Outcomes after heart retransplantation: A 50-year single-center experience

International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Evaluation and Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2024

The "International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Evaluation and Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2024" updates and replaces the "Listing Criteria for Heart Transplantation: International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2006" and the "2016 International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation Listing Criteria for Heart Transplantation: A 10-year Update." The document aims to provide tools to help integrate the numerous variables involved in evaluating patients for transplantation, emphasizing updating the collaborative treatment while waiting for a transplant. There have been significant practice-changing developments in the care of heart transplant recipients since the publication of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines in 2006 and the 10-year update in 2016. The changes pertain to 3 aspects of heart transplantation: (1) patient selection criteria, (2) care of selected patient populations, and (3) durable mechanical support. To address these issues, 3 task forces were assembled. Each task force was cochaired by a pediatric heart transplant physician with the specific mandate to highlight issues unique to the pediatric heart transplant population and ensure their adequate representation. This guideline was harmonized with other ISHLT guidelines published through November 2023. The 2024 ISHLT guidelines for the evaluation and care of cardiac transplant candidates provide recommendations based on contemporary scientific evidence and patient management flow diagrams. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association modular knowledge chunk format has been implemented, allowing guideline information to be grouped into discrete packages (or modules) of information on a disease-specific topic or management issue. Aiming to improve the quality of care for heart transplant candidates, the recommendations present an evidence-based approach.

Heart Retransplantation Under the 2018 Adult Heart Allocation Policy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to characterize the impact of the 2018 adult heart allocation policy change on waiting list and posttransplant outcomes of heart retransplantation in the United States.

METHODS

All adults listed for heart retransplantation from May 2015 to June 2022 were identified using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Patients were stratified into eras (era 1 and era 2) based on the heart allocation change on October 18, 2018. Competing risks regressions and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess differences across eras in waiting list outcomes and 1-year posttransplant survival, respectively.

RESULTS

The analysis included 356 repeat heart transplant recipients, with 207 (58%) receiving retransplantation during era 2. Patients who received a retransplant in era 2 were more commonly bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (21% vs 8%, P < .01) and intra-aortic balloon pump (29% vs 13%, P < .001) and had a lower likelihood of death/deterioration on the waiting list (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.82) compared with those in era 1. Rates of 30-day mortality (7% vs 7%, P = .99) and 1-year survival (82% vs 87%, P = .27) were not significantly different among retransplantation recipients across eras. After adjustment, retransplantation in era 2 was not associated with an increased hazard of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.55-2.30). The gap in 1-year mortality between primary transplant and retransplant recipients increased from era 1 to 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Heart retransplantation candidates have experienced improved waiting list outcomes after the 2018 adult heart allocation policy, without significant changes to posttransplant survival.

BSHI and BTS UK guideline on the detection of alloantibodies in solid organ (and islet) transplantation

Solid organ transplantation represents the best (and in many cases only) treatment option for patients with end-stage organ failure. The effectiveness and functioning life of these transplants has improved each decade due to surgical and clinical advances, and accurate histocompatibility assessment. Patient exposure to alloantigen from another individual is a common occurrence and takes place through pregnancies, blood transfusions or previous transplantation. Such exposure to alloantigen's can lead to the formation of circulating alloreactive antibodies which can be deleterious to solid organ transplant outcome. The purpose of these guidelines is to update to the previous BSHI/BTS guidelines 2016 on the relevance, assessment, and management of alloantibodies within solid organ transplantation.

Case report: Heart retransplant from a donor after circulatory death and extended transport period with normothermic perfusion

A 55-year-old man with end-stage heart failure, who had an orthotopic heart transplant 21 years prior, underwent heart retransplantation using a heart from a donor with circulatory death in a distant location and an extended transport period with normothermic ex vivo perfusion. Owing to the persistent and worsening shortage of donor hearts, this case illustrates that expanding the donor acceptance criteria to include more distant donor locations and enrolling recipients with extended criteria (e.g., heart retransplantation) is feasible.

Evaluating age-based eligibility thresholds for heart re-transplantation - an analysis of the united network for organ sharing database

BACKGROUND

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 recipients > 60 years.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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 p<0.05), and more frequently died from malignancy-related causes (16.3% vs. 3.9%, p<0.001). After adjustment, recipient age >60 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Heart re-transplantation in recipients > 60 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.

Outcomes of Heart Transplantation Using a Temperature-controlled Hypothermic Storage System

BACKGROUND

The SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System is a novel technology that provides stable, optimal hypothermic control during organ transport. The objectives of this study were to describe our experience using the SherpaPak system and to compare outcomes after heart transplantation after using SherpaPak versus the conventional static cold storage method (non-SherpaPak).

METHODS

From 2018 to June 2021, 62 SherpaPak and 186 non-SherpaPak patients underwent primary heart transplantation at Stanford University with follow-up through May 2022. The primary end point was all-cause mortality, and secondary end points were postoperative complications. Optimal variable ratio matching, cox proportional hazards regression model, and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Before matching, the SherpaPak versus non-SherpaPak patients were older and received organs with significantly longer total allograft ischemic time. After matching, SherpaPak patients required fewer units of blood product for perioperative transfusion compared with non-SherpaPak patients but otherwise had similar postoperative outcomes such as hospital length of stay, primary graft dysfunction, inotrope score, mechanical circulatory support use, cerebral vascular accident, myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, new renal failure requiring dialysis, postoperative bleeding or tamponade requiring reoperation, infection, and survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, this is one of the first retrospective comparison studies that evaluated the outcomes of heart transplantation using organs preserved and transported via the SherpaPak system. Given the excellent outcomes, despite prolonged total allograft ischemic time, it may be reasonable to adopt the SherpaPak system to accept organs from a remote location to further expand the donor pool.

The Stanford experience of heart transplantation over five decades

AIMS 

Since 1968, heart transplantation has become the definitive treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure. We aimed to summarize our experience in heart transplantation at Stanford University since the first transplantation performed over 50 years ago.

METHODS AND RESULTS 

From 6 January 1968 to 30 November 2020, 2671 patients presented to Stanford University for heart transplantation, of which 1958 were adult heart transplantations. Descriptive analyses were performed for patients in 1968-95 (n = 639). Stabilized inverse probability weighting was applied to compare patients in 1996-2006 (n = 356) vs. 2007-19 (n = 515). Follow-up data were updated through 2020. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Prior to weighting, recipients in 2007-19 vs. those in 1996-2006 were older and had heavier burden of chronic diseases. After the application of stabilized inverse probability weighting, the distance organ travelled increased from 84.2 ± 111.1 miles to 159.3 ± 169.9 miles from 1996-2006 to 2007-19. Total allograft ischaemia time also increased over time (199.6 ± 52.7 vs. 225.3 ± 50.0 min). Patients in 2007-19 showed superior survival than those in 1996-2006 with a median survival of 12.1 vs. 11.1 years.

CONCLUSION 

In this half-century retrospective descriptive study from one of the largest heart transplant programmes in the USA, long-term survival after heart transplantation has improved over time despite increased recipient and donor age, worsening comorbidities, increased technical complexity, and prolonged total allograft ischaemia time. Further investigation is warranted to delineate factors associated with the excellent outcomes observed in this study.