% and 77.6% vs 68.6%, respectively) and remained lower after comparing 2 propensity-matched cohorts. Multivariable modeling found factors such as increasing donor age and graft ischemic times, along with pretransplant mechanical ventilation and blood transfusion, to negatively affect 90-day survival. Contingent on 1-year survival, donor factors such as hypertension (hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.00, P = .004) and left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50% (hazard ratio, 2.22, 95% confidence interval, 1.16-4.24, P = .016) negatively affected survival at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Although infrequently performed, redo orthotopic heart transplantation remains associated with worse post-transplant outcomes compared with primary orthotopic heart transplantation. Although several high-risk features were identified to affect post-retransplant outcomes in the acute perioperative period, donor characteristics such as hypertension and decreased ejection fraction continue to have lasting negative impacts in the longer term.