Post-transplant outcome in patients bridged to transplant with temporary mechanical circulatory support devices

30 Years of Heart Transplant: Outcomes after Mechanical Circulatory Support from a Single Center

BACKGROUND

Survival after bridge to transplant with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has yielded varying outcomes based on device type and baseline characteristics Continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) have significantly improved waitlist mortality, but recent changes to the transplant listing criteria have dramatically altered the use of MCS for bridge to transplant.

METHODS

Orthotopic heart transplants from 1988-2019 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed and stratified by pre-transplant MCS status into CF-LVAD (n=224), Pulsatile LVAD (n=49), temporary MCS (n=71), and primary transplant (n=463) groups. Patients transplanted after the approval of CF-LVAD for bridge to transplant and before the 2018 allocation policy changes underwent subgroup analysis to evaluate predictors of survival and complications in a contemporary cohort.

RESULTS

Rates of primary transplant declined from 88% to 14% over the course of the study. No significant difference in survival was detected in the cohort stratified by MCS status (P=0.18). In the modern era, survival for CF-LVAD and temporary MCS patients was non-inferior to primary transplant (P=0.22). Notable predictors of long-term mortality included lower body mass index, peripheral vascular disease, prior coronary artery bypass graft, ABO non-identical transplant, and increased donor age (all P<0.02). There were no differences in major postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

CF-LVAD has grown to account for the majority of transplants at our center in the last decade with no adverse effect on survival or postoperative complications. Temporary MCS has increased following the 2018 listing criteria change with acceptable early outcomes.

Changes in heart transplant waitlist and posttransplant outcomes in patients with restrictive and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with the new heart transplant allocation system

Historically, patients with restrictive (RCM) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) experienced longer wait-times for heart transplant (HT) and increased waitlist mortality. Recently, a new HT allocation system was implemented in the United States. We sought to determine the impact of the new HT system on RCM/HCM patients. Adult patients with RCM/HCM listed for HT between November 2015 and September 2019 were identified from the UNOS database. Patients were stratified into two groups: old system and new system. We identified 872 patients who met inclusion criteria. Of these, 608 and 264 were classified in the old and new system groups, respectively. The time in the waitlist was shorter (25 vs. 54 days, P < .001), with an increased frequency of HT in the new system (74% vs. 68%, P = .024). Patients who were transplanted in the new system had a longer ischemic time, increased use of temporary mechanical circulatory support and mechanical ventilation. There was no difference in posttransplant survival at 9 months (91.1% vs. 88.9%) (p = .4). We conclude that patients with RCM/HCM have benefited from the new HT allocation system, with increased access to HT without affecting short-term posttransplant survival.

Valvular complications following the Impella device implantation

BACKGROUND

Despite clear clinical benefits, there is limited evidence regarding possible complications of the novel mechanical support device Impella. Aortic and mitral valve regurgitation or injury are rare but potential complications following implantation of the Impella device.

METHODS

To evaluate valvular complications after the Impella device implantation, we have performed a comprehensive search of literature on multiple sites on this topic.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Ten case reports and one observational retrospective study were identified, with a total number of 19 patients identified. This article aims to draw attention to potential periprocedural complications relating to the Impella, in particular iatrogenic aortic and mitral valve injuries. Moreover, we have summarized our recommendations emphasizing the need for careful management and meticulous follow-up of these patients to avoid such potentially devastating complications.

An Analysis of Waitlist Inactivity Among Patients With Ventricular Assist Devices

BACKGROUND

Ventricular assist devices (VADs) are commonly used mechanical circulatory support for bridge to transplant therapy in end-stage heart failure; however, it is not understood how VADs influence incidence of waitlist inactive status. We sought to characterize and compare waitlist inactivity among patients with and without VADs.

METHODS

Using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database, we investigated the VAD's impact on incidence and length of inactive periods for heart transplant candidates from 2005 through 2018. We compared median length of inactivity between patients with and without VADs and investigated inactivity risk with time-to-event regression models.

RESULTS

Among 46,441 heart transplant candidates, 32% (n = 14,636) had a VAD. Thirty-eight percent (n = 17,873) of all patients experienced inactivity, of which 42% (7538/17,873) had a VAD. Median inactivity length was 31 d for patients without VADs and 62 d for VAD patients (P < 0.0005). Multivariable analysis showed no significant difference in risk of inactivity for deteriorating conditions between patients with and without VADs after controlling for demographic and baseline clinical variables. A larger proportion of patients without VADs were inactive for deteriorating conditions than VAD patients (54%, n = 8242/15,221 versus 32%, n = 3583/11,086, P < 0.001). Ten percent (1155/11,086) of VAD patients' inactive periods were for VAD-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Although VAD patients were inactive longer and had an overall increased risk of any-cause inactivity, their risk of inactivity for deteriorating condition was not significantly different from patients without VADs. Furthermore, VAD patients had a smaller proportion of inactivity periods due to deteriorating conditions. Thus, VADs are protective from morbidity for waitlist patients.

Outcomes of Mechanical Circulatory Support for Giant Cell Myocarditis: A Systematic Review

Treatment of giant cell myocarditis (GCM) can require bridging to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) or recovery with mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Since the roles of MCS and immunotherapy are not well-defined in GCM, we sought to analyze outcomes of patients with GCM who required MCS. A systematic search was performed in June 2019 to identify all studies of biopsy-proven GCM requiring MCS after 2009. We identified 27 studies with 43 patients. Patient-level data were extracted for analysis. Median patient age was 45 (interquartile range (IQR): 32-57) years. 42.1% (16/38) were female. 34.9% (15/43) presented in acute heart failure. 20.9% (9/43) presented in cardiogenic shock. Biventricular (BiVAD) MCS was required in 76.7% (33/43) of cases. Of the 62.8% (27/43) of patients who received immunotherapy, 81.5% (22/27) used steroids combined with at least one other immunosuppressant. Cyclosporine was the most common non-steroidal agent, used in 40.7% (11/27) of regimens. Immunosuppression was initiated before MCS in 59.3% (16/27) of cases, after MCS in 29.6% (8/27), and not specified in 11.1% (3/27). Immunosuppression started prior to MCS was associated with significantly better survival than MCS alone (p = 0.006); 60.5% (26/43) of patients received bridge-to-transplant MCS; 39.5% (17/43) received bridge-to-recovery MCS; 58.5% (24/41) underwent OHT a median of 104 (58-255) days from diagnosis. GCM recurrence after OHT was reported in 8.3% (2/24) of transplanted cases. BiVAD predominates in mechanically supported patients with GCM. Survival and bridge to recovery appear better in patients on immunosuppression, especially if initiated before MCS.

Improved survival after heart transplantation in patients bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the new allocation system

BACKGROUND

Historically, patients bridged on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to heart transplantation (HT) have very high post-transplant mortality. In the new heart transplant allocation system, ECMO-supported patients have the highest priority for HT. However, data are lacking on the outcomes of these critically ill patients. We compared the waitlist and post-transplant outcomes of ECMO-supported patients in the new and old allocation systems.

METHODS

Adult patients supported by ECMO at the time of listing or transplantation who were registered in the United Network for Organ Sharing database between November 1, 2015 and September 30, 2019 were included. Clinical characteristics, outcomes in the waitlist, and post-transplant survival were compared between the old and new systems. Cox Proportional and subdistribution hazard regression models were used to evaluate the variables contributing to the post-transplant and waitlist outcomes RESULTS: A total of 296 ECMO-supported patients were listed for HT. Of these, 191 were distributed to the old system, and 105 were distributed to the new system. Patients listed in the new system had a higher cumulative incidence of HT (p < 0.001) and lower incidence of death or removal (p = 0.001) from the transplant list than patients listed in the old system. The 6-month survival after transplantation was 74.6% and 90.6% for the old- and new-era patients, respectively (p = 0.002). Among ECMO-supported patients, being listed or transplanted on the new system was independently associated with improved outcomes in the waitlist and after transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

With the implementation of the new heart transplant allocation system, ECMO-supported patients have a shorter waitlist time, improved frequency of HT, and improved short-term post-transplant survival.

Outcomes of heart transplantation in patients bridged with Impella 5.0: Comparison with native chest transplanted patients without preoperative mechanical circulatory support

The Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) has become an important adjunct treatment modality in bridging patients with end-stage heart failure to recovery or orthotopic heart transplantation (HTx). We compared the outcome of patients directly bridged to HTx with the Impella 5.0 versus patients without mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Patients with no previous sternotomy or MCS, who were transplanted between September 2014 and March 2019 were included in this retrospective analysis. Impella 5.0 was implanted using surgical access and transesophageal echocardiography guidance. Forty-two out of 155 transplanted patients fulfilled the insertion criteria. Eight (19%) were bridged with Impella 5.0 to HTx. Recipient and donor baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. There were no significant differences in survival between the groups at 30-day (94% no MCS vs. 87.5% Impella group, P = .47) or 6 months (94% vs. 87.5%, P = .51). Patients on Impella 5.0 showed a significant recovery of hemodynamic parameters and end-organ function. Average duration of support to HTx was 16 ± 17 days. Impella 5.0, when used in suitable patients in a timely fashion can be a good strategy for bridging patients to HTx. The axillary approach allows for early extubation and mobilization. Outcomes of patients bridged to HTx with Impella 5.0 in acute cardiogenic shock are comparable to those of patients with no MCS.

Durable circulatory support with a paracorporeal device as an option for pediatric and adult heart failure patients

OBJECTIVES

Not all patients in need of durable mechanical circulatory support are suitable for a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. We describe patient populations who were treated with the paracorporeal EXCOR, including children with small body sizes, adolescents with complex congenital heart diseases, and adults with biventricular failure.

METHODS

Information on clinical data, echocardiography, invasive hemodynamic measurements, and surgical procedures were collected retrospectively. Differences between various groups were compared.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2018, a total of 50 patients (21 children and 29 adults) received an EXCOR as bridge to heart transplantation or myocardial recovery. The majority of patients had heart failure compatible with Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profile 1. At year 5, the overall survival probability for children was 90%, and for adults 75% (P = .3). After we pooled data from children and adults, the survival probability between patients supported by a biventricular assist device was similar to those treated with a left ventricular assist device/ right ventricular assist device (94% vs 75%, respectively, P = .2). Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy had a trend toward better survival than those with other heart failure etiologies (92% vs 70%, P = .05) and a greater survival free from stroke (92% vs 64%, P = .01). Pump house exchange was performed in nine patients due to chamber thrombosis (n = 7) and partial membrane rupture (n = 2). There were 14 cases of stroke in eleven patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite severe illness, patient survival on EXCOR was high, and the long-term overall survival probability following heart transplantation and recovery was advantageous. Treatment safety was satisfactory, although still hampered by thromboembolism, mechanical problems, and infections.

Acceptable Post-Heart Transplant Outcomes Support Temporary MCS Prioritization in the New OPTN|UNOS Heart Allocation Policy

BACKGROUND

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are generally used short term to maintain adequate organ perfusion in patients with advanced heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Unacceptably high waitlist mortality in this cohort motivated changes to heart allocation policy, which recognized the severity of illness by prioritization for temporary MCS and broader sharing in the new U.S. donor heart allocation policy. We evaluated the post-heart transplant outcomes for patients bridged with temporary MCS, a control population not bridged with MCS, and a cohort bridged with durable MCS.

METHODS

The heart transplant research database was queried to identify patients bridged with temporary MCS and bridged with durable MCS who went directly to heart transplant in our center. Temporary MCS included Impella, intra-aortic balloon pump, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Post-transplant endpoints were assessed at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2017, a total of 23 patients were bridged to heart transplant with temporary MCS and 548 were transplanted without MCS bridge. Patients bridged with temporary MCS had younger age, lower body mass index, and higher frequencies of prior blood transfusion and Status 1 (1A/1B) listing at transplant compared to patients not bridged with MCS (all P < .001). Despite the severity of illness in patients bridged with temporary MCS, post-transplant outcomes were indistinguishable from those in patients transplanted without MCS bridge, with no difference in 30-day, 6-month, or 1-year survival or 1-year freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events, any-treated rejection, acute cellular rejection, or antibody-mediated rejection (P = .23-.97). Similarly, compared to 157 patients bridged with durable MCS, no differences in post-transplant outcomes were identified for the temporary MCS cohort (P = .15-.94).

CONCLUSION

Temporary MCS as a bridge to transplant achieves similar post-transplant outcomes at 1 year compared to no MCS and durable MCS. These encouraging findings support recent changes in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network | United Network Organ Sharing (OPTN|UNOS) adult heart allocation policy.

Short-term mechanical circulatory support devices as bridge to heart transplantation: A prospective single-center experience in Argentina

BACKGROUND

Patients with cardiogenic shock may require hemodynamic stabilization with short-term mechanical circulatory support devices (ST-MCS) such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and centrifugal pump (CP) as bridge to transplantion (BTT). This study aimed to describe ECMO and CP during BTT and after heart transplant.

METHODS

A cohort of patients on ECMO or CP as BTT between April 2006 and April 2018 in a single hospital.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven consecutive patients with ECMO (n = 14) or CP (n = 23) were included. Acute kidney injury was more prevalent during CP (28.6% vs 69.6%, P = .02). There were no differences in stroke, thrombosis, sepsis, or vasoplegia. Bleeding (0% vs 56.5%, P = .0003) and reoperation (0% vs 47.8%, P = .002) were more frequent in CP group as well as mortality (0 vs 7 [30.4%], P = .03). The remaining 30 patients (81.1%) underwent heart transplantation, without differences in primary graft dysfunction, vasoplegia, reoperation for bleeding, or hospital stay. Mortality was 23.3% at 30 days, similar in both groups, with no further deaths at median follow-up of 44.2 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cardiogenic shock, ST-MCS with ECMO or CP as BTT are a lifesaving approach allowing successful transplantation in the majority of cases, with good short- and long-term survival.

Reassessing Recipient Mortality Under the New Heart Allocation System: An Updated UNOS Registry Analysis

BACKGROUND

An early report of recipient heart transplantation outcomes under the new U.S. heart allocation system introduced in late 2018 found a lower post-transplant survival rate compared with that of the prior system.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine recipient survival under the new system by using an updated dataset.

METHODS

The 2015 to 2019 United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried for adult heart transplant recipients, stratified according to whether the subjects were listed and underwent transplant before or after October 18, 2018, when the new allocation system was implemented. The association between allocation system and recipient mortality was analyzed by using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

A total of 7,119 recipients met inclusion criteria: 6,004 (84%) and 1,115 (16%) listed and undergoing transplant in the old and new allocation systems, respectively. This registry update included 576 new-system recipients, more than double the amount previously analyzed. Recipients from the new system were more likely to be bridged to transplant with temporary mechanical circulatory support devices instead of durable left ventricular assist devices and had longer graft ischemic times. After adjustment, the new system was not associated with poorer survival on Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (log-rank test; p = 0.075) or multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.18; 95% confidence interval: 0.90 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term survival of recipients listed and receiving a transplant under the old and new allocation systems seems to be comparable. The modification to the allocation system has resulted in several changes to the clinical profiles of patients undergoing transplants that must be closely monitored in the coming years.

Temporary left ventricular assist devices as a bridge to heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

To create equitable access to donor organs for the highest mortality patients, the cardiac transplant allocation system now prioritizes patients with surgically implanted temporary left ventricular assist devices (T-LVADs). The outcomes following a direct bridge from a T-LVAD to orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) are not well delineated.

AIM

This study investigates the T-LVAD waitlist outcomes and compares the posttransplant outcomes in patients bridged to OHT with surgically implanted T-LVADs to patients bridged with durable continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs).

METHODS

Adults recorded in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry bridged to OHT with a durable CF-LVAD and T-LVADs, with or without temporary right ventricular assist devices (T-RVADs), between 2010 and 2018 were included. Propensity matching and multivariable Cox regression were utilized to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 504 patients waitlisted with T-LVADs, the majority were transplanted (50%), bridged to CF-LVAD (17%), or recovered (9%). A total of 9047 recipients were bridged to OHT during the study period with 8875 CF-LVADs and 172 T-LVADs. Early survival in propensity-matched T-LVAD ± T-RVAD patients was similar to CF-LVAD ± T-RVAD patients but reduced at a 1-year follow-up. This difference in survival at 1-year follow-up was attributable to significantly reduced survival in patients with combined T-LVAD + T-RVAD support when compared with CF-LVAD, isolated T-LVAD and combined CF-LVAD + T-RVAD support (80% vs 90% vs 90% vs 91%; P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that most patients waitlisted with a T-LVAD are successfully bridged to durable therapy or recover, and those bridged to OHT have acceptable posttransplant outcomes, particularly when T-RVADs are not required.

Heart Transplantation After Ventricular Assist Device Therapy: Benefits, Risks, and Outcomes

Heart transplantation is an established treatment for end-stage heart failure. Due to the increase in demand and persistent scarcity of organ, mechanical circulatory devices have played a major role in therapy for advanced heart failure. Usage of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has gone up from 6% in 2006 to 43% in 2013 as per the United Network of Organ Sharing database. Majority of patients presenting for a heart transplantation are often bridged with an assist device prior for management of heart failure while on wait-list. On one hand, it is well established that LVADs improve survival on wait-list; on the other hand, the effect of LVAD on morbidity and survival after a heart transplantation is still unclear. In this article, we review the available literature and attempt to infer the outcomes given the risks and benefits of heart transplantation with prior LVAD patients.