Search

The infectious disease coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on solid organ transplantations, including heart transplantation, is currently unclear. Many transplant programs have been forced to swiftly re-evaluate and adapt their practices, leading to a marked decrease in transplants performed. This trend has been due to various factors, including increased donor COVID-19 screening scrutiny and recipient waiting list management in anticipation of COVID-19 critical care surge capacity planning. In the face of these unknown variables, determining when and how to proceed with transplantation in our population of patients with end-stage cardiomyopathies is challenging. Here, we describe our center's experience with orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) in one of the country's pandemic epicenters, where we performed eight OHTs in the first 2 months after community spread began in late February 2020., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Ventricular assist devices (VADs) are associated with increased anti-human leukocyte antigen antibody production. The purpose of this study is to characterize differences in sensitization patterns in patients receiving axial flow, implantable VADs versus pulsatile, paracorporeal biventricular assist devices (BIVADs) as bridges to transplantation., Methods: The study is a retrospective review of 68 patients who were bridged to transplantation with either a VAD or a BIVAD, as described, from January 2007 to June 2010, at a university medical center., Results: Five of 15 (33.3%) VAD patients became sensitized during treatment, compared with 30 of 53 (56.6%) BIVAD patients, P = .15. Multivariable analysis comparing BIVAD with VAD, while controlling for previous cardiac surgery, pregnancy, and packed red blood cell transfusion produced an odds ratio of 2.99, P = .14. Of sensitized patients, all 5 (100%) of the VAD patients had pre-existing antibodies before VAD placement, compared with 9 of 30 (30.0%) BIVAD patients, P = .006. Maximum cumulative mean fluorescence intensities for BIVAD were 46,259 ± 66,349 versus 42,540 ± 12,840 for VAD, P = .90. Time to maximum antibody expression was shorter for the VAD group (34 ± 28 days vs 5.8 ± 9 days, P = .04)., Conclusions: Device type was not a factor in patient sensitization after implantation. However, VAD patients required pre-existing sensitization before implantation to produce antibodies during their treatment interval, whereas more than two thirds of BIVAD patients developed de novo antibodies. These data suggest that the mechanism of sensitization between VAD and BIVAD patients may differ, and further mechanistic studies into the impact of device types on patient sensitization are warranted., (Copyright © 2015 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)