Cardiac allograft rejection in the current era of continuous flow left ventricular assist devices

Enhancing regenerative medicine: the crucial role of stem cell therapy

Stem cells offer new therapeutic avenues for the repair and replacement of damaged tissues and organs owing to their self-renewal and multipotent differentiation capabilities. In this paper, we conduct a systematic review of the characteristics of various types of stem cells and offer insights into their potential applications in both cellular and cell-free therapies. In addition, we provide a comprehensive summary of the technical routes of stem cell therapy and discuss in detail current challenges, including safety issues and differentiation control. Although some issues remain, stem cell therapy demonstrates excellent potential in the field of regenerative medicine and provides novel tactics and methodologies for managing a wider spectrum of illnesses and traumas.

Waitlist Trends in Heart-Liver Transplantation With Updated US Heart Allocation System

BACKGROUND

In October 2018, the United States implemented a change in the donor heart allocation policy from a three-tiered to a six-tiered status system. The purpose of the current study was to examine changes in waitlist patterns among patients listed for concomitant heart-liver transplantation with implementation of the new allocation system.

METHODS

Patients listed for heart-liver transplantation between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2021, were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Patients were grouped by era according to initial list date before or after October 18, 2018. Competing risks regression for mortality, transplantation, removal from waitlist due to illness was performed according to the method of Fine and Gray. Waitlist data were censored at 3 years from initial listing.

RESULTS

Overall, 523 patients were identified, of whom 310 were listed before (era 1, 59%) and 213 after (era 2, 41%) allocation change. Patients in era 1 were older, had more restrictive cardiomyopathy, and more preoperative inotrope use (all P < .05). However, patients in era 2 has longer ischemic times (3.5 ± 1.1 vs 3.1 ± 1.1 hours, P < .01) and more intraaortic balloon pump use (8.9% vs 3.9%, P = .016). Era 2 was associated with lower subdistribution hazard for death (hazard ratio 0.37; 95% CI, 0.13-1.02; P = .054) and increased transplantation (hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI, 1.06-1.72; P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of the US donor heart allocation policy was associated with more preoperative intraaortic balloon pump use for patients listed for heart-liver transplantation. Despite that, the modern era was associated with lower waitlist mortality and more frequent transplantation, without increased risk of delisting due to illness.

Characterization of de novo malignancy after orthotopic heart transplantation: single-centre outcomes over 20 years

OBJECTIVES

Malignancy is the leading cause of late mortality after orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT), and the burden of post-transplantation cancer is expected to rise in proportion to increased case volume following the 2018 heart allocation score change. In this report, we evaluated factors associated with de novo malignancy after OHT with a focus on skin and solid organ cancers.

METHODS

Patients who underwent OHT at our institution between 1999 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed (n = 488). Terminal outcomes of death and development of skin and/or solid organ malignancy were assessed as competing risks. Fine-Gray subdistribution hazards regression was used to evaluate the association between perioperative patient and donor characteristics and late-term malignancy outcomes.

RESULTS

By 1, 5 and 10 years, an estimated 2%, 17% and 27% of patients developed skin malignancy, while 1%, 5% and 12% of patients developed solid organ malignancy. On multivariable Fine-Gray regression, age [1.05 (1.03-1.08); P < 0.001], government payer insurance [1.77 (1.20-2.59); P = 0.006], family history of malignancy [1.66 (1.15-2.38); P = 0.007] and metformin use [1.73 (1.15-2.59); P = 0.008] were associated with increased risk of melanoma and basal or squamous cell carcinoma. Age [1.08 (1.04-1.12); P < 0.001] and family history of malignancy [2.55 (1.43-4.56); P = 0.002] were associated with an increased risk of solid organ cancer, most commonly prostate and lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Vigilant cancer and immunosuppression surveillance is warranted in OHT recipients at late-term follow-up. The cumulative incidence of skin and solid organ malignancies increases temporally after transplantation, and key risk factors for the development of post-OHT malignancy warrant identification and routine monitoring.

Outcomes after heart transplantation in patients who have undergone a bridge-to-bridge strategy

Objectives

We compared posttransplant outcomes between patients bridged from temporary mechanical circulatory support to durable left ventricular assist device before transplant (bridge-to-bridge [BTB] strategy) and patients bridged from temporary mechanical circulatory support directly to transplant (bridge-to-transplant [BTT] strategy).

Methods

We identified adult heart transplant recipients in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database between 2005 and 2020 who were supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, intra-aortic balloon pump, or temporary ventricular assist device as a BTB or BTT strategy. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regressions were used to assess 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year survival. Posttransplant length of stay and complications were compared as secondary outcomes.

Results

In total, 201 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (61 BTB, 140 BTT), 1385 intra-aortic balloon pump (460 BTB, 925 BTT), and 234 temporary ventricular assist device (75 BTB, 159 BTT) patients were identified. For patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, intra-aortic balloon pump, or temporary ventricular assist device, there were no differences in survival between BTB and BTT at 1 and 5 years posttransplant, as well as 10 years posttransplant even after adjusting for baseline characteristics. The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation BTB group had greater rates of acute rejection (32.8% vs 13.6%; P = .002) and lower rates of dialysis (1.6% vs 21.4%; P < .001). For intra-aortic balloon pump and temporary ventricular assist device patients, there were no differences in posttransplant length of stay, acute rejection, airway compromise, stroke, dialysis, or pacemaker insertion between BTB and BTT recipients.

Conclusions

BTB patients have similar short- and midterm posttransplant survival as BTT patients. Future studies should continue to investigate the tradeoff between prolonged temporary mechanical circulatory support versus transitioning to durable mechanical circulatory support.

Competing Risks to Transplant in Bridging with Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

BACKGROUND

Continuous flow left ventricular assist device(CF-LVAD) support is a mainstay in the hemodynamic management of patients with end-stage heart failure refractory to optimal medical therapy. In this report, we evaluated waitlist complications and competing outcomes for CF-LVAD patients compared to primary transplant candidates listed for orthotopic heart transplantation(OHT) at a single center.

METHODS

All patients listed for OHT between 2006-2020 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed(n=300 CF-LVAD; n=244 primary transplant). Kaplan-Meier methodology with log-rank testing was used to evaluate survival outcomes. Terminal outcomes of death, delisting, and transplant were assessed as competing risks and compared between groups using Gray's test. Multivariable Fine-Gray regression was used to identify predictors of transplantation.

RESULTS

One-year rates of transplant, delisting, and death were 48%, 8%, and 2%, respectively for CF-LVAD patients and 45%, 15%, and 9% for primary transplant(all P<0.001). Waitlist mortality at 5 years was 4% among CF-LVAD patients and 13% for primary transplants. All-cause mortality after listing was lower for CF-LVAD patients(P=0.017). There was no difference in post-transplant survival between groups(P=0.250). On multivariable Fine-Gray regression, stroke(P=0.017), respiratory failure(P=0.032), right ventricular failure(P=0.019), and driveline infection(P=0.050) were associated with decreased probability of transplantation. Post-transplant survival was not significantly worse for CF-LVAD patients who experienced device-related complications(P=0.901).

CONCLUSIONS

While device related-complications were significantly associated with decreased rates of transplant, CF-LVAD patients had excellent waitlist outcomes overall. In light of the 2018 allocation score change, the risk of complications should be taken into account when deciding whether to offer CF-LVAD as a bridge to transplant.