A Recipient Risk Prediction Tool for Short-term Mortality After Pediatric Heart Transplantation

Critical care therapies pre- and post-heart transplant and their impact: Analysis from the Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium

BACKGROUND

Few studies highlighting the critical care management of patients after heart HTx (HTx) have been published to date. This analysis provides a contemporary representation of pre- and post-HTx critical care in various patient cohorts and outlines the impact of intensive care unit (ICU) therapies on outcomes.

METHODS

Data from PC4 Collaborative Registry were analyzed for pediatric patients undergoing HTx between August 2014 and April 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 1877 HTx in 1857 patients were reported from 42 centers; 56.5% had congenital heart disease (CHD). Patients with CHD were younger, smaller, more likely male, White race, and publicly insured. CHD patients had higher need for catheterization, increased likelihood of inotropic support and mechanical ventilation and lower VAD rates. Their operative courses were significant for longer bypass and cross-clamp times. Postoperatively, CHD patients required more CPR , utilized more ICU therapies and had higher hospital mortality (7.8% vs. 1.8% for non-CHD patients, p<0.0001). Longer cardiopulmonary bypass, longer deep hypothermic circulatory arrest times and delayed sternal closure were independent risk factors for hospital mortality. Lastly, center transplant volume but not surgical volume was associated with transplant outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A diagnosis of CHD before HTx is associated with a greater use of ICU-specific therapies compared non-CHD cohort. Operative factors, particularly in patients with CHD, are independently associated with higher hospital mortality as was low transplant volume at the center. The study provides basis for further investigating ICU and operative factors that can be modified to improve transplant outcomes.

Quality care close to home: Objectives and early outcomes of a second paediatric heart transplant service in Australia

AIM

We describe the experience of a new paediatric heart transplant (HT) centre in Australia. New South Wales offers quaternary paediatric cardiac services including comprehensive care pre- and post-HT; however, perioperative HT care has previously occurred at the national paediatric centre or in adult centres. Internationally, perioperative HT care is highly protocol-driven and a majority of HT occurs in low volume centres. Establishing a low volume paediatric HT centre in New South Wales offers potential for quality HT care close to home.

METHODS

Retrospective review of programme data for the first 12 months was undertaken. Patient selection was audited against the programme's intended initiation criteria. Longitudinal patient data on outcomes and complications were obtained from patient medical records.

RESULTS

The programme's initial phase offered HT to children with non-congenital heart disease and no requirement for durable mechanical circulatory support. Eight patients met criteria for HT referral. Three underwent interstate transfer to the national paediatric centre. Five children (13-15 years, weight 36-85 kg) underwent HT in the new programme. Individual predicted 90-day mortality was 1.3-11.6%, with increased risk for recipients transplanted from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and with restrictive/hypertrophic cardiomyopathies. Survival at 90 days and for duration of follow-up is 100%. Observed programme benefits include mitigation of family dislocation and improved continuity of care within a family-centred programme.

CONCLUSION

Audit of the first 12 months' activity of a second paediatric HT centre in Australia demonstrates adherence to proposed patient selection criteria and excellent 90-day patient outcomes. The programme demonstrates feasibility of care close to home, providing continuity for all patients including those requiring increased rehabilitation and psychosocial support post-transplantation.

Heart-kidney listing is better than isolated heart listing for pediatric heart transplant candidates with significant renal insufficiency

OBJECTIVES

Significant renal insufficiency is identified as a risk factor for post-transplantation mortality in pediatric heart transplant recipients. This study evaluates simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation listing outcomes compared with heart transplant for pediatric candidates with significant renal insufficiency.

METHODS

The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was searched for patients (January 1987 to March 2020) who were simultaneously listed for a heart-kidney transplantation or for heart transplant with significant renal insufficiency at the time of listing. Significant renal insufficiency was defined as needing dialysis or having a low estimated glomerular filtration rate (<40 mL/min). Survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 427 cases were identified; 109 were listed for heart-kidney transplantation, and 318 were listed for heart transplant alone. Median time on the waitlist was 101 days (interquartile range, 28-238) for heart-kidney transplantation listings compared with 39 days (14-86) and 23.5 days (6-51) for heart transplant recipients with a low estimated glomerular filtration rate (P = .002) or on dialysis (P < .001), respectively. Of all heart-kidney transplantation listings, 66% (n = 71) received a transplant compared with 54% (n = 173) of heart transplantation with significant renal insufficiency (P = .005) with a mean survival of 14.6 years (12.7-16.4 years) for heart transplant without significant renal insufficiency at transplantation and 7.6 years (5.4-9.9 years) for heart transplant with significant renal insufficiency at transplantation. At 1 year after listing, 69% of heart-kidney transplantation listed recipients were alive, compared with 51% of heart transplant listed recipients (P = .029). Heart-kidney transplantation recipients had better 1-year post-transplantation survival (86%) than heart transplantation with significant renal insufficiency at transplant (66%) (P = .001). There was no significant difference in the 1- and 5-year survivals of those undergoing heart transplantation listed with significant renal insufficiency but no significant renal insufficiency at the time of transplant (89% and 78%) and heart-kidney transplantation recipients (86% and 81%; P = .436).

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric candidates with significant renal insufficiency listed for heart-kidney transplantation have superior waitlist and post-transplantation outcomes compared with those listed for heart transplant alone. Patients with significant renal insufficiency should be listed for heart-kidney transplantation, however; if their renal function improves significantly, heart transplant alone appears judicious.

External validation and comparison of risk score models in pediatric heart transplants

BACKGROUND

Pediatric heart transplant (PHT) patients have the highest waitlist mortality of solid organ transplants, yet more than 40% of viable hearts are unutilized. A tool for risk prediction could impact these outcomes. This study aimed to compare and validate the PHT risk score models (RSMs) in the literature.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed to identify RSMs published. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry was used to validate the published models identified in a pediatric cohort (<18 years) transplanted between 2017 and 2019 and compared against the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) 2021 model. Primary outcome was post-transplant 1-year mortality. Odds ratios were obtained to evaluate the association between risk score groups and 1-year mortality. Area under the curve (AUC) was used to compare the RSM scores on their goodness-of-fit, using Delong's test.

RESULTS

Six recipient and one donor RSMs published between 2008 and 2021 were included in the analysis. The validation cohort included 1,003 PHT. Low-risk groups had a significantly better survival than high-risk groups as predicted by Choudhry (OR = 4.59, 95% CI [2.36-8.93]) and Fraser III (3.17 [1.43-7.05]) models. Choudhry's and SRTR models achieved the best overall performance (AUC = 0.69 and 0.68, respectively). When adjusted for CHD and ventricular assist device support, all models reported better predictability [AUC > 0.6]. Choudhry (AUC = 0.69) and SRTR (AUC = 0.71) remained the best predicting RSMs even after adjustment.

CONCLUSION

Although the RSMs by SRTR and Choudhry provided the best prediction for 1-year mortality, none demonstrated a strong (AUC ≥ 0.8) concordance statistic. All published studies lacked advanced analytical approaches and were derived from an inherently limited dataset.

Pediatric heart-liver transplant outcomes in the United States: A 25-year National Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Pediatric HLT remains uncommon in the United States and criteria for HLT are unclear. The objectives of this study were to review the indications, and outcomes of pediatric HLT.

METHODS

Data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients heart and liver databases were used to identify 9245 pediatric isolated heart transplants (PHT), 14 134 pediatric isolated liver transplant (PLT), and 20 pediatric HLT (16 patients underwent sHLT [same organ donor] and four patients with a history of PHT followed by PLT [different organ donors]; age ≤21 years) between 1992 and 2017. Outcomes included patient survival, and 1-year rates of acute heart and liver rejection.

RESULTS

The median age for pediatric HLT was 15.6 (IQR: 10.5, 17.9) years, and included 12 males (12/20 = 60%). In the HLT group, the most common indication for HT was CHD (12/20 = 60%), and the most common indication for liver transplant was cirrhosis (9/20 = 45%). The 1, 3, and 5 year actuarial survival rates in pediatric simultaneous HLT recipients (n = 16) were 93%, 93%, and 93%, respectively, and was similar to isolated PHT alone (88%, 81%, and 75.5%, respectively and isolated PLT alone (84%, 82%, and 80%), respectively. There was no heart or liver rejection reported in the HLT group versus 9.9% in heart and 10.6% in liver transplant-only groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Pediatric HLT is an uncommon but acceptable option for recipients with combined end-organ failure, with intermediate survival outcomes comparable to those of single-organ recipients.

Current opinion in pediatric heart transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiac transplant remains the most effective therapy for children with end-stage heart disease. Outcomes remain better than any alternative therapy for this condition, but its use is limited by donor organ availability. As a result, waitlist times and mortality on the waiting list remain unacceptably high. Novel approaches are necessary to address this problem.

RECENT FINDINGS

Organ Procurement and Transplant Network/United Network for Organ Sharing readjusted the pediatric heart allocation system in 2016 to prioritize children at highest risk of mortality, encourage judicious listing, and improve appropriate donor organ utilization. Subsequent studies have aligned with these priorities to help risk-stratify patients at the time of listing and identify the importance that should be assigned to donor-specific factors. In addition, many authors are advocating for increased utilization of hearts donated after cardiac death. Pediatric Ventricular Assist Device (VAD) application has also been increasing to help decrease waitlist mortality. Although results have significantly improved, there remain important limitations to widespread use of VADs in the pediatric population. This has prompted novel techniques such as pulmonary artery banding to improve cardiac function and, in some cases, promote recovery. The demand for cardiac replacement continues to increase with an ageing population of patients with congenital heart disease, presenting new challenges and stressors to the system.

SUMMARY

Pediatric cardiac transplant outcomes are excellent but remain plagued by the limited supply of donor organs. Recent strategies to combat this problem have focused on judicious listing, maximal utilization of available donor organs, and safely extending the lives of patients on the waitlist. New demands on the organ supply chain will continue to stress the system, making these efforts of the highest importance.Clinical Trial Registry Number not applicable.

Review of interactions between high-risk pediatric heart transplant recipients and marginal donors including utilization of risk score models

BACKGROUND

Donor organ acceptance practices vary among pediatric heart transplant professionals. We sought to understand what is known about the interactions between the "high-risk" recipient and the "marginal donor," and how donor risk scores can impact this discussion.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature on pediatric HTx was undertaken with the assistance of a medical librarian. Two authors independently assessed search results, and papers were reviewed for inclusion.

RESULTS

We found that there are a large number of individual factors, and clusters of factors, that have been used to label individual recipients "high-risk" and individual donors "marginal." The terms "high-risk recipient" and "marginal donor" have been used broadly in the literature making it virtually impossible to make comparisons between publications. In general, the data support that patients who could be easily agreed to be "sicker recipients" are at more risk compared to those who are clearly "healthier," albeit still "sick enough" to need transplantation. Given this variability in the literature, we were unable to define how being a "high-risk" recipient interplays with accepting a "marginal donor." Existing risk scores are described, but none were felt to adequately predict outcomes from factors available at the time of offer acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

We could not determine what makes a donor "marginal," a recipient "high-risk," or how these factors interplay within the specific recipient-donor pair to determine outcomes. Until there are better risk scores predicting outcomes at the time of organ acceptance, programs should continue to evaluate each organ and recipient individually.