Search

An implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is indicated as a bridge to transplantation or recovery in the United Kingdom (UK). The mechanism of action of the LVAD results in a unique state of haemodynamic stability with diminished arterial pulsatility. The clinical assessment of an LVAD recipient can be challenging because non-invasive blood pressure, pulse and oxygen saturation measurements may be hard to obtain. As a result of this unusual situation and complex interplay between the device and the native circulation, resuscitation of LVAD recipients requires bespoke guidelines. Through collaboration with key UK stakeholders, we assessed the current evidence base and developed guidelines for the recognition of clinical deterioration, inadequate circulation and time-critical interventions. Such guidelines, intended for use in transplant centres, are designed to be deployed by those providing immediate care of LVAD patients under conditions of precipitous clinical deterioration. In summary, the Joint British Societies and Transplant Centres LVAD Working Group present the UK guideline on management of emergencies in implantable LVAD recipients for use in advanced heart failure centres. These recommendations have been made with a UK resuscitation focus but are widely applicable to professionals regularly managing patients with implantable LVADs., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Cardiac transplantation can be a life-saving treatment for selected patients with heart failure. However, despite advances in immunosuppressive therapy, acute allograft rejection remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. The current 'gold standard' for rejection surveillance is endomyocardial biopsy, which aims to identify episodes of rejection prior to development of clinical manifestations. This is an invasive technique with a risk of false-positive and false-negative results. Consequently, a wide variety of noninvasive alternatives have been investigated for their potential role as biomarkers of rejection. This article reviews the evidence behind proposed alternatives such as imaging techniques, electrophysiological parameters and peripheral blood markers, and highlights the potential future role for biomarkers in cardiac transplantation as an adjunct to biopsy.

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the volume of cardiac transplantation procedures performed in a center and the outcome after cardiac transplantation., Methods and Results: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched for articles on the volume-outcome relationship in cardiac transplantation. Ten studies were identified, and all adopted a different approach to data analysis and varied in adjustment for baseline characteristics. The number of patients in each study ranged from 798 to 14401, and observed 1-year mortality ranged from 12.6% to 34%. There was no association between the continuous variables of center volume and observed mortality. There was a weak association between the continuous variables of center volume and adjusted mortality up to 1 year and a stronger association at 5 years. When centers were grouped in volume categories, low-volume centers had the highest adjusted mortality, intermediate-volume centers had lower adjusted mortality, and high-volume centers had the lowest adjusted mortality but were not significantly better than intermediate-volume centers. Category limits were arbitrary and varied between studies., Conclusions: There is a relationship between center volume and mortality in heart transplantation. The existence of a minimum acceptable center volume or threshold is unproven. However, a level of 10 to 12 heart transplants per year corresponds to the upper limit of low-volume categories that may have relatively higher mortality. It is not known whether outcomes for patients treated in low-volume transplant centers would be improved by reorganizing centers to ensure volumes in excess of 10 to 12 heart transplants per year.

Patients with advanced heart failure have a dismal prognosis and poor quality of life. Heart transplantation provides an effective treatment for a subset of these patients. This article provides cardiologists with up-to-date information about referral for transplantation, the role of left ventricular assist devices prior to transplant, patient selection, waiting-list management and donor heart availability. Timing is of central importance; patients should be referred before complications (eg, cardiorenal syndrome or secondary pulmonary hypertension) have developed that will increase the risk of, or potentially contraindicate, transplantation. Issues related to heart failure aetiology, comorbidity and adherence to medical treatment are reviewed. Finally, the positive role that cardiologists can play in promoting and facilitating organ donation is discussed.

A 49-year-old cardiac transplant recipient with idiopathic left ventricular systolic dysfunction was treated with carvedilol. After 8 months, his ejection fraction, measured by radionuclide ventriculography, had increased from 14 to 30% with an associated improvement in symptoms.

The article presents the 2021 guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure developed by a task force from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), with the support of ESC's Heart Failure Association. Topics include natriuretic peptides, drug treatments like digoxin, right ventricular dysfunction, and heart transplantation.

It is well established that organized care of heart failure patients, including specialist management by cardiologists, improves patient outcomes. In response to this, other national training bodies (the UK and the USA) have developed heart failure subspecialty curricula within their Cardiology Training Curricula. In addition, European Society of Cardiology ( ESC) subspecialty curricula exist for Interventional Cardiology and Heart Rhythm Management. The purpose of this heart failure curriculum is to provide a framework which can be used as a blueprint for training across Europe. This blueprint mirrors other ESC curricula. Each section has three components: the knowledge required, the skills which are necessary, and the professionalism (attitudes and behaviours) which should be attained. The programme is designed to last 2 years. The first year is devoted to the specialist heart failure module. The second year allows completion of the optional modules of advanced imaging, device therapy for implanters, cardiac transplantation, and mechanical circulatory support. The second year can also be devoted to continuation of specialist heart failure training and/or research for those not wishing to continue with the advanced modules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) has major prognostic implications in heart failure. Our objective was to validate the MDRD prediction equations for GFR in patients with advanced heart failure, and to compare their predictive performance to that of the Cockcroft–Gault (CG) equation. Methods: We analysed GFR in 45 patients referred for heart transplantation evaluation. 51Cr–EDTA-measured GFR was compared to GFR estimates obtained by MDRD1 and MDRD2 equations, CG equation using actual body weight, and ideal body weight. Regression analyses and Pearson correlations were performed, and Bland and Altman plots were drawn. ROC curves were obtained to illustrate each equation''s ability to predict a GFR less than 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 (moderate renal impairment). Results: Patients had a mean age of 52 years, and 69% were in NYHA class III. The mean EDTA-measured GFR was 46.9±17.2 ml/min/1.73 m2. The MDRD1 equation provided the best predictive model (narrowest limits of agreement; r =0.766, p <0.001), and the highest performance in predicting a GFR less than 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 (area under curve: 0.901). Conclusions: MDRD equations, especially MDRD1, adequately predict GFR in advanced heart failure, with higher accuracy than the CG equation. MDRD1 also has higher performance in predicting a GFR less than 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: The selection of patients for cardiac transplantation is notoriously difficult. We have demonstrated that N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is a powerful predictor of mortality in advanced heart failure and is superior to the traditional markers of chronic heart failure (CHF) severity. However, the comparative prognostic power of endothelin-1 (Et-1), adrenomedullin (Adm) and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) in this patient group is unknown. Methods and results: We prospectively studied 150 consecutive patients with advanced CHF referred for consideration of cardiac transplantation. Blood samples for NT-proBNP, Et-1, Adm and TNF-α analysis were taken at recruitment and patients followed up for a median of 666 days. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality was reached in 25 patients and the secondary endpoint of all-cause mortality or urgent cardiac transplantation in 29 patients. The median values for NT-proBNP, Et-1, Adm and TNF-α were 1494 pg/ml [interquartile range 530–3930], 0.39 fmol/ml [0.10–1.24], 94 pg/ml [54–207] and 2.0 pg/ml [0–18.5] respectively. The only univariate and multivariate predictor of all-cause mortality (χ2=26.95, p<0.0001), or the secondary endpoint of all-cause mortality or urgent transplantation (χ2=31.23, p<0.0001), was an NT-proBNP concentration above the median value. Conclusion: A single measurement of NT-proBNP in patients with advanced CHF can help identify patients at the highest risk of death, and is a better prognostic marker than Et-1, Adm and TNF-α. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]