Search

Financial considerations continue to impact access to heart transplantation. Transplant recipients face various costs, including, but not limited to, the index hospitalization, immunosuppressive medications, and lodging and travel to appointments. In this study, we sought to describe the state of crowdfunding for individuals being evaluated for heart transplantation. Using the search term heart transplant, 1000 GoFundMe campaigns were reviewed. After exclusions, 634 (63.4%) campaigns were included. Most campaigns were in support of white individuals (57.8%), males (63.1%) and adults (76.7%). Approximately 15% of campaigns had not raised any funds. The remaining campaigns fundraised a median of $53.24 dollars per day. Of the patients, 44% were admitted at the time of the fundraising. Within the campaigns in the United States, the greatest proportions were in the Southeast United States in non-Medicaid expansion states. These findings highlight the significant financial toxicities associated with heart transplantation and the need for advocacy at the governmental and payer levels to improve equitable access and coverage for all., Competing Interests: Disclosures EMD and JL are on the Board of Directors for The Equity in Heart Transplant Project. NI is the founder and executive director of The Equity in Heart Transplant Project. All remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored our healthcare system's unpreparedness to manage an unprecedented pandemic. Heart failure (HF) physicians from 14 different academic and private practice centers share their systems' challenges and innovations to care for patients with HF, heart transplantation, and patients on LVAD support during the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss measures implemented to alleviate the fear in seeking care, ensure continued optimization of guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT), manage the heart transplant waiting list, continue essential outpatient monitoring of anticoagulation in LVAD patients and surveillance testing post-heart transplant, and prevent physician burnout. This collaborative work can build a foundation for better preparation in the face of future challenges., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature.)

Background Racial and ethnic disparities contribute to differences in access and outcomes for patients undergoing heart transplantation. We evaluated contemporary outcomes for heart transplantation stratified by race and ethnicity as well as the new 2018 allocation system. Methods and Results Adult heart recipients from 2011 to 2020 were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing database and stratified into 3 groups: Black, Hispanic, and White. We analyzed recipient and donor characteristics, and outcomes. Among 32 353 patients (25% Black, 9% Hispanic, 66% White), Black and Hispanic patients were younger, more likely to be women and have diabetes mellitus or renal disease (all, P <0.05). Over the study period, the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients listed for transplant increased: 21.7% to 28.2% ( P =0.003) and 7.7% to 9.0% ( P =0.002), respectively. Compared with White patients, Black patients were less likely to undergo transplantation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.87; CI, 0.84-0.90; P <0.001), but had a higher risk of post-transplant death (aHR, 1.14; CI, 1.04-1.24; P =0.004). There were no differences in transplantation likelihood or post-transplant mortality between Hispanic and White patients. Following the allocation system change, transplantation rates increased for all groups ( P <0.05). However, Black patients still had a lower likelihood of transplantation than White patients (aHR, 0.90; CI, 0.79-0.99; P =0.024). Conclusions Although the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients listed for cardiac transplantation have increased, significant disparities remain. Compared with White patients, Black patients were less likely to be transplanted, even with the new allocation system, and had a higher risk of post-transplantation death.

Background: The United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation policy designates patients on ECMO or with nondischargeable, surgically implanted, nonendovascular support devices (TCS-VAD) to higher listing statuses., Objectives: This study aimed to explore whether temporary circulatory support-ventricular assist devices (TCS-VAD) have a survival advantage over extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridge to transplant., Methods: The UNOS database was used to conduct a retrospective analysis of adult heart transplants performed in the United States between 2005 and 2017. Survival analysis was performed to compare patients bridged to transplant with different modalities., Results: Of the 24,905 adult transplants performed, 7,904 (32%) were bridged with durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), 177 (0.7%) with ECMO, 203 (0.8%) with TCS-VAD, 44 (0.2%) with percutaneous endovascular devices, and 8 (0.03%) with TandemHeart (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom). Unadjusted survival at 1 and 5 years post-transplant was 90 ± 0.4% and 77 ± 0.7% for durable LVAD, 84 ± 3% and 71 ± 4% for all TCS-VAD types, 79 ± 9% and 73 ± 14% for biventricular TCS-VAD, and 68 ± 3% and 61 ± 8% for ECMO. After propensity-matched pairwise comparisons were made, survival after all TCS-VAD types continued to be superior to ECMO (p = 0.019) and similar to LVAD (p = 0.380). ECMO was a predictor of post-transplant mortality in the Cox analysis compared with TCS-VAD (hazard ratio 2.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.44 to 4.01; p = 0.001)., Conclusions: Post-transplant survival with TCS-VAD is superior to ECMO and similar to LVAD in a national database., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low donor heart availability underscores the need to identify all potentially transplantable organs. We sought to determine whether pre-emptive administration of pangenotypic direct-acting antiviral therapy can safely prevent the development of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in uninfected recipients of HCV-infected donor hearts., Methods: Patients were recruited for this an open-label, single-centre, proof-of-concept study from Nov 1, 2017, to Nov 30, 2018. Following enrolment, the recipient's status on the heart transplantation waiting list was updated to reflect a willingness to accept either an HCV-positive or HCV-negative heart donor. Patients who underwent transplantation with a viraemic donor heart, as determined by nucleic acid testing (NAT), received pre-emptive oral glecaprevir-pibrentasvir before transport to the operating room followed by an 8-week course of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir after transplantation. Patients receiving HCV antibody-positive donor hearts without detectable circulating HCV RNA were followed using a reactive approach and started glecaprevir-pibrentasvir only if they developed viraemia. The primary outcome was achievement of sustained virological response 12 weeks after completion of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir therapy (SVR12). Patients were followed from study enrolment to 1 year after transplantation. This is an interim analysis, initiated after all enrolled patients reached the primary outcome. Results reflect data from Nov 1, 2017, to May 30, 2019. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03208244., Findings: 55 patients were assessed for eligibility and 52 consented to enrolment. 25 patients underwent heart transplantation with HCV-positive donor hearts (20 NAT-positive, five NAT-negative), three of whom underwent simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation. All 20 recipients of NAT-positive hearts tolerated glecaprevir-pibrentasvir and showed rapid viral suppression (median time to clearance 3·5 days, IQR 0·0-8·3), with the subsequent achievement of SVR12 by all 20. The five recipients of NAT-negative grafts did not become viraemic. Median pre-transplant waiting time for patients following enrolment in the HCV protocol was 20 days (IQR 8-57). Patient and allograft survival were 100% at a median follow-up of 10·7 months (range 6·5-18·0)., Interpretation: Pre-emptive administration of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir therapy results in expedited organ transplantation, rapid HCV suppression, prevention of chronic HCV infection, and excellent early allograft function in patients receiving HCV-infected donor hearts. Long-term outcomes are not yet known., Funding: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, National Institutes of Health, and the Massachusetts General Hospital., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

• There is a growing subgroup of noncitizens, nonresidents that travel to the United States for heart transplantation from countries with low heart transplantation rates. • A small proportion of organ donors are noncitizens, nonresidents despite that these individuals would be unlikely to receive an organ transplant themselves owing to lack of insurance or other obstacles. • Disparities in access to care as well as differential infrastructure and resources perpetuate inequalities in heart transplantation both domestically and internationally. Non-US citizens/non-US residents (NCNR) are a unique and growing population. Patterns of heart donation and heart transplantation (HT) within this subgroup have not been described fully. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of organs from NCNR donors and the characteristics and outcomes of NCNR HT recipients. All adult donors whose hearts were recovered for HT and all primary adult HT recipients from 2013 to 2020 were identified using the United Network for Organ Sharing. Donors and recipients were categorized as citizens, residents, or NCNR. NCNR were further categorized by reason for travel to the United States. Outcomes included mortality, infection, and rejection at 1-year after transplantation. NCNR accounted for 0.4% (n = 77) of heart donors. Most NCNR donors identified as Hispanic (61%), were predominately recovered from the South and Southwest United States, and were less likely to express written documentation to be a donor compared with citizens and residents. NCNR accounted for 0.7% (n = 147) of all HT recipients. The majority identified as non-Hispanic White individuals (57.1%). Compared with citizens and residents, NCNR recipients seemed to be sicker, as evidenced by higher intra-aortic balloon pump use before HT and higher priority United Network for Organ Sharing status. Of NCNR recipients, 63% traveled to the United States for HT, predominately from Kuwait (29.9%) and Saudi Arabia (20%). At 1-year after transplant, there were no differences in mortality, infection, or rejection between the groups. A growing subgroup of NCNR travel from countries with low HT rates to the United States for HT. This finding highlights the need for strategies to improve equitable access to HT domestically and abroad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]