Search

Background: Patients with cardiogenic shock may require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) prior to durable mechanical circulatory support (dMCS) or heart transplantation (HTx). Methods: We investigated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of adult patients with ECMO support as bridge to dMCS or HTx between 1/1/13 and 12/31/20. Results: Of 57 patients who underwent bridging ECMO, 41 (72%) received dMCS (approximately half with biventricular support) and 16 (28%) underwent HTx, 13 (81%) after the 2018 UNOS allocation system change. ECMO → HTx patients had shorter ventilatory time (3.5 vs 7.5 days; p = 0.018), ICU stay (6 vs 18 days; p = 0.001), and less need for inpatient rehabilitation (18.8% vs 57.5%; p = 0.016). The 1-year survival post HTx was 81.3% in the ECMO → HTx group and 86.4% in the ECMO → dMCS group ( p = 0.11). For those patients in the ECMO → dMCS group who did not undergo HTx, 1-year survival was significantly lower, 31.6% ( p = 0.001). Conclusion: Patients on ECMO who undergo HTx, with or without dMCS bridge, have acceptable post-HTx survival. These findings suggest that HTx from ECMO is a viable option for carefully selected patients deemed acceptable to proceed with definitive advanced therapies, especially in the era of the new UNOS allocation system.

In patients with severe cardiogenic shock, temporary mechanical circulatory support has become a viable strategy to bridge patients to heart transplantation. However, end-stage heart failure is often associated with progressive organ dysfunction of the liver or kidney. This can require a dual organ transplant for definitive management (combined heart-liver [HL] or heart-kidney [HK] transplantation). We evaluated temporary mechanical support to bridge patients to HL or HK transplant at a single, high-volume center. All patients who underwent Impella 5.0 placement from January 2014 to October 2018 were identified. From this dataset, patients who underwent placement as a bridge to dual organ transplant were selected, as were those who underwent Impella as a bridge to isolated heart transplant. Over the 5 years of evaluation, 104 patients underwent Impella 5.0 placement. Of these, 14.3% (n = 15) were identified as potential dual organ recipients (11 HK, 4 HL). In total, 80% (12/15) successfully underwent dual organ transplant (8 HK, 4 HL), with a 1-year survival of 100% in both transplanted groups. Among patients undergoing Impella 5.0 placement as a bridge to isolated heart transplant (n = 33), 78.8% (26) were successfully bridged, and 1-year survival was 92% after transplantation. Impella 5.0 is a viable bridge to dual organ transplantation and should be considered as a management strategy in these complex patients at experienced institutions.

Patients with cardiogenic shock may require stabilization with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) to assess candidacy for definitive therapy, including heart transplantation (HTx) or durable MCS, and/or maintain stability while on the HTx waiting list. We describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock who underwent intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) vs. Impella [Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA] placement at a high-volume advanced heart failure center. We assessed patients ≥ 18 years who received IABP or Impella support for cardiogenic shock from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021. Ninety patients were included, 59 (65.6%) with IABP and 31 (34.4%) with Impella. Impella was used more frequently in less stable patients, as evidenced by higher inotrope scores, greater ventilator support, and worse renal function. While patients on Impella support had higher in-hospital mortality, despite the worse cardiogenic shock in patients for whom clinicians chose Impella support, over 75% were successfully stabilized to recovery or transplantation. Clinicians elect Impella support over IABP for less stable patients, though a high proportion are successfully stabilized. These findings demonstrate the heterogeneity of the cardiogenic shock patient population and may inform future trials to assess the role of different tMCS devices.

Risk-adjusted survival after late heart re-transplantation may be comparable to primary transplant, but the efficacy of re-transplantation in older candidates is not established. We evaluated outcomes after heart re-transplantation in recipients60 years.We identified 1026 adult patients undergoing isolated heart re-transplantation between 2003 and 2020 from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Older recipients (60 years, n=177) were compared to younger recipients (≤ 60 years, n=849). Five and ten-year post-transplant survival was estimated using the Kalpan-Meier method and adjusted with multivariable Cox models.Older recipients were more likely to be male and have diabetes or previous malignancies with higher baseline creatinine. They also more frequently required pre-transplant ECMO (11.9% vs. 6.8%, p=0.02) and received re-transplantation due to primary graft failure (13.6% vs. 8.5%, p=0.03). After the transplant, older recipients had a higher incidence of stroke (6.8% vs. 2.6%, p=0.01) and dialysis requirements (20.3% vs. 13.2%) before discharge (both p0.05), and more frequently died from malignancy-related causes (16.3% vs. 3.9%, p0.001). After adjustment, recipient age60 was associated with an increased risk of both 5-year (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02-2.01, p=0.04) and 10-year mortality (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.20-2.45, p=0.003). Restricted cubic spline showed a non-linear relationship between recipient age and 10-year mortality.Heart re-transplantation in recipients60 years has inferior outcomes compared to younger recipients. Strict patient selection and close follow-up are warranted to ensure the appropriate utilization of donor hearts and to improve long-term outcomes.

Data are limited on outcomes after heart transplantation in patients bridged-to-transplantation (BTT) with a total artificial heart (TAH-t).The UNOS database was used to identify 392 adult patients undergoing heart transplantation after TAH-t BTT between 2005 and 2020. They were compared with 11 014 durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) BTT patients and 22 348 de novo heart transplants (without any durable VAD or TAH-t BTT) during the same period.TAH-t BTT patients had increased dialysis dependence compared to LVAD BTT and de novo transplants (24.7% vs. 2.7% vs. 3.8%) and higher levels of baseline creatinine and total bilirubin (all p .001). After transplantation, TAH-t BTT patients were more likely to die from multiorgan failure in the first year (25.0% vs. 16.1% vs. 16.1%, p = .04). Ten-year survival was inferior in TAH-t BTT patients (TAH-t BTT 53.1%, LVAD BTT 61.8%, De Novo 62.6%, p .001), while 10-year survival conditional on 1-year survival was similar (TAH-t BTT 66.8%, LVAD BTT 68.7%, De Novo 69.0%, all p .20). Among TAH-t BTT patients, predictors of 1-year mortality included higher baseline creatinine and total bilirubin, mechanical ventilation, and cumulative center volume20 cases of heart transplantation involving TAH-t BTT (all p .05).Survival after TAH-t BTT is acceptable, and patients who survive the early postoperative phase experience similar hazards of mortality over time compared to de novo transplant patients and durable LVAD BTT patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic initially brought forth considerable challenges to the field of heart transplantation. To prevent the spread of the virus and protect immunocompromised recipients, our center made the following modifications to post-transplant outpatient management: eliminating early coronary angiograms, video visits for postoperative months 7, 9, and 11, and home blood draws for immunosuppression adjustments. To assess if these changes have impacted patient outcomes, the current study examines 1-year outcomes for patients transplanted during the pandemic. Between March and September 2020, we assessed 50 heart transplant patients transplanted during the pandemic. These patients were compared to patients who were transplanted during the same months between 2011 and 2019 (n = 482). Endpoints included subsequent 1-year survival, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy, any-treated rejection, acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), and hospital and ICU length of stay. Patients transplanted during the pandemic had similar 1-year endpoints compared to those of patients transplanted from years prior apart from 1-year freedom from NF-MACE which was significantly higher for patients transplanted during the pandemic. Despite necessary changes being made to outpatient management of heart transplant recipients, heart transplantation continues to be safe and effective with similar 1-year outcomes to years prior.

Heart donation after circulatory death was recently reintroduced in the United States with hopes of increasing donor heart availability. We examined its national use and outcomes.The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify validated adult patients undergoing heart transplantation using donation after circulatory death donors (n = 266) and donation after brain death donors (n = 5998) between December 1, 2019, and December 31, 2021, after excluding heart-lung transplants. Propensity score matching was used to create more balanced groups for comparison.The monthly percentage of donation after circulatory death heart transplant increased from 2.5% in December 2019 to 6.8% in December 2021 (P .001). Twenty-two centers performed donation after circulatory death heart transplants, ranging from 1 to 75 transplants per center. Four centers performed 70% of the national volume. Recipients of donation after circulatory death hearts were more likely to be clinically stable (80.4% vs 41.1% in status 3-6, P .001), to have type O blood (58.3% vs 39.9%, P .001), and to wait longer after listing (55, interquartile range, 15-180 days vs 32, interquartile range, 9-160 days, P = .003). Six-month survival was 92.1% (95% confidence interval, 91.3-92.8) after donation after brain death heart transplants and 92.6% (95% confidence interval, 88.1-95.4) after donation after circulatory death heart transplants (hazard ratio, 0.94, 95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.54, P = .79). Outcomes in propensity-matched patients were similar except for higher rates of treated acute rejection in donation after circulatory death transplants before discharge (14.4% vs 8.8%, P = .01). In donation after circulatory death heart recipients, outcomes did not differ based on the procurement technique (normothermic regional perfusion vs direct procurement and perfusion).Heart transplantation with donation after circulatory death donors has short-term survival comparable to donation after brain death transplants. Broader implementation could substantially increase donor organ availability.

Heart transplantation remains limited by donor availability. Currently, only some programs accept older donors, and their use remains contentious. We compared outcomes of heart transplant recipients who received donor hearts ≥55 years with those who received donor hearts55 years.Records of first-time adult heart transplant recipients between 2010 and 2019 were reviewed. Endpoints included 30-day and 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival; freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy; freedom from nonfatal major adverse cardiac events; and freedom from any rejections. The effect of donor age ≥55 years was analyzed with Cox proportional hazards modeling, 1:2 propensity score matching, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.Sixty-six patients received donor hearts ≥55 years and 766 received donor hearts55 years. In the unmatched cohort, there was no significant difference in survival between the 2 groups at 30 days (93.9% vs 97.3%, P = .127), 1 year (87.9% vs 91.6%, P = .325), 3 years (86.4% vs 86.5%, P = .888), or 5 years (78.8% vs 83.8%, P = .497). The ≥55 years group had a significantly lower freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy and fatal major adverse cardiac events. In propensity-matched patients, recipients of donors ≥55 years had similar survival and freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy but significantly lower 1-year (76.7% vs 88.3%, P = .026), 3-year (68.3% vs 84.2%, P = .010), and 5-year (63.3% vs 83.3%, P = .002) freedom from nonfatal major adverse cardiac events when compared to recipients of younger donors.Carefully selected older donors can be considered for a carefully selected group of recipients with acceptable outcomes.