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.

Center Volume Predicts Improved Early Outcomes in Multiorgan Heart Transplantation.

PURPOSE: Center volume is associated with improved survival after isolated heart transplant, but its impact on multiorgan heart transplant (MHT) outcomes is unknown. This study examines the impact of institutional MHT volume on MHT outcomes. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing first time MHT from 2011 to 2021 were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Transplant centers were annually classified as low-, medium-, or high-volume if they performed <3, 3 to 5, or ≥6 MHTs that year, respectively. Graft failure was defined as death, failure, or re-transplantation of any allograft. RESULTS: A total of 1860 MHTs were performed at 104 centers, including 482 (26%) at low-, 601 (32%) at medium-, and 777 (42%) at high-MHT volume centers. Noncardiac allografts included kidney (83%), liver (16%), and lung (2%). The proportion of MHTs performed at high-volume centers increased from 10% in 2011 to 62% in 2021. Recipient age, race, and body mass index did not vary by center volume (all P > .05). Patients at high-volume centers were more likely to be in the intensive care unit pre-transplant (58% vs 44%, P < .001) and have shorter waitlist times (47 vs 92 days, P < .001) than those at low-volume centers. 30-day graft survival was higher in combined medium- and high-volume compared with low-volume centers (95% vs 92%, P = .004). Increasing center MHT volume was protective against 30-day graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio 0.93 [0.88-0.98]) on multivariate Cox regression. CONCLUSIONS: Higher MHT volume is associated with improved early graft survival after MHT, which may justify centralizing the performance of MHTs to high-volume centers.

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.

Placement of Temporary Left Ventricular Assist Device Using Monitored Anesthesia Care and Regional Anesthesia.

Patients with advanced cardiogenic shock requiring mechanical circulatory support are uniquely susceptible to clinical deterioration. Limiting physiologic perturbations via avoidance of general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation by awake Impella 5.5 placement is safe and may represent a novel strategy in mechanical circulatory support initiation among patients in cardiogenic shock. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Short stature is a risk factor for heart transplant morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Short stature is associated with mortality after cardiac surgery and may increase size mismatch risk among transplant recipients. Yet, stature's impact on heart transplant outcomes is not well-characterized. METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was queried for data on all adult heart transplants in the United States from 2000 to 2022. Recipients were stratified into five cohorts by sex-corrected stature. Morbidity was assessed with Kruskal-Wallis and chi-squared tests. Mortality was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimation. Risk factors for mortality were assessed with multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Among 43,420 transplant recipients, 5321 (12.2%) had short stature (females >4'11″ & ≤5'1″; males >5'4″ & ≤5'7″) and 765 (1.8%) had very short stature (females ≤4'11″; males ≤5'4″). Very short stature patients had higher waitlist status (1A and 1), more congenital heart disease, and received more oversized donor hearts than other cohorts (all p < 0.05). Very short stature patients had decreased 30-day, 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival (94.6%, 84.3%, 69.3% and 52.5%, respectively, all p < 0.001), but less acute rejection (p = 0.005) and comparable stroke rates (p = 0.107). On multivariable regression adjusting for congenital heart disease and oversized donor hearts, very short and short stature were associated with 10-year mortality (hazard ratios: 1.40 and 1.12, respectively, both p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Short stature confers increased mortality risk for heart transplant recipients and merits inclusion in prognostic models.

Using a polygenic score to account for genomic risk factors in a model to detect individuals with dilated ascending thoracic aortas.

Background: Ascending thoracic aortic dilation is a complex trait that involves modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors and can lead to thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection. Clinical risk factors have been shown to predict ascending thoracic aortic diameter. Polygenic scores (PGS) are increasingly used to assess clinical risk for multifactorial diseases. The degree to which a PGS can improve aortic diameter prediction is not known. In this study we tested the extent to which the addition of a PGS to clinical prediction algorithms improves the prediction of aortic diameter. Methods: The patient cohort comprised 6,790 Penn Medicine Biobank (PMBB) participants with available echocardiography and clinical data linked to genome-wide genotype data. Linear regression models were used to integrate PGS weights derived from a large genome wide association study of thoracic aortic diameter in the UK biobank and were compared to the performance of the standard and a reweighted variation of the recently published AORTA Score. Results: Cohort participants were 56% male, had a median age of 61 years (IQR 52-70) with a mean ascending aortic diameter of 3.4 cm (SD 0.5). Compared to the AORTA Score which explained 28.4% (95% CI 28.1% to 29.2%) of the variance in aortic diameter, AORTA Score + PGS explained 28.8%, (95% CI 28.1% to 29.6%), the reweighted AORTA score explained 30.4% (95% CI 29.6% to 31.2%), and the reweighted AORTA Score + PGS explained 31.0% (95% CI 30.2% to 31.8%). The addition of a PGS to either the AORTA Score or the reweighted AORTA Score improved model sensitivity for the identifying individuals with a thoracic aortic diameter ≥ 4 cm. The respective areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve for the AORTA Score + PGS (0.771, 95% CI 0.756 to 0.787) and reweighted AORTA Score + PGS (0.785, 95% CI 0.770 to 0.800) were greater than the standard AORTA Score (0.767, 95% CI 0.751 to 0.783) and reweighted AORTA Score (0.780 95% CI 0.765 to 0.795). Conclusions: We demonstrated that inclusion of a PGS to the AORTA Score results in a small but clinically meaningful performance enhancement. Further investigation is necessary to determine if combining genetic and clinical risk prediction improves outcomes for thoracic aortic disease.

Outcomes of aortic valve repair with the reimplantation technique and maintenance of commissural orientation.

Background: Debate still persists on whether valve-sparing root reimplantation (VSRR) of a very asymmetric bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) should be completed such that the asymmetry of the native commissural orientation is retained, or if it should be made symmetric (180°-180°). Herein, we present our approach, in which the native asymmetry is preserved, and the valve is reimplanted in a 210°-150° orientation. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of 130 patients with BAV who underwent VSRR between January 1, 2004 and March 1, 2023 at a single institution. Of this total, 37 were reimplanted asymmetrically (210°-150°). The primary outcome was > moderate aortic insufficiency (AI). Secondary outcomes included severe aortic stenosis (AS), reintervention, and survival. Results: The included 37 patients were mostly male [94.6% (35/37)] with mean age of 46.3 years, and with low rates of comorbidities. At least moderate AI was present in 40.5% (15/37) prior to surgery. All BAV in this series were Sievers Type 1 with a mean commissural angle of 128.2°. Leaflet repair was required in 81.1% (30/37), most commonly involving central plication of the conjoined cusp [96.7% (29/30)] and raphe release [73.3% (22/30)]. There was no 30-day mortality or stroke. At 10 years, the cumulative incidences of > moderate AI, severe AS, and reintervention were 7.6% (0-17.2%), 7.1% (0-19.7%), and 5.3% (0.3-22%), respectively. There was no mortality for the entire duration of the study period. Conclusions: This series demonstrates excellent 10-year outcomes of maintaining commissural orientation in asymmetric BAV reimplantation procedures. However, further study with additional patients, longer follow-up, and direct comparison to symmetric reimplantation for similar BAV morphology is required.

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.

Emerging Racial Differences in Heart Transplant Waitlist Outcomes for Patients on Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) is increasingly used for patients awaiting heart transplantation. Although examples of systemic inequity in cardiac care have been described, biases in tMCS use are not well characterized. This study explores the racial disparities in tMCS use and waitlist outcomes. The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify adults listed for first-time heart transplantation from 2015 to 2021. White and non-White patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, intra-aortic balloon pump, or temporary left ventricular assist device were identified. Waitlist outcomes of mortality, transplantation, and delisting were analyzed by race using competing risks regression. The effect of the new heart allocation system was also assessed. A total of 16,811 patients were included in this study, with 10,377 self-identifying as White and 6,434 as non-White. White patients were more often male, privately ensured, and had less co-morbidities (p <0.05). tMCS use was found to be significantly higher in non-White patients (p <0.001). Among those on tMCS, non-White patients were more likely to be delisted because of illness (subhazard ratio 1.34 [1.09 to 1.63]) and less likely to die while on the waitlist (subhazard ratio 0.76 [0.61 to 0.93]). This disparity was not present before the implementation of the new heart allocation system. tMCS use was proportional to the risk factors identified in the non-White cohort. After the implementation of the new heart allocation system, White patients were more likely to die, whereas non-White patients were more likely to be delisted. Further work is needed to determine the causes of and potential solutions for disparities in the waitlist 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.

Midterm Results of an Algorithmic 3-Pronged Approach to Bicuspid Aortic Valve Repair.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated midterm outcomes of a 3-pronged algorithm for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) repair. Valve-sparing root reimplantation (VSRR) was performed for patients with aortic root dilatation. In those without a root aneurysm, external subannular ring (ESAR) was performed for annuli ≥28 mm and subcommissural annuloplasty (SCA) for annuli <28 mm. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of 242 patients undergoing primary BAV repair from April 29, 2004, to March 1, 2023, at a single institution. Primary end points were mortality, structural valve degeneration (SVD), which was defined as a composite of more than moderate aortic insufficiency or severe aortic stenosis, and reintervention. RESULTS: The algorithm was used to treat 201 patients; of these, 130 underwent VSRR, 35 had ESAR, and 36 underwent SCA. Most were men with mean age of 43.8 years (SD, 12.0 years), which was similar between groups. Preoperative aortic insufficiency more than moderate was more common for ESAR compared with VSRR and SCA (74.3% vs 37.7% vs 44.4%, P < .001). At 30 days, mortality was 0.8% (n = 1) for VSRR and 0% for ESAR and SCA. At 6 years, overall Kaplan-Meier survival was 98.9% (95% CI, 97.3%-100%), with no differences between groups (P = .5). The cumulative incidence of SVD was 4.7% (95% CI, 0.1%-9.2%) for VSRR, 6.4% (95% CI, 0%-14.6%) for ESAR, and 0% for SCA (P = .4). Similarly, the cumulative incidence of reintervention with all-cause mortality as a competing risk was 2.2% (95% CI, 0.4%-6.9%), 6.1% (95% CI, 1%-17.9%), and 0% for VSRR, ESAR, and SCA, respectively (P = .506). CONCLUSIONS: A 3-pronged algorithmic approach to BAV repair results in excellent survival and freedom from reoperation at 6 years.

Aortic valve replacement for moderate aortic stenosis during mitral surgery improves survival free from severe stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of moderate aortic stenosis during surgery for another indication is unclear. We assessed the effects of surgical aortic valve replacement for moderate aortic stenosis during mitral surgery. METHODS: An institutional mitral surgery database was queried for patients with preoperative moderate aortic stenosis. Patients were stratified by whether they underwent concomitant surgical aortic valve replacement. Morbidity was analyzed using Student's t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum, chi-squared, and Fisher's exact tests. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 85 mitral surgery recipients with moderate aortic stenosis from 2012 to 2019, 62 (73%) underwent concomitant surgical aortic valve replacement. Surgical aortic valve replacement recipients were more likely to have bicuspid (11% vs. 0%, p = 0.019) or rheumatic (18% vs. 0%, p = 0.019) aortic valves, and to undergo mitral repair (32% vs. 9%, p = 0.028). Groups did not differ with respect to mitral etiology, New York Heart Association class, or cardiac intervention history (p > 0.05). Postoperatively, groups had similar stroke and gastrointestinal bleed rates (3% vs. 0% and 2% vs. 0% in the surgical aortic valve replacement vs. no surgical aortic valve replacement group respectively, both p > 0.99). Five-year survival free from severe aortic stenosis was higher in the surgical aortic valve replacement group (66% vs. 17%, p = 0.002). Surgical aortic valve replacement protected against the composite of death and progression to severe aortic stenosis at 5 years (hazard ratio: 0.32, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical aortic valve replacement for moderate aortic stenosis at time of mitral surgery is a well-tolerated strategy to reduce aortic disease progression.

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.

Extended Support With the Impella 5.5: Transplant, ECMO, and Complications.

We report midterm results of Impella 5.5 use with focus placed on bridge-outcomes, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) transition, complications, and risk factors for mortality. A retrospective review of patients implanted with the Impella 5.5 at our medical center was conducted. Forty patients were included with varying bridge strategies. Sixteen (40%) patients were supported for <14 days, 13 (32.5%) for 14-30 days, and 11 (27.5%) for >30 days. Thirty day mortality was 22.5% (9/40). Twenty-five (62.5%) were successfully bridged to transplant or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), while four (10.0%) recovered without the need for any further cardiac support. Five of 11 (60%) patients initially supported with VA-ECMO were either transitioned to durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD; n = 3, 27.3%), transplanted (n = 1, 9.1%), or recovered (n = 1, 9.1%). Of nine patients with >moderate right ventricle (RV) dysfunction, five (55.6%) were successfully bridged to transplant or LVAD. Five (12.5%) patients required interval cannulation to VA-ECMO, often in the setting of RV dysfunction, and all (100%) were successfully transplanted. Lower pulmonary artery (PA) systolic pressure ( P = 0.029), among other factors, was associated with mortality. In summary, the Impella 5.5 may be able to effectively stabilize patients in refractory left ventricular predominant cardiogenic shock for extended durations, allowing time for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and transplant evaluations.

Extended criteria donor organ use for heart-lung transplantation in the modern era.

BACKGROUND: Demand for donor hearts and lungs exceeds their supply. Extended Criteria Donor (ECD) organs are used to help meet this demand, but their impact on heart-lung transplantation outcomes is poorly characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS: The United Network for Organ Sharing was queried for data on adult heart-lung transplantation recipients (n = 447) from 2005‒2021. Recipients were stratified based on whether they received ECD hearts and/or lungs. Morbidity was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests. Mortality was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimation, log-rank tests and Cox regression. Sixty-five (14.5%) patients received two ECD organs, 134 (30.0%) received only an ECD lung, and 65 (14.5%) only an ECD heart. Recipients of two ECD organs were older, more likely to have diabetes, and more likely transplanted from 2015‒2021 (p < 0.05). Groups did not differ by pre-transplant diagnosis, intensive care unit disposition, life support use, or hemodynamics. Group five-year survival rates ranged from 54.5% to 63.2% (p = 0.428). Groups did not differ by 30-day mortality, strokes, graft rejection, or hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Using ECD hearts and/or lungs for heart-lung transplantation is not associated with increased mortality and is a safe strategy for increasing donor organ supply in this complex patient population.