Search

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality following heart transplantation (HT). Prior studies identified distinct CAV trajectories in the early post‐HT period with unique predictors, but the evolution of CAV in later periods is not well‐described. This study assessed the prevalence of late CAV progression and associated risk factors in HT recipients with ISHLT CAV 0/1 at 10 years post‐HT. Consecutive adult patients who underwent HT from January 2000 to December 2008 were evaluated and grouped by CAV trajectories into progressors (developed ISHLT CAV 2/3) or nonprogressors (remained ISHLT CAV 0/1). A total of 130 patients were included with a median age at angiography of 61.7 years and a median follow‐up time of 4.8 years. 8.5% progressed to CAV 2/3, while the remaining 91.5% were nonprogressors. Progression was not associated with death or retransplantation (27.3% [progressor] vs. 21.0% [nonprogressor], p = 0.70). These data may inform shared decision‐making about late CAV screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of glucagon‐like‐peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1‐RA) has dramatically increased over the past 5 years for diabetes mellitus type 2 (T2DM) and obesity. These comorbidities are prevalent in adult heart transplant (HT) recipients. However, there are limited data evaluating the efficacy of this drug class in this population. The aim of the current study was to describe cardiometabolic changes in HT recipients prescribed GLP1‐RA at a large‐volume transplant center. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all adult HT recipients who received GLP1‐RA after HT for a minimum of 1‐month. Cardiometabolic parameters including body mass index (BMI), lipid panel, hemoglobin A1C, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and NT‐proBNP were compared prior to initiation of the drug and at most recent follow‐up. We also evaluated for significant dose adjustments to immunosuppression after drug initiation and adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation. Results: Seventy‐four patients were included (28% female, 53% White, 20% Hispanic) and followed for a median of 383 days [IQR 209, 613] on a GLP1‐RA. The majority of patients (n = 56, 76%) were prescribed semaglutide. The most common indication for prescription was T2DM alone (n = 33, 45%), followed by combined T2DM and obesity (n = 26, 35%). At most recent follow‐up, mean BMI decreased from 33.3 to 31.5 kg/m2 (p < 0.0001), HbA1C from 7.3% to 6.7% (p = 0.005), LDL from 78.6 to 70.3 mg/dL (p = 0.018) and basal insulin daily dose from 32.6 to 24.8 units (p = 0.0002). Conclusion: HT recipients prescribed GLP1‐RA therapy showed improved glycemic control, weight loss, and cholesterol levels during the study follow‐up period. GLP1‐RA were well tolerated and were rarely associated with changes in immunosuppression dosing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aortic regurgitation (AR) is a common complication following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We evaluated the hemodynamic implications of AR in patients with HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD at baseline and in response to speed changes. Clinically stable outpatients supported by HM3 who underwent a routine hemodynamic ramp test were retrospectively enrolled in this analysis. Patients were stratified based on the presence of at least mild AR at baseline speed. Hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters were compared between the AR and non-AR groups. Sixty-two patients were identified. At the baseline LVAD speed, 29 patients (47%) had AR, while 33 patients (53%) did not. Patients with AR were older and supported on HM3 for a longer duration. At baseline speed, all hemodynamic parameters were similar between the groups including central venous pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, pulmonary arterial pressures, cardiac output and index, and pulmonary artery pulsatility index (p > 0.05 for all). During the subacute assessment, AR worsened in some, but not all, patients, with increases in LVAD speed. There were no significant differences in 1-year mortality or hospitalization rates between the groups, however, at 1-year, ≥ moderate AR and right ventricular failure (RVF) were detected in higher rates among the AR group compared to the non-AR group (45% vs. 0%; p < 0.01, and 75% vs. 36.8%; p = 0.02, respectively). In a cohort of stable outpatients supported with HM3 who underwent a routine hemodynamic ramp test, the presence of mild or greater AR did not impact the ability of HM3 LVADs to effectively unload the left ventricle during early subacute assessment. Although the presence of AR did not affect mortality and hospitalization rates, it resulted in higher rates of late hemodynamic-related events in the form of progressive AR and RVF. The Hemodynamic Effects of Aortic Regurgitation in Patients Supported with HM3. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The HeartMate 3 survival risk score was recently validated in the Multicenter study Of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 to predict patient-specific survival in HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device candidates. The HeartMate 3 survival risk score stratifies individuals into tertiles according to survival probability., Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device recipients between September 2017 and August 2022. Baseline characteristics were collected from the electronic medical records. HeartMate 3 survival risk scores were calculated for all eligible patients. One- and 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were conducted. A univariate and multivariable Cox regression model was used to identify predictors., Results: A total of 181 patients were included in this final analysis. The median age was 62 years, 83% were male, and 26% were Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Profile 1. The mean HeartMate 3 survival risk score for the entire cohort was 2.66 ± 0.66. Two-year survivals in the high, average, and low survival groups were 93.5% ± 3.2%, 81.6% ± 7.4%, and 82.0% ± 6.6%, respectively. As a continuous variable, the unadjusted HeartMate 3 survival risk score was a significant predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.08-4.45; P = .029). The areas under the curve were 0.70 and 0.66 at 1 and 2 years, respectively. We were unable to demonstrate the discriminatory ability of the HeartMate 3 survival risk score using the original stratification, but we found significantly increased survival in the high survival group using a binary cutoff (hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.01-20.9; P = .038)., Conclusions: The unadjusted HeartMate 3 survival risk score was associated with postimplant survival in patients outside of the Multicenter study Of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 but did not remain an independent predictor after adjusting for ischemic etiology and severe diabetes. The HeartMate 3 survival risk score was able to identify patients at high survival using a binary cutoff, but we were unable to demonstrate its discriminatory ability among the previously published risk tertiles., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement Dr Uriel is on the medical advisory board for Livemetric, Revamp, and Leviticus. Center for Advanced Cardiac Care at Columbia University Irving Medical Center receives grant support from CareDx and Abbott. Dr Sayer has been a consultant for Abbott and is on the medical advisory board for CareDx. Dr Clerkin receives National Institutes of Health grant support K23 HL148528 and the Nelson Family Grant. Dr Topkara receives National Institutes of Health grant support (HL146964). Dr Moeller receives a grant from ISHLT and CareDx. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)