Permanent pacemaker implantation early and late after heart transplantation: Clinical indication, risk factors and prognostic implications

Biomarkers from subcutaneous engineered tissues predict acute rejection of organ allografts

Invasive graft biopsies assess the efficacy of immunosuppression through lagging indicators of transplant rejection. We report on a microporous scaffold implant as a minimally invasive immunological niche to assay rejection before graft injury. Adoptive transfer of T cells into Rag2-/- mice with mismatched allografts induced acute cellular allograft rejection (ACAR), with subsequent validation in wild-type animals. Following murine heart or skin transplantation, scaffold implants accumulate predominantly innate immune cells. The scaffold enables frequent biopsy, and gene expression analyses identified biomarkers of ACAR before clinical signs of graft injury. This gene signature distinguishes ACAR and immunodeficient respiratory infection before injury onset, indicating the specificity of the biomarkers to differentiate ACAR from other inflammatory insult. Overall, this implantable scaffold enables remote evaluation of the early risk of rejection, which could potentially be used to reduce the frequency of routine graft biopsy, reduce toxicities by personalizing immunosuppression, and prolong transplant life.

Need for cardiac implantable electronic devices and long-term follow-up in recipients of orthotopic heart transplants

BACKGROUND

Cardiac pacemaker implantation after orthotopic heart transplantation declined dramatically after development of the bicaval anastomosis technique. However, much less is known about the rate, indications, and predictors of device implantation procedures with the current surgical technique.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the indications, patient characteristics, incidence, and survival related to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation after heart transplantation.

METHODS

This was a single-center study of 399 consecutive adult recipients of orthotopic heart transplants with bicaval anastomosis from 1991 to 2017. The primary end point was freedom from pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, and the secondary end point was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

At the time of transplantation, the mean age of recipients was 50 ± 12 years and that of donors 31 ± 12 years. CIEDs were implanted in 8% of recipients (n = 31): 11 pacemakers (35%) for sinus node dysfunction, 17 (55%) for high-grade heart block, and 3 ICDs (10%) for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Early CIED implantation (<30 days) was rare and absent for sinus node dysfunction. The risk for CIED implantation increased progressively during follow-up (0-30 years; median 11 years), with low-, moderate-, and high-risk periods between 0 and 10, between 10 and 20, and between 20 and 30 years, respectively. Recipients receiving CIEDs survived longer after transplantation (21 years vs 13 years; P < .01). Recipients receiving pacemakers for heart block were more likely to receive older donor hearts at the time of transplantation.

CONCLUSION

The risk of pacemaker implantation increases progressively, while ICD implantation is rare. Donor age is the predominant risk factor for subsequent heart block. Early sinus node dysfunction requiring permanent pacing is rare.

Leadless pacemaker in heart transplantation: a case report and literature review

Our case demonstrates the safe and effective use of a leadless pacemaker in a heart transplant recipient. A man in his 60s with a history of heart transplantation with biatrial anastomosis 7 months prior presented to the emergency department after several syncopal episodes. Telemetry monitoring revealed a paroxysmal complete atrioventricular block. Given his immunocompromised state and prior dual chamber pacemaker extraction at the time of heart transplantation, the patient underwent successful implantation of a leadless pacemaker. Over the past 5 years since device implantation, the patient has not had any syncopal events nor has he had any device-related complications, such as infection.

Long-Term Outcomes of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Bicaval Heart Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Permanent pacemakers (PPMs) may be necessary in up to 10% of patients after heart transplantation (HT).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term outcomes and clinical courses of heart transplant recipients who received PPM.

METHODS

All patients who required PPM after bicaval HT at Columbia University between January 2005 and December 2021 were included. Cases were compared to matched heart transplant recipients by age, sex, and year of transplantation. Patient and device characteristics including complications and device interrogations were reviewed. Outcomes of re-transplantation or graft failure/death were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Of 1,082 heart transplant recipients, 41 (3.8%) received PPMs. The median time from transplantation to PPM was 118 days (IQR: 18-920 days). The most common indications were sinus node dysfunction (60%, n = 25) and atrioventricular (AV) nodal disease (41.5%, n = 17). Post-implantation complications included pocket hematoma (n = 3), lead under-sensing (n = 2), and pocket infection requiring explant (n = 1). Rates of death and re-transplantation at 10 years post-HT were similar between groups. In multivariable analysis, after adjustment for mechanical circulatory support, pretransplantation amiodarone use, donor ischemic time and age, only older donor age was associated with increased risk of PPM implantation (P = 0.03). There was a significant decrease in PPM placement after 2018 (1.2% vs 4.4%, P = 0.02), largely driven by a decline in early PPM placement. There were no differences in mortality or need for re-transplantation between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PPMs are implanted after HT for sinus and atrioventricular node dysfunctions with low incidence of device-related complications. Our study shows a decrease in PPM implantation after 2018, likely attributable to expectant management in the early postoperative period.

Outcomes in orthotopic heart transplantation following pacemaker implantation

BACKGROUND

Bradyarrhythmias including sinus node dysfunction (SND) and atrioventricular block (AVB) can necessitate pacemaker (PPM) implantation in orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) recipients. Prior studies have shown conflicting findings regarding the effect of PPM implantation on survival. We evaluated the effect of PPM indication on long-term re-transplant-free survival in OHT patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of OHT patients at UCLA Medical Center from 1985 to 2018. Indication for PPM (SND, AVB) was identified. Cox proportional hazards model with pacemaker implantation as a time-varying covariate was used to evaluate its effect on the primary endpoint of retransplant or death. We included 1609 OHTs in 1511 adult patients with median follow-up of 12 years.

RESULTS

At transplant, patients were aged 53 ± 13 years and 1125 (74.5%) were male. Pacemakers were implanted in 109 (7.2%) patients; 65 for SND (4.3%) and 43 for AVB (2.8%). Repeat OHT was performed in 103 (6.4%) cases and 798 (52.8%) patients died during the follow-up period. The risk of the primary endpoint was significantly higher in patients requiring PPM for AVB (HR 3.0, 95% CI 2.1-4.2, p < .01) after controlling for age at OHT, gender, hypertension, diabetes, renal disease, history of repeat OHT, acute rejection, transplant coronary vasculopathy, and atrial fibrillation, but not PPM for SND (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.70-1.4, p = 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who required PPM for AVB, but not SND, were at significantly higher risk of death or retransplant compared to patients who did not require PPM.

Pacemaker Implantation following Heart Transplantation: Analysis of a Nation-Wide Database

BACKGROUND

The 2018 United-Network-for-Organ-Sharing (UNOS) allocation-system changes resulted in greater recognition of mechanical circulatory support (MCS), leading to more heart transplantations (HTx) in patients with MCS. We aimed to investigate the effect of the new UNOS allocation system on the need for a permanent pacemaker and associated complications following HTx.

METHODS

The UNOS Registry was questioned, to identify patients that received HTx in the US between 2000 and 2021. The primary objectives were to identify risk factors for the need for a pacemaker implantation following HTx.

RESULTS

49,529 HTx patients were identified, 1421 (2.9%) requiring a pacemaker post-HTx. Patients who required a pacemaker were older (53.9 ± 11.5 vs. 52.6 ± 12.8 years, p < 0.001), more frequently white (73% vs. 67%; p < 0.001) and less frequently black (18% vs. 20%; p < 0.001). In the pacemaker group, UNOS status 1A (46% vs. 41%; p < 0.001) and 1B (31% vs. 27%; p < 0.001) were more prevalent, and donor age was higher (34.4 ± 12.4 vs. 31.8 ± 11.5 years; p < 0.001). One-year survival was no different between the groups (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.37; p = 0.515). An era effect was observed (per year: OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.96, 0.98; p = 0.003), while ECMO pre-transplant was associated with lower risk of a pacemaker (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.19, 0.86; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

While associated with various patient and transplant characteristics, pacemaker implantation does not seem to impact one-year survival after HTx. The need for pacemaker implantation was lower in the more recent era and in patients who required ECMO pre-transplant, a finding explained by recent advances in perioperative care.

Permanent pacing in a very long-term follow-up after orthotopic heart transplantation: A matter of when or why?

Background

Orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) is associated with a high incidence of conduction disturbances (CD) leading to permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. However, the improved posttransplant survival raises the question about the pacemaker dependence (PD) in a prolonged follow‐up.

Hypothesis

The prevalence of PPM in OHT is high but not all patients are PD in a very long‐term follow‐up. Device implantation has no prognostic relevance.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of patient medical records focusing on device interrogation data at the most recent follow‐up.

Results

The study population consisted of 183 patients with a mean follow‐up of 15.0 ± 6.8 years. One‐fourth of the patients had undergone PPM implantation (n = 49, 26.8%). Among these, two‐thirds were PD at last follow‐up (n = 32, 65.3%). PPM was more often in biatrial OHT and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.26–7.29, p = .013 and OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.03–3.87, p = .041, respectively). Early sinus node dysfunction (SND) was the most persistent CD. PPM was associated with a poorer outcome in OHT (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.06–3.46, p = .031) and a higher rate of fatal septicemia (HR 5.1, 95% CI 1.41–18.14, p = .013).

Conclusions

One‐fourth of the OHT recipients develop CD requiring PPM implantation, although one‐third among these are not PD in follow‐up. Early SND is associated with a higher rate of PD. PPM is associated with an inferior prognosis.

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy and donor age affecting permanent pacemaker implantation after heart transplantation

Aims

The need for permanent pacemakers (PMs) after heart transplantation (HT) is increasing. The aim was to determine the influence of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), donor age, and other risk factors on PM implantations early and late after HT and its effect on survival.

Methods and results

A retrospective, single‐centre study was performed including HTs from 1984 to July 2018. Early PM was defined as PM implantation ≤90 days and late PM as PM > 90 days. Risk factors for PM and survival after PM were determined with (time‐dependent) multivariable Cox regression. Out of 720 HTs performed, 62 were excluded (55 mortalities ≤30 days and 7 retransplantations). Of the remaining 658 patients, 95 (14%) needed a PM: 38 (6%) early and 57 (9%) late during follow‐up (median 9.3 years). Early PM risk factors were donor age [hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, P < 0.001], ischaemic time (HR 1.01, P < 0.001), and in adults amiodarone use before HT (HR 2.02, P = 0.045). Late PM risk factors were donor age (HR 1.03, P = 0.024) and CAV (HR 3.59, P < 0.001). Late PM compromised survival (HR 2.05, P < 0.001), while early PM did not (HR 0.77, P = 0.41).

Conclusions

Risk factors for early PM implantation were donor age, ischaemic time, and in adults amiodarone use before HT. Late PM implantation risk factors were donor age and CAV. Late PM diminished survival, which is probably a surrogate marker for underlying progressive cardiac disease.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients: Developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC) Endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consenus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology, (ACC) and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate follow-up in pediatric patients.

Newly acquired complete right bundle branch block early after heart transplantation is associated with lower survival

Aims

Right bundle branch block (RBBB) after heart transplantation (HTX) is a common finding, but its impact on post‐transplant survival remains uncertain. This study investigated the post‐transplant outcomes of patients with complete RBBB (cRBBB) ≤ 30 days after HTX.

Methods

This registry study analysed 639 patients receiving HTX at Heidelberg Heart Center between 1989 and 2019. Patients were stratified by diagnosis of cRBBB ≤ 30 days after HTX. Analysis included recipient and donor data, medication, echocardiographic features, graft rejections, atrial fibrillation, heart rates, permanent pacemaker implantation and mortality after HTX including causes of death.

Results

One hundred thirty‐nine patients showed cRBBB ≤ 30 days after HTX (21.8%), 20 patients with pre‐existing cRBBB in the donor heart (3.2%) and 119 patients with newly acquired cRBBB (18.6%). Patients with newly acquired cRBBB had a worse 1‐year post‐transplant survival (36.1%, P < 0.01) compared with patients with pre‐existing cRBBB (85.0%) or without cRBBB (86.4%), along with a higher percentage of death due to graft failure (P < 0.01). Multivariate analysis indicated cRBBB ≤ 30 days after HTX as significant risk factor for 1‐year mortality after HTX (HR: 2.20; 95% CI: 1.68–2.87; P < 0.01). Secondary outcomes showed a higher rate of an enlarged right atrium (P = 0.01), enlarged right ventricle (P < 0.01), reduced right ventricular function (P < 0.01), 30‐day atrial fibrillation (P < 0.01) and 1‐year permanent pacemaker implantation (P = 0.02) in patients with cRBBB after HTX.

Conclusions

Newly acquired cRBBB early after HTX is associated with increased post‐transplant mortality.

Management of Arrhythmias After Heart Transplant: Current State and Considerations for Future Research

Orthotropic heart transplantation remains the most effective therapy for patients with end-stage heart failure, with a median survival of ≈13 years. Yet, a number of complications are observed after orthotropic heart transplantation, including atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. Several factors contribute to arrhythmias, such as autonomic denervation, effect of the surgical technique, acute and chronic rejection, and transplant vasculopathy among others. To minimize risk of future arrhythmias, the bicaval technique and minimizing ischemic time are current surgical standards. Sinus node dysfunction is the most common indication for early (within 30 days) pacemaker implantation, whereas atrioventricular block incidence increases as time from transplant increases. Atrial fibrillation can occur in the first few weeks following transplantation but is uncommon in the long term unless secondary to a precipitant such as acute rejection. The most common atrial arrhythmias are atrial flutters, which are mainly typical, but atypical circuits can be observed such as those that involve the remnant donor atrium in regions immediately adjacent to the atrioatrial anastomosis suture line. Choosing the appropriate pharmacological therapy requires careful consideration due to the potential interaction with immunosuppressive agents. Despite historical concerns, adenosine is effective and safe at reduced doses if administered under cardiac monitoring. Catheter ablation has emerged as an effective treatment strategy for symptomatic supraventricular tachycardias, including ablation of atypical flutter circuits. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy is an important risk factor for sudden cardiac death, yet the role of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant for sudden death prevention is unclear. Current indications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation are as in the nontransplant population. A number of questions for future research are posed.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices Following Heart Transplantation

Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is required in a subset of patients (∼10%) for sinus node dysfunction or atrioventricular block both early and late after heart transplantation. The incidence of PPM implantation has decreased to <5% with the advent of bicaval anastamosis transplantation surgery. Pacing dependence upon follow-up has been variably reported. An even smaller percentage of transplantation recipients (1.5% to 3.4%) undergo implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement. Rigorous data are lacking for the use of ICDs in the transplantation population and is largely derived from cohort studies and case series. Sudden cardiac death occurs in approximately 10% of transplantation recipients, but multiple nonarrhythmic factors are believed to be responsible, including acute rejection, late graft failure with electromechanical dissociation, and ischemia due to cardiac allograft vasculopathy. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the existing data regarding the role for PPMs and ICDs in this population, including leadless PPMs and subcutaneous ICDs, special considerations, and future directions.

Risk factors and survival of patients with permanent pacemaker implantation after heart transplantation

Background

Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after heart transplantation (HTX) may be required due to severe bradycardia. The aim of this study was to investigate the risk factors, indications, perioperative outcomes and complications of PPM implantation after HTX as well as the underlying effect on post-transplant mortality including causes of death.

Methods

This registry study included 621 patients receiving HTX at Heidelberg Heart Center between 1989 and 2018. Patients were stratified by PPM implantation after HTX. Data analysis of risk factors for PPM implantation included donor and recipient demographics, post-transplant medication, mortality, and causes of death.

Results

Thirty-six patients (5.8%) received PPM implantation after HTX, 12 (33.3%) with early PPM and 24 (66.7%) with late PPM. Indications for PPM implantation after HTX included sinus node dysfunction (SND) (n=15; 41.7%) and atrioventricular block (AVB) (n=21; 58.3%). Multivariate analysis revealed recipient body mass index (BMI) [hazard ratio (HR): 1.10; confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.21; P=0.03], donor age (HR: 1.07; CI: 1.03-1.10; P<0.01), and biatrial HTX (HR: 2.63; CI: 1.22-5.68; P=0.01) as significant risk factors for PPM implantation after HTX. Kaplan-Meier estimator displayed a statistically significant inferior 5-year post-transplant survival among patients with early PPM after HTX in comparison to patients with late PPM or no PPM after HTX (P<0.01) along with a higher percentage of death due to infection (P<0.01).

Conclusions

Multivariate risk factors for PPM implantation after HTX include recipient BMI, donor age, and biatrial HTX. Early PPM implantation after HTX is associated with increased 5-year post-transplant mortality due to infection.

Impact of "increased-risk" donor hearts on transplant outcomes: A propensity-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

Orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) remains the gold standard for advanced heart failure. Increased risk (IR) donors were categorized by the United Network for Organ Sharing Database (UNOS) according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. However, the impact of CDC IR donor hearts on the outcome of adult OHT recipients remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of adult OHT recipients between CDC IR and non-CDC IR donor grafts.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Databas. All adult patients (age ≥18 years) undergoing OHT from 2004 through 2016 were included (n = 24,751). Propensity scores for CDC IR donors were calculated by estimating probabilities of CDC IR donor graft use using a nonparsimonious multivariable logistic regression model. Patients were matched 1:1 using a greedy matching algorithm based on the propensity score of each patient. The impact of CDC IR donors on the post-transplant outcomes, such as 30-day and overall mortalities, was investigated using Cox-proportional hazards. Overall survival probability analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of 24,751 primary heart transplants from 2004 to 2016 with 3584 (14.5%) as IR donors, 6304 transplants were successfully matched (n = 3152 in CDC IR group and non-IR group). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics in recipients and donors. In the Cox-proportional hazards model for matched subjects, the use of CDC IR grafts was not associated with 30-day (hazard ratio of IR group vs non-IR group 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.08; P = .57) and overall mortalities (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.21; P = .62). Interestingly, post-transplant acute myocardial rejection episodes during hospital stays were found more often in the CDC-IR group, compared with the non-CDC IR group (CDC IR, n = 358 [11.4%]; non-CDC IR, n = 304 [9.6%] P = .03), whereas post-transplant pacemaker placements were performed less frequently in the CDC IR group (CDC IR, n = 80 [2.6%]; non-CDC IR, n = 111 [3.5%] P = .020). Importantly, there was no significant difference in the overall survival probability between CDC IR and non-IR groups in both unadjusted and adjusted survival analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

CDC IR status does not have a significant impact on adult OHT recipient survival probability. Increased use of CDC IR donor grafts can potentially alleviate the persistent and worsening shortage of available donor organs and shorten the waitlist time for heart transplantation.

Paroxysmal complete atrioventricular block in pediatric heart transplant recipients following cardiac catheterization: A case series

Late-onset paroxysmal AVB has been described as a rare complication after HT and has been associated with AR or CAV. We describe 4 pediatric HT recipients who developed paroxysmal AVB hours after routine cardiac catheterization in the absence of AR, CAV, or underlying conduction system disease. Four pediatric HT recipients who were >1 year post-transplant had episodes of paroxysmal AVB hours after surveillance cardiac catheterization with EMB. Telemetry demonstrated high-grade block, ranging from 2:1 AVB to complete AVB without ventricular escape for several seconds. None of the patients had significant AR or rapidly progressive CAV. Supplemental testing did not reveal underlying conduction system disease. Three of the 4 patients received permanent pacemakers, although subsequent interrogations showed minimal ventricular pacing. These pediatric HT recipients had paroxysmal AVB hours after cardiac catheterization in the absence of significant AR, CAV, or underlying conduction system disease. Subsequent pacemaker interrogations showed minimal ventricular pacing, suggesting these were isolated episodes. These cases suggest that mechanisms in addition to AR and CAV may cause paroxysmal AVB in pediatric HT recipients, warranting further investigation.

Paroxysmal atrioventricular block after heart transplantation in children: an early sign of rejection?

In OHT recipients, pathologic evaluation of the heart during acute rejection can show involvement of both the conduction system and the myocardium. We here describe the cases of a 9-year-old male with DCM and a 13-year-old female with RCM, who developed third-degree PAVB associated with acute rejection 36 months and 24 months after OHT, respectively. We conclude that PAVB could be considered an early sign of acute rejection after OHT in children who exhibit post-transplantation presyncope or syncope.

Accelerated graft dysfunction in heart transplant patients with persistent atrioventricular conduction block

AIMS

Bradyarrhythmia following heart transplantation is common-∼7.5-24% of patients require permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. While overall mortality is similar to their non-paced counterparts, the effects of chronic right ventricular pacing (CRVP) in heart transplant patients have not been studied. We aim to examine the effects of CRVP on heart failure and mortality in heart transplant patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Records of heart transplant recipients requiring PPM at St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Australia between January 1990 and January 2015 were examined. Patient's without a right ventricular (RV) pacing lead or a follow-up time of <1 year were excluded. Patients with pre-existing abnormal left ventricular function (<50%) were analysed separately. Patients were grouped by pacing dependence (100% pacing dependent vs. non-pacing dependent). The primary endpoint was clinical or echocardiographic heart failure (<35%) in the first 5 years post-PPM. Thirty-three of 709 heart transplant recipients were studied. Two patients had complete RV pacing dependence, and the remaining 31 patients had varying degrees of pacing requirement, with an underlying ventricular escape rhythm. The primary endpoint occurred significantly more in the pacing-dependent group; 2 (100%) compared with 2 (6%) of the non pacing dependent group (P < 0.0001 by log-rank analysis, HR = 24.58). Non-pacing-dependent patients had reversible causes for heart failure, unrelated to pacing. In comparison, there was no other cause of heart failure in the pacing-dependent group.

CONCLUSIONS

Permanent atrioventricular block is rare in the heart transplant population. We have demonstrated CRVP as a potential cause of accelerated graft failure in pacing-dependent heart transplant patients.

Heart rate after cardiac transplantation-lessons from the tortoise and the shrew

There is a striking consistency in the total number of heart beats accrued over a lifetime across a range of animal species despite vast differences in size. Moreover, an inverse relationship is observed between heart rate and lifespan, leading to speculation that elevated heart rate could significantly affect longevity. It is the aim of this review to analyze heart rate as a contributing factor in defining the functional lifespan of the transplanted human heart, which may unavoidably determine the longevity of the recipient. Sinus tachycardia occurs as a result of sympathetic/parasympathetic denervation, an unavoidable consequence of transplantation. The effect of elevated heart rate in this cohort has been scarcely reported. We highlight herein multitudinous mechanisms whereby elevated heart rate accelerates the deterioration in cardiac function and arterial elasticity due to injury and stress accumulation. Additionally, we propose a significant role for heart rate in confounding the alloimmune response. Tachycardia exacerbates injurious episodes of myocardial ischemia and significantly increases the production of reactive oxygen species via increased metabolism. These factors promote immune infiltration and activation, contributing to acute and chronic rejection. Further research is required to assess the potential therapeutic benefits of heart rate reduction.

[Advances in cardiac pacing]

This article contains a review of the current status of remote monitoring and follow-up involving cardiac pacing devices and of the latest developments in cardiac resynchronization therapy. In addition, the most important articles published in the last year are discussed.