New role of ventricular assist devices as bridge to transplantation: European perspective

Mechanical Circulatory Support as a Bridge-to-Transplant Candidacy: When Does It Work?

Durable mechanical circulatory support (dMCS) devices can be offered as a bridge-to-transplant (BTT) or as a bridge-to-candidacy (BTC) strategy for candidates with contraindications to transplant listing, including pulmonary hypertension (BTC-PH), morbid obesity (BTC-Obes), social issues (BTC-Soc), or chronic illness (BTC-Illness). An understanding of the trajectory of BTC patients could guide future triage of advanced heart failure patients who are not candidates for transplantation. We performed a retrospective review all patients who underwent dMCS implantation as either BTT (206 patients) or BTC (114 patients) at our center from January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2020. There was no significant difference in mortality between BTC patients and BTT patients. Compared with the BTT group, significantly more patients in the BTC-PH group were transplanted (81% vs. 63%; p < 0.05) and significantly fewer patients in the BTC-Obes group (44%; p < 0.05) and BTC-Soc group (39%; p < 0.05) were transplanted. Additionally, the readmission rate was higher for those in the BTC-Obes (6.2 vs. 2.1; p < 0.05) and BTC-Soc (3.9 vs. 2.1; p < 0.05) groups. Bridge-to-candidacy patients generally had poorer post-dMCS trajectories than BTT patients. Centers should not be dissuaded from pursuing a BTC strategy for qualified patients; however, careful consideration of potential adverse outcomes is necessary.

Comparative analysis of LVAD patients in regard of ischaemic or idiopathic cardiomyopathy: A propensity-score analysis of EUROMACS data

BACKGROUND

Despite recent advances in management of patients with advanced heart failure, mortality remains high. Aim of this study was to compare impact of different aetiology of ischaemic and idiopathic cardiomyopathy on early outcomes and long-term survival of patients after left ventricular assist device implantation.

METHODS

European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS) gathers clinical data and follow-up parameters of LVAD recipients. Patients enrolled in the EUROMACS registry with primary diagnosis of either ischaemic (n = 1190) or idiopathic (n = 812) cardiomyopathy were included. Primary Endpoints were early mortality as well as long-term survival. Secondary endpoint were major postoperative adverse events, such as need for rethoracotomy. Additionally, a propensity-score matching analysis was performed for patients with ischaemic (n = 509) and idiopathic (n = 509) cardiomyopathy.

RESULTS

In terms of basic demographics and baseline parameters the two groups significantly differed as expected before propensity-score matching due to different aetiology of cardiomyopathy. Seven-day (52 (4.4%) versus 18 (2.2%); p = 0.009), 30-day (153 (12.9%) versus 73 (9.0%); p = 0.008) and in-hospital mortality (253 (19.7%) versus 123 (15.1%); p = 0.009) were significantly lower in the idiopathic cardiomyopathy group compared to the ischaemic cardiomyopathy group, whereas after propensity-score matching 30-day (p = 0.169) was comparable and in-hospital mortality (p = 0.051) was almost significant. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed no significant difference in regard of long-term survival after propensity-score matching (Breslow-test p = 0.161 and LogRank-test p = 0.113).

CONCLUSION

Though patients with ischaemic and idiopathic cardiomyopathy suffer from different cardiomyopathy aetiologies, 30-day-mortality and long-term survival of both groups were similar leading to the conclusion that covariates predominately influence mortality and survival of ischaemic and idiopathic cardiomyopathies.

Surgery for heart failure: Treatment options and implications

Heart failure is considered one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Over the years, etiological risk factors, diagnostic criteria, and classifications have been revised to create guide management needed to alleviate the global health burden caused by heart failure. Pharmacological treatments have progressed over time but are insufficient in reducing mortality. This leads to many patients developing advanced heart failure who will require surgical intervention often in the form of the gold standard, a heart transplant. However, the number of patients requiring a transplant far exceeds the number of donors. Other surgical inventions have been utilized, yet the rate of patients being diagnosed with heart failure is still increasing. Future developments in the surgical field of heart failure include the 77SyncCardia and atrial shunting but long-term clinical trials involving larger cohorts of patients have not yet taken place to view how effective these approaches can be.

Complications of left ventricular assist devices causing high urgency status on waiting list: impact on outcome after heart transplantation

Aims

Heart transplantation (HTx) represents optimal care for advanced heart failure. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are often needed as a bridge‐to‐transplant (BTT) therapy to support patients during the wait for a donor organ. Prolonged support increases the risk for LVAD complications that may affect the outcome after HTx.

Methods and results

A total of 342 patients undergoing HTx after LVAD as BTT in a 10‐year period in two German high‐volume HTx centres were retrospectively analysed. While 73 patients were transplanted without LVAD complications and with regular waiting list status (T, n = 73), the remaining 269 patients were transplanted with high urgency status (HU) and further divided with regard to the observed leading LVAD complications (infection: HU1, n = 91; thrombosis: HU2, n = 32; stroke: HU3, n = 38; right heart failure: HU4, n = 41; arrhythmia: HU5, n = 23; bleeding: HU6, n = 18; device malfunction: HU7, n = 26). Postoperative hospitalization was prolonged in patients with LVAD complications. Analyses of perioperative morbidity revealed no differences regarding primary graft dysfunction, renal failure, and neurological events except postoperative infections. Short‐term survival, as well as Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, indicated comparable results between the different study groups without disadvantages for patients with LVAD complications.

Conclusions

Left ventricular assist device therapy can impair the outcome after HTx. However, the occurrence of LVAD complications may not impact on outcome after HTx. Thus, we cannot support the prioritization or discrimination of HTx candidates according to distinct mechanical circulatory support‐associated complications. Future allocation strategies have to respect that device‐related complications may define urgency but do not impact on the outcome after HTx.

Outcome of patients on heart transplant list treated with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: Insights from the TRans-Atlantic registry on VAd and TrAnsplant (TRAViATA)

BACKGROUND

Geographic variations in management and outcomes of individuals supported by continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD) between the United States (US) and Europe (EU) is largely unknown.

METHODS

We created a retrospective, multinational registry of 524 patients who received a CF-LVAD (either HVAD or Heartmate II) between January 2008 and April 2017. Follow up spanned from date of CF-LVAD implant to post-HTx period with a median follow up of 44.8 months.

RESULTS

The cohort included 299 (57.1%) EU and 225 (42.9%) US patients. Although the US cohort was significantly older with a higher prevalence of comorbidities, survival was similar between the cohorts (US 63.1%, EU 68.4% at 5 years, unadjusted log-rank test p = 0.43).Multivariate analyses suggested that older age, higher body mass index, elevated creatinine, use of temporary mechanical circulatory support prior CF-LVAD, and implantation of HVAD were associated with increased mortality. Among CF-LVAD patients undergoing HTx, the median time on CF-LVAD support was shorter in the US, meanwhile US donors were younger. Finally, the pattern of adverse events (stroke, gastrointestinal bleedings, late right ventricular failure, and driveline infection) during support differed significantly between US and EU.

CONCLUSIONS

Although waitlisted patients in the US on CF-LVAD have higher risk comorbid conditions, the overall outcome is similar in US and EU. Geographic variations with regards to donor characteristics, duration of CF-LVAD support prior to transplant, and adverse events on support can explain the disparity in the utilization of mechanical bridge to transplant strategy between US and EU.

Worldwide trends in heart and lung transplantation: Guarding the most precious gift ever

Transplantation is sadly a therapy to die for. The survival of a recipient with end-stage heart or lung disease requires the demise of a human being through brain death or cessation of circulation, with the noblest final act of offering one's organs to another. However, transplantation is constrained by severe hemodynamic, regulatory, inflammatory, and metabolic stresses in the donor, rendering the majority of offered organs unsuitable for transplantation. Coupled with our inability to acquire exact molecular and cellular information and missed opportunities for effectively modulating deteriorations of donors and allografts, anesthesia and critical care contributes to ongoing organ shortages. Progress is made with improving waiting lists by bridging patients for transplantation using mechanical support. However, this represents more complex recipients, higher risk transplant operations, and increased resource utilization. The advent of ex vivo perfusion allows implementing novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies with real potential of reconditioning less ideal organs. This review advocates a paradigm change in critical care management of the potential donor for improving retrieval practices and for more intellectual involvement of our specialties in organ preservation, ex vivo evaluation and reconditioning, and the need for great advancement in our efficiency in converting unacceptable allografts to suitable donor organs.