OPTN/SRTR 2022 Annual Data Report: Heart.

The number of heart transplants in the United States has continued to increase. Since 2011, pediatric heart transplants have increased 31.7% to 494 and adult heart transplants have increased 85.8% to 3,668 in 2022. The numbers of new candidates for pediatric and adult heart transplants have also increased, with 703 new pediatric candidates and 4,446 new adult candidates in 2022. Adult heart transplant rates continue to rise, peaking at 122.5 transplants per 100 patient-years in 2022; however, the pediatric heart transplant rate decreased to its lowest rate in the past decade, 104.2 transplants per 100 patient-years, a decrease of 13.9% from 121 transplants per 100 patient-years in 2011. Despite this, pretransplant mortality among pediatric candidates has decreased by 52.2%, from 20.8 deaths per 100 patient-years in 2011 to 10.0 deaths per 100 patient-years in 2022, but remains excessive for candidates younger than 1 year at 25.7 deaths per 100 patient-years. Among adult candidates, pretransplant mortality declined from 15 deaths per 100 patient-years in 2011 to 8.7 deaths per 100 patient-years in 2022. Since 2011, posttransplant mortality has been stable to slightly better; among recipients who underwent transplant in 2015-2017, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year pediatric survival rates were 93.7%, 89.2%, and 85.0%, respectively, and the adult survival rates were 91.3%, 85.7%, and 80.4%. Donor trends have been favorable, with an increase in the numbers of hearts recovered and growing numbers of hearts procured after circulatory death.

Differences in Donor Heart Acceptance by Race and Gender of Patients on the Transplant Waiting List.

Importance: Barriers to heart transplant must be overcome prior to listing. It is unclear why Black men and women remain less likely to receive a heart transplant after listing than White men and women. Objective: To evaluate whether race or gender of a heart transplant candidate (ie, patient on the transplant waiting list) is associated with the probability of a donor heart being accepted by the transplant center team with each offer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the United Network for Organ Sharing datasets to identify organ acceptance with each offer for US non-Hispanic Black (hereafter, Black) and non-Hispanic White (hereafter, White) adults listed for heart transplant from October 18, 2018, through March 31, 2023. Exposures: Black or White race and gender (men, women) of a heart transplant candidate. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was heart offer acceptance by the transplant center team. The number of offers to acceptance was assessed using discrete time-to-event analyses, nonparametrically (stratified by race and gender) and parametrically. The hazard probability of offer acceptance for each offer was modeled using generalized linear mixed models adjusted for candidate-, donor-, and offer-level variables. Results: Among 159 177 heart offers with 13 760 donors, there were 14 890 candidates listed for heart transplant; 30.9% were Black, 69.1% were White, 73.6% were men, and 26.4% were women. The cumulative incidence of offer acceptance was highest for White women followed by Black women, White men, and Black men (P < .001). Odds of acceptance were less for Black candidates than for White candidates for the first offer (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.84) through the 16th offer. Odds of acceptance were higher for women than for men for the first offer (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.39-1.68) through the sixth offer and were lower for the 10th through 31st offers. Conclusions and Relevance: The cumulative incidence of heart offer acceptance by a transplant center team was consistently lower for Black candidates than for White candidates of the same gender and higher for women than for men. These disparities persisted after adjusting for candidate-, donor-, and offer-level variables, possibly suggesting racial and gender bias in the decision-making process. Further investigation of site-level decision-making may reveal strategies for equitable donor heart acceptance.

OPTN/SRTR 2021 Annual Data Report: Heart.

The past 5 years have posed challenges to the field of heart transplantation. The 2018 heart allocation policy revision was accompanied by anticipated practice adjustments and increased use of short-term circulatory support, changes that may ultimately serve to advance the field. The COVID-19 pandemic also had an impact on heart transplantation. While the number of heart transplants in the United States continued to increase, the number of new candidates decreased slightly during the pandemic. There were slightly more deaths following removal from the waiting list for reasons other than transplant during 2020, and a decline in transplants among candidates listed as status 1, 2, or 3 compared with the other statuses. Heart transplant rates decreased among pediatric candidates, most notably among those younger than 1 year. Despite this, pretransplant mortality has declined for both pediatric and adult candidates, particularly candidates younger than 1 year. Transplant rates have increased in adults. The prevalence of ventricular assist device use has increased among pediatric heart transplant recipients, while the prevalence of short-term mechanical circulatory support, particularly intra-aortic balloon pump and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, has increased among adult recipients.

Readability and Non-English Language Resources of Heart Transplant Center Websites in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Health literacy is associated with heart failure (HF) care and outcomes. Online resources offer important educational materials for patients seeking access to heart transplantation but tend to be complex and potentially ineffective for non-English speakers and those with low reading levels. The purpose of this study was to evaluate both the readability of patient-level information posted on United States heart transplant center websites and the availability of non-English resources. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a review of patient-facing information on websites of U.S. heart transplant centers identified through the United Network for Organ Sharing in August 2022. Written English text was extracted and assessed for readability by using the Fry Graph Readability score. Websites were additionally evaluated for non-English language text and translator tools. Standard ANOVA analysis was used to compare readability levels across transplant regions. The median Fry readability level to understand a piece of text for all regions was 15, which is equivalent to a college-junior reading level (range: 7-17, 7th grade to postgraduate level). There was no statistical difference in median Fry readability levels among regions (P = 0.16). Of the 139 eligible heart transplant center websites, only 56.1% (78/139) had non-English resources available for patients. Regions 5 (75% [15/20]) and 6 (75% [3/4]) had the highest percentage of non-English resources, and region 2 had the lowest (38% [6/16]). CONCLUSIONS: Heart transplant center online resources are inadequate, and many do not provide translations of the English language. Additional work is needed to standardize heart-transplant patient information for a diverse U.S.

Racial Inequities in Access to Ventricular Assist Device and Transplant Persist After Consideration for Preferences for Care: A Report From the REVIVAL Study.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in access to advanced therapies for heart failure (HF) patients are well documented, although the reasons remain uncertain. We sought to determine the association of race on utilization of ventricular assist device (VAD) and transplant among patients with access to care at VAD centers and if patient preferences impact the effect. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study of ambulatory chronic systolic HF patients with high-risk features and no contraindication to VAD enrolled at 21 VAD centers and followed for 2 years in the REVIVAL study (Registry Evaluation of Vital Information for VADs in Ambulatory Life). We used competing events cause-specific proportional hazard methodology with multiple imputation for missing data. The primary outcomes were (1) VAD/transplant and (2) death. The exposures of interest included race (Black or White), additional demographics, captured social determinants of health, clinician-assessed HF severity, patient-reported quality of life, preference for VAD, and desire for therapies. RESULTS: The study included 377 participants, of whom 100 (26.5%) identified as Black. VAD or transplant was performed in 11 (11%) Black and 62 (22%) White participants, although death occurred in 18 (18%) Black and 36 (13%) White participants. Black race was associated with reduced utilization of VAD and transplant (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.23-0.85]) without an increase in death. Preferences for VAD or life-sustaining therapies were similar by race and did not explain racial disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving care by advanced HF cardiologists at VAD centers, there is less utilization of VAD and transplant for Black patients even after adjusting for HF severity, quality of life, and social determinants of health, despite similar care preferences. This residual inequity may be a consequence of structural racism and discrimination or provider bias impacting decision-making. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01369407.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure replaces the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure and the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews and other evidence conducted in human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies published through September 2021 were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments that have high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation in Patients with Preoperative Severe Mitral Regurgitation.

We examined cardiac features associated with residual mitral regurgitation (MR) following continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (cfLVAD) implant. From 2003 to 2017, 134 patients with severe MR underwent cfVLAD implant without mitral valve (MV) intervention. Echocardiographic (echo) assessment occurred pre-cfLVAD, early post-cfLVAD, and at last available echo. Ventricular and atrial volumes were calculated from established formulas and normalized to be predicted. Cluster analysis based on preoperative normalized left ventricular and atrial volumes, and MV height identified grades 1, 2, and 3 with progressively larger cardiac chamber sizes. Median early echo follow-up was 0.92 (0.55, 1.45) months and the last follow-up was 15.12 (5.28, 38.28) months. Mitral regurgitation improved early after cfLVAD by 2.10 ± 1.16 grades (p < 0.01). Mitral regurgitation severity at the last echocardiogram positively correlated with the preoperative left ventricular volume (p = 0.014, R = 0.212), left atrial volume (p = 0.007, R = 0.233), MV anteroposterior height (p = 0.032, R = 0.185), and MV mediolateral diameter (p = 0.043, R = 0.175). Morphologically, smaller grade 1 hearts were correlated with MR resolution at the late follow-up (p = 0.023). Late right ventricular failure (RVF) at the last clinical follow-up was less in grade 1 (4/48 [8.3%]) compared with grades 2 and 3 (26/86 [30.2%]), p = 0.004). Grade 1 cardiac dimensions correlates with improvement in severe MR and had less late RVF.

Representation of Black patients in heart failure clinical trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Black patients with heart failure in the United States are underrepresented in clinical trials relative to their overrepresentation in the heart failure population and in adverse heart failure outcomes. We aim to evaluate historical trends in this space and highlight recent developments. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple landmark heart failure trials published since 2019 have underrepresented Black patients, though several discussed this lack of representation as limitations. A review of large heart failure clinical trials from 2001 to 2016 found persistent underrepresentation of Black patients without significant change over time. Trials enrolling from North America exclusively had more proportional representation, enrolling an average of 31.6% Black participants. SUMMARY: There is a shrinking proportion of Black patients in pivotal heart failure trials despite a higher prevalence of disease and associated adverse outcomes. There is increasing awareness of these disparities within the heart failure community, potentially leading to improved representation in future studies.

Sensitization in Heart Transplantation: Emerging Knowledge: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Sensitization, defined as the presence of circulating antibodies, presents challenges for heart transplant recipients and physicians. When present, sensitization can limit a transplantation candidate's access to organs, prolong wait time, and, in some cases, exclude the candidate from heart transplantation altogether. The management of sensitization is not yet standardized, and current therapies have not yielded consistent results. Although current strategies involve antibody suppression and removal with intravenous immunoglobulin, plasmapheresis, and antibody therapy, newer strategies with more specific targets are being investigated.

Reduced Myocardial Flow Reserve by Positron Emission Tomography Predicts Cardiovascular Events After Cardiac Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the diagnostic and prognostic value of quantification of myocardial flow reserve (MFR) with positron emission tomography (PET) in orthotopic heart transplant patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively identified orthotopic heart transplant patients who underwent rubidium-82 cardiac PET imaging. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularization, and heart failure hospitalization. Cox regression was used to evaluate the association of MFR with the primary outcome. The relationship of MFR and cardiac allograft vasculopathy severity in patients with angiography within 1 year of PET imaging was assessed using Spearman rank correlation and logistic regression. A total of 117 patients (median age, 60 years; 71% men) were identified. Twenty-one of 62 patients (34%) who underwent angiography before PET had cardiac allograft vasculopathy. The median time from orthotopic heart transplant to PET imaging was 6.4 years (median global MFR, 2.31). After a median of 1.4 years, 22 patients (19%) experienced the primary outcome. On an unadjusted basis, global MFR (hazard ratio, 0.22 per unit increase; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.50; P<0.001) and stress myocardial blood flow (hazard ratio, 0.48 per unit increase; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.79; P=0.004) were associated with the primary outcome. Decreased MFR independently predicted the primary outcome after adjustment for other variables. In 42 patients who underwent angiography within 12 months of PET, MFR and stress myocardial blood flow were associated with moderate-severe cardiac allograft vasculopathy (International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation grade 2-3). CONCLUSIONS: MFR assessed by cardiac rubidium-82 PET imaging is a predictor of cardiovascular events after orthotopic heart transplant and is associated with cardiac allograft vasculopathy severity.