Fully magnetically centrifugal left ventricular assist device and long-term outcomes: the ELEVATE registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: HeartMate 3 (HM3) is a fully magnetically levitated continuous flow left ventricular assist device, which received CE marking in 2015. The ELEVATE Registry was initiated to collect real-world outcomes in patients treated with HM3 post-CE Mark approval. METHODS: A total of 540 subjects implanted at 26 centres between March 2015 and February 2017 were included in this registry. Of these, 463 received the device as a primary implant (primary implant cohort, PIC), 19 as a pump exchange (pump exchange cohort), and in 58 patients, only anonymized survival data were collected (anonymized cohort, AC). Patients in the PIC contributed to the baseline demographics, survival, adverse events, quality of life (QoL) (EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Levels visual analogue scale), and functional capacity (6 min walk distance) assessments, while patients in the AC contributed only to survival. RESULTS: Primary implant cohort patients had a mean age of 56 years and were predominantly male (89%) with 48% ischaemic aetiology. The majority of subjects was designated bridge to transplant (66%) and had INTERMACS Profiles 1-3 (70%). At baseline, the subjects had poor functional capacity (104 ± 140 m) and impaired QoL (35 ± 19 points). The overall survival rate of the PIC was 63.3% and survival free of stroke was 58.1% at 5 years. Significant improvements in functional capacity and QoL were observed and maintained for 5 years (301 ± 131 m and 64 ± 20 points, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world data from the ELEVATE registry demonstrate an overall survival rate for primary implants of 63.3%. In the PIC, reductions in adverse events for patients in the extended follow-up and improved QoL and functional capacity were observed at 5 years in this patient population with advanced heart failure.

Treating Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia in Patients Undergoing HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Unfractionated heparin is the preferred anticoagulant used during open heart surgeries, including left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. In cases in which patients are heparin-induced thrombocytopenia positive (HIT+), the accepted practice has been to substitute heparin with bivalirudin. This practice may be associated with significant bleeding and adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To review our experience with HIT+ patients who were heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with thrombosis negative (HITT-) and who underwent HeartMate 3 LVAD implantation using heparin intraoperatively rather than bivalirudin. METHODS: From 2016 to 2022, 144 adult patients were implanted with HeartMate 3 LVAD at our center. Among them, 7 were detected as HIT+ but HITT- and therefore were prescribed intraoperatively with heparin and treated pre- and postoperatively with bivalirudin. We reviewed the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics as well as short-term mortality and the complication rates of these HIT+ patients. RESULTS: The median age of our cohort was 56 years (51-60), 71% were male (n=5), all were INTERMACS Level 1, and most were bridged to transplant (n=6, 86%). The 30-day mortality rate post-implantation was 0%. The average 24-hour chest drain postoperative output was 1502.86 ± 931.34 ml. There were no intraoperative pump thromboses, perioperative thromboses, cerebrovascular accidents, or gastrointestinal bleeding within the first 24 hours postoperative. One patient required a revision due to bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative unfractionated heparin may be administered to patients who are HIT+ and HITT- while undergoing LVAD implantation. However, further investigation is required.

Primary heart dysfunction is greater with combined heart and lung compared with isolated heart procurement.

OBJECTIVE: Combined heart and lungs (CHL) procurement differs from isolated heart (IH) procurement in several aspects, including lung recruitment, cannulation, and preservation requirements. We aimed to investigate whether CHL versus IH procurement contributes to the development of primary graft dysfunction (PGD) after heart transplantation (HT). METHODS: Between 1999 and 2019, we assessed 175 patients undergoing HT at a single center. Patients were divided into IH (n = 61) or CHL (n = 114) procurement groups. End points included PGD (defined according to the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement) and long-term survival. RESULTS: The incidence of PGD was significantly greater in CHL recipients compared with IH recipients (53.5% vs 16.4%, P < .001). Multivariable analysis showed that CHL procurement was independently associated with a significant 4.6-fold increased risk for PGD (95% confidence interval, 2.1-11, P < .001). Univariable and multivariable analyses showed that the overall survival was not significantly affected by the procurement group (log-rank P = .150, hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.88, P = .646). The simultaneous procurement of abdominal organs was not associated with an increased risk of PGD in HT recipients. These results remained consistent in a propensity-matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Combined procurement of heart and lungs is independently associated with an increased risk of PGD. Further prospective studies are needed to validate this hypothesis-generating study.

Effect of levosimendan infusion prior to left ventricular assist device implantation on right ventricular failure.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate the safety and efficacy of preoperative levosimendan in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. METHODS: Consecutive patients who received LVADs (HeartMate-2, 3, HVAD) in a single tertiary medical center (2012-2018). INTERMACS profile 1 patients were excluded. The primary outcome was post-LVAD right ventricular failure (RVF) and inhospital mortality rates. The secondary outcomes included other clinical, echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters at follow-up. RESULTS: Final cohort consisted of 62 patients (40[65%] in the levosimendan group and 22[35%] in the no-levosimendan group). Post-operative RVF rate and inotrope or ventilation support time were similar in the levosimendan and no-levosimendan groups (7.5% vs. 13.6%; P = 0.43, median of 51 vs. 72 h; P = 0.41 and 24 vs. 27 h; P = 0.19, respectively). Length of hospitalization, both total and in the intensive care unit, was not statistically significant (median days of 13 vs. 16; P = 0.34, and 3 vs. 4; P = 0.44, respectively). Post-operative laboratory and echocardiographic parameters and in-hospital complication rate did not differ between the groups, despite worse baseline clinical parameters in the Levosimendan group. There was no significant difference in the in-hospital and long term mortality rate (2.5% vs. 4.5%; P > 0.999 and 10% vs. 27.3% respectively; P = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan infusion prior to LVAD implantation was safe and associated with comparable results without significant improved post-operative outcomes, including RVF.

Kinetics of cellular and humoral responses to third BNT162B2 COVID-19 vaccine over six months in heart transplant recipients - implications for the omicron variant.

BACKGROUND: The durability of the immune response following the 3-dose BNT162b2 vaccination is unknown. The complexity of the situation is enhanced by the threat that highly transmissible variants may further accelerate the decline in the protection afforded by mRNA vaccines. METHODS: One hundred and three 3-dose-vaccinated heart transplant recipients were longitudinally assessed for the kinetics of variant-specific neutralization (Cohort 1, n = 60) and SARS-CoV-2-specific-T-cell response (Cohort 2, n = 54) over 6 months. Neutralization and T-cell responses were compared between paired samples at 2 time points, using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test for continuous variables and McNemar's test for dichotomous variables. The Bonferroni method of p values adjustment for multiple comparison was applied. RESULTS: The third dose induced high neutralization of the wild-type virus and delta variant (geometric mean titer [GMT], 137.2 [95% CI, 84.8-221.9] and 80.6, [95% CI, 49.3-132.0], respectively), and to a lesser degree of the omicron variant (GMT, 10.3 [95% CI, 5.9-17.9]). At 6 months, serum neutralizing activity declined but was still high for the wild-type virus and for the delta variant (GMTs 38.1 [95% CI, 21.2-69.4], p = 0.011; and 28.9 [95% CI, 16.6-52.3], p = 0.022, respectively), but not for the omicron variant (GMT 5.9 [95% CI, 3.4-9.8], p = 0.463). The percentages of neutralizing sera against the wild-type virus, delta and omicron variants increased from 70%, 65%, and 38%, before the third dose, to 93% (p < 0.001), 88% (p < 0.001), and 48% (p = 0.021) at 3 weeks after, respectively; and remained high through the 6 months for the wild-type (80%, p = 0.06) and delta (77%, p = 0.102). The third dose induced the development of a sustained SARS-CoV-2-specific-T-cell population, which persisted through 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The third BNT162b2 dose elicited a durable SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell response and induced effective and durable neutralization of the wild-type virus and the delta variant, and to a lesser degree of the omicron variant.

Hemodynamic Changes After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation Among Heart Failure Patients With and Without Elevated Pulmonary Vascular Resistance.

Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may reverse elevated pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) which is associated with worse prognosis in heart failure (HF) patients. We aim to describe the temporal changes in hemodynamic parameters before and after LVAD implantation among patients with or without elevated PVR. Methods: HF patients who received continuous-flow LVAD (HeartMate 2&3) at a tertiary medical center and underwent right heart catheterization with PVR reversibility study before and after LVAD surgery. Patients were divided into 3 groups: normal PVR (<4WU); reversible PVR (initial PVR ≥4WU with positive reversibility); and non-reversible (persistent PVR ≥4WU). Results: Overall, 85 LVAD patients with a mean age of 58 years (IQR 49-64), 65 patients (76%) were male; 60 patients had normal PVR, 20 patients with reversible and 5 patients with non-reversible PVR pre-LVAD. All patients with elevated PVR (≥4WU) had higher pulmonary pressures (PP) and increased trans-pulmonary gradient (TPG) compared to patients with normal PVR (p < 0.05). Patients with non-reversible PVR were more likely to have a significantly lower baseline cardiac output (CO) compared to all other groups (p ≤ 0.02). Hemodynamic parameters and PVR post LVAD were similar in all study groups. Patients with baseline elevated PVR (reversible and non-reversible) demonstrated a significant improvement in PP and TPG compared to patients with normal baseline PVR (p ≤ 0.05). The improvement in CO and PVR post-LVAD in the non-reversible PVR group was significantly greater compared to all other groups (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between study groups in post LVAD and post heart transplantation course. Conclusion: Hemodynamic parameters improved after LVAD implantation, regardless of baseline PVR and reversibility, and enabled heart transplantation in patients who were ineligible due to non-reversible elevated PVR. Our findings suggest that mitigation of elevated non-reversible PVR is related to reduction in PP and increase in CO.

Diastolic Plateau - Invasive Hemodynamic Marker of Adverse Outcome Among Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients.

Background: Diastolic plateau is an invasive hemodynamic marker of impaired right ventricular (RV) diastolic filling. The purpose of the current analysis was to evaluate the prognostic importance of this sign in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients. Methods: The analysis included all LVAD patients who received continuous-flow LVAD (HeartMate 3) at the Sheba medical center and underwent right heart catheterization (RHC) during follow up post-LVAD surgery. Patients were dichotomized into 2 mutually exclusive groups based on a plateau duration cutoff of 55% of diastole. The primary end point of the current analysis was the composite of death, heart transplantation, or increase in diuretic dosage in a 12-month follow-up period post-RHC. Results: Study cohort included 59 LVAD patients with a mean age of 57 (IQR 54-66) of whom 48 (81%) were males. RHC was performed at 303 ± 36 days after LVAD surgery. Patients with and without diastolic plateau had similar clinical, echocardiographic, and hemodynamic parameters. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that the cumulative probability of event at 1 year was 65 ± 49% vs. 21 ± 42% for primary outcomes among patients with and without diastolic plateau (p Log rank < 0.05 for both). A multivariate model with adjustment for age, INTERMACS score and ischemic cardiomyopathy consistently showed that patients with diastolic plateau were 4 times more likely to meet the study composite end point (HR = 4.35, 95% CI 1.75-10.83, p = 0.002). Conclusion: Diastolic plateau during RHC is a marker of adverse outcome among LVAD patients.

Execution by organ procurement: Breaching the dead donor rule in China.

The dead donor rule is fundamental to transplant ethics. The rule states that organ procurement must not commence until the donor is both dead and formally pronounced so, and by the same token, that procurement of organs must not cause the death of the donor. In a separate area of medical practice, there has been intense controversy around the participation of physicians in the execution of capital prisoners. These two apparently disparate topics converge in a unique case: the intimate involvement of transplant surgeons in China in the execution of prisoners via the procurement of organs. We use computational text analysis to conduct a forensic review of 2838 papers drawn from a dataset of 124 770 Chinese-language transplant publications. Our algorithm searched for evidence of problematic declarations of brain death during organ procurement. We find evidence in 71 of these reports, spread nationwide, that brain death could not have properly been declared. In these cases, the removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the proximate cause of the donor's death. Because these organ donors could only have been prisoners, our findings strongly suggest that physicians in the People's Republic of China have participated in executions by organ removal.

HeartMate 3: new challenges in ventricular tachycardia ablation.

AIM: To describe clinical characteristics, procedural details, specific challenges, and outcomes in patients with HeartMate3™ (HM3), a left ventricular assist device system with a magnetically levitated pump, undergoing ventricular tachycardia ablation (VTA). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were collected from patients with an HM3 system who underwent VTA in seven tertiary centres. Data included baseline patient characteristics, procedural data, mortality, and arrhythmia-free survival. The study cohort included 19 patients with cardiomyopathy presenting with ventricular tachycardia (VT) (53% with VT storm). Ventricular tachycardias were induced in 89% of patients and a total of 41 VTs were observed. Severe electromagnetic interference was present on the surface electrocardiogram. Hence, VT localization required analysis of intra-cardiac signals or the use of filter in the 40-20 Hz range. The large house pump HM3 design obscured the cannula inflow and therefore multi imaging modalities were necessary to avoid catheter entrapment in the cannula. A total of 32 VTs were mapped and were successfully ablated (31% to the anterior wall, 38% to the septum and only 9% to the inflow cannula region). Non-inducibility of any VT was reached in 11 patients (58%). Over a follow-up of 429 (interquartile range 101-692) days, 5 (26%) patients underwent a redo VT ablation due to recurrent VTA and 2 (11%) patients died. CONCLUSIONS: Ventricular tachycardia ablation in patients with HM3 is feasible and safe when done in the appropriate setup. Long-term arrhythmia-free survival is acceptable but not well predicted by non-inducibility at the end of the procedure.

Third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine in heart transplant recipients: Immunogenicity and clinical experience.

BACKGROUND: The repeated waves of the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the necessity to optimize vaccine responses in immunocompromised populations. We investigated the safety and immunogenicity of a third, booster, dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine in heart transplant (HT) patients. METHODS: The cohort comprised 96 adult HT patients who received a third homologous dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine 168 days after the second dose. The vaccine-induced antibody responses of both receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG and neutralizing antibodies were assessed in all patients, with a positive antibody response being defined as the presence of either IgG anti-RBD or neutralizing antibodies. For a subset of patients, T cell response was also studied. RESULTS: The third dose was associated with a low rate of adverse events, mostly mild pain at the injection site. No serious adverse events were recorded, and there were no episodes of rejection. At 18 days following the third dose of the vaccine, the positive antibody response increased from 23% to 67%, with a corresponding increase in neutralizing capacity. The third dose elicited SARS-CoV-2 neutralization titers >9-fold and IgG anti-RBD antibodies >3-fold of the range achieved after the two primary doses. Mycophenolate use, lower eGFR and higher C-reactive protein were independently associated with a reduced likelihood of generating an immune response. Importantly, a specific T-cell response following the third dose was evident in the majority of transplant recipients. CONCLUSIONS: An homologous third booster dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine gave overall consistent tolerability and a good safety profile, while eliciting humoral and cellular immune responses.

BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised patients: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Trials of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine showed 95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic disease; however, the trials excluded immunocompromised patients (ICPs). We aim at analyzing antibody response in ICPs. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted at Sheba Medical Center, Israel, between January and April 2020, in 1274 participants who received the vaccine, including 1002 ICPs and 272 immunocompetent healthcare workers (HCWs). Antibodies were measured two-four weeks after vaccination by SARS-CoV-2 anti-receptor binding domain IgG antibodies (RBD IgG) and pseudo-virus neutralization assays. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with vaccine-induced antibody response. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored. FINDINGS: RBD-IgG antibodies were detected in 154/156 (98.7%) of patients with HIV, 75/90 (83.3%) with solid malignancies, 149/187 (79.7%) with myeloma, 83/111 (74.8%) following hematopoietic stem cell transplants, 25/36 (69.4%) following liver transplantation, 26/43 (60.5%) with myelodysplastic syndrome, 96/188 (51.0%) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 50/110 (45.5%) following kidney transplantation, 15/80 (18.8%) following heart transplantation, and 269/272 (98.9%) in controls. There was a significant correlation r = 0.74 (95%CI 0.69,0.78) between RBD-binding IgG and neutralizing antibodies in all groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age > 65 years (OR 0.41,95%CI 0.30,0.57) and underlying immunosuppression (OR 0.02,95%CI 0.01,0.07) were significantly associated with a non-reactive response of IgG antibodies. HIV patients showed a similar immunological response as healthy adults. The vaccine was safe without any episodes of rejection, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) or allergy. Immunocompetent HCWs experienced significantly more AEs than ICPs. INTERPRETATION: Antibody response to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was highly variable among different ICPs; thus, individual recommendations should be provided for the different immunosuppression states.

Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology position paper on the management of left ventricular assist device-supported patients for the non-left ventricular assist device specialist healthcare provider: Part 2: at the emergency department.

The improvement in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology and scarcity of donor hearts have increased dramatically the population of the LVAD-supported patients and the probability of those patients to present to the emergency department with expected and non-expected device-related and patient-device interaction complications. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the 'destination therapy' indication, increases the risk for those patients to suffer from other co-morbidities common in the older population. In this second part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the LVAD-supported patient presenting to the emergency department with bleeding, neurological event, pump thrombosis, chest pain, syncope, and other events are presented. The very challenging issue of declaring death in an LVAD-supported patient, as the circulation is artificially preserved by the device despite no other signs of life, is also discussed in detail.

Access of non-residents to transplantation of deceased donor organs: practices and strategies in the European setting.

The access of non-resident patients to the deceased donor waiting list (DDWL) poses different challenges. The European Committee on Organ Transplantation of the Council of Europe (CD-P-TO) has studied this phenomenon in the European setting. A questionnaire was circulated among the Council of Europe member states to inquire about the criteria applied for non-residents to access their DDWL. Information was compiled from 28 countries. Less than 1% of recipients of deceased donor organs were non-residents. Two countries never allow non-residents to access the DDWL, four allow access without restrictions and 22 only under specific conditions. Of those, most give access to non-resident patients already in their jurisdictions who are in a situation of vulnerability (urgent life-threatening conditions). In addition, patients may be given access: (i) after assessment by a specific committee (four countries); (ii) within the framework of official cooperation agreements (15 countries); and (iii) after patients have officially lived in the country for a minimum length of time (eight countries). The ethical and legal implications of these policies are discussed. Countries should collect accurate information about residency status of waitlisted patients. Transparent criteria for the access of non-residents to DDWL should be clearly defined at national level.

HFA of the ESC Position paper on the management of LVAD supported patients for the non LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 1: Introduction and at the non-hospital settings in the community.

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of the LVAD-supported patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD-supported patients. The expected and non-expected device-related and patient-device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of the LVAD implanting centres. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the 'destination therapy' indication, increases the risk for those patients to experience comorbidities common in the older population. The probability of an LVAD-supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local emergency department, internal, or surgical ward of a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this trilogy is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician: ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, internists, anaesthesiologists, and surgeons, to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD-supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually to the discharge home from the hospital back to the general practitioner. In this first part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, after the introduction on the assist devices technology in general, definitions and structured approach to the assessment of the LVAD-supported patient in the ambulance and emergency department is presented including cardiopulmonary resuscitation for LVAD-supported patients.

HFA of the ESC position paper on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 3: at the hospital and discharge.

The growing population of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-supported patients increases the probability of an LVAD- supported patient hospitalized in the internal or surgical wards with certain expected device related, and patient-device interaction complication as well as with any other comorbidities requiring hospitalization. In this third part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the hospitalized LVAD-supported patient are presented including blood pressure assessment, medical therapy of the LVAD supported patient, and challenges related to anaesthesia and non-cardiac surgical interventions. Finally, important aspects to consider when discharging an LVAD patient home and palliative and end-of-life approaches are described.