New French heart allocation system: Comparison with Eurotransplant and US allocation systems

Impact of prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation on outcomes in heart transplantation with higher risk donor heart

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on outcomes in heart transplantation with higher risk donor hearts (HRDHs).

METHODS

Patients transplanted in our hospital between May 2006 and December 2019 were divided into 2 groups, HRDH recipients and non HRDH recipients. HRDH was defined as meeting at least one of the following criteria: (1) donor left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 50%, (2) donor-recipient predicted heart mass ratio < 0.8 or > 1.2, (3) donor age ≥ 55 years, (4) ischemic time > 4 h and (5) catecholamine index > 20. Recipients of HRDHs were divided into 3 groups according to the time of CPR (Group1: non-CPR, Group 2: less than 30 min-CPR, and Group 3: longer than 30 min CPR).

RESULTS

A total of 125 recipients were enrolled in this study, composing of HRDH recipients (n = 97, 78%) and non HRDH recipients (n = 28, 22%). Overall survival and the rate of freedom from cardiac events at 10 years after heart transplantation were comparable between two groups. Of 97 HRDH recipients, 54 (56%) without CPR, 22 (23%) with CPR < 30 min, and 21 (22%) with CPR ≥ 30 min were identified. One-year survival rates were not significantly different among three groups. The 1-year rate of freedom from cardiac events was not also statistically different, excluding the patients with coronary artery disease found in early postoperative period, which was thought to be donor-transmitted disease. Multivariate logistics regression for cardiac events identified that the CPR duration was not a risk factor even in HRDH-recipients.

CONCLUSION

The CPR duration did not affect the outcomes after heart transplantation in HRDH recipients.

Importance of Transplant Era on Post-Heart Transplant Predictive Models: A UNOS Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

The application of posttransplant predictive models is limited by their poor statistical performance. Neglecting the dynamic evolution of demographics and medical practice over time may be a key issue.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to develop and validate era-specific predictive models to assess whether these models could improve risk stratification compared to non-era-specific models.

METHODS

We analyzed the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database including first noncombined heart transplantations (2001-2018, divided into four transplant eras: 2001-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015, 2016-2018). The endpoint was death or retransplantation during the 1st-year posttransplant. We analyzed the dynamic evolution of major predictive variables over time and developed era-specific models using logistic regression. We then performed a multiparametric evaluation of the statistical performance of era-specific models and compared them to non-era-specific models in 1000 bootstrap samples (derivation set, 2/3; test set, 1/3).

RESULTS

A total of 34 738 patients were included, 3670 patients (10.5%) met the composite endpoint. We found a significant impact of transplant era on baseline characteristics of donors and recipients, medical practice, and posttransplant predictive models, including significant interaction between transplant year and major predictive variables (total serum bilirubin, recipient age, recipient diabetes, previous cardiac surgery). Although the discrimination of all models remained low, era-specific models significantly outperformed the statistical performance of non-era-specific models in most samples, particularly concerning discrimination and calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

Era-specific models achieved better statistical performance than non-era-specific models. A regular update of predictive models may be considered if they were to be applied for clinical decision-making and allograft allocation.

Prevention and rehabilitation after heart transplantation: A clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology, Heart Failure Association of the ESC, and the European Cardio Thoracic Transplant Association, a section of ESOT

Little is known either about either physical activity patterns, or other lifestyle-related prevention measures in heart transplantation (HTx) recipients. The history of HTx started more than 50 years ago but there are still no guidelines or position papers highlighting the features of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx. The aims of this scientific statement are (i) to explain the importance of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx, and (ii) to promote the factors (modifiable/non-modifiable) that should be addressed after HTx to improve patients' physical capacity, quality of life and survival. All HTx team members have their role to play in the care of these patients and multidisciplinary prevention and rehabilitation programmes designed for transplant recipients. HTx recipients are clearly not healthy disease-free subjects yet they also significantly differ from heart failure patients or those who are supported with mechanical circulatory support. Therefore, prevention and rehabilitation after HTx both need to be specifically tailored to this patient population and be multidisciplinary in nature. Prevention and rehabilitation programmes should be initiated early after HTx and continued during the entire post-transplant journey. This clinical consensus.

Prevention and Rehabilitation After Heart Transplantation: A Clinical Consensus Statement of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology, Heart Failure Association of the ESC, and the European Cardio Thoracic Transplant Association, a Section of ESOT

Little is known either about either physical activity patterns, or other lifestyle-related prevention measures in heart transplantation (HTx) recipients. The history of HTx started more than 50 years ago but there are still no guidelines or position papers highlighting the features of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx. The aims of this scientific statement are (i) to explain the importance of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx, and (ii) to promote the factors (modifiable/non-modifiable) that should be addressed after HTx to improve patients' physical capacity, quality of life and survival. All HTx team members have their role to play in the care of these patients and multidisciplinary prevention and rehabilitation programmes designed for transplant recipients. HTx recipients are clearly not healthy disease-free subjects yet they also significantly differ from heart failure patients or those who are supported with mechanical circulatory support. Therefore, prevention and rehabilitation after HTx both need to be specifically tailored to this patient population and be multidisciplinary in nature. Prevention and rehabilitation programmes should be initiated early after HTx and continued during the entire post-transplant journey. This clinical consensus statement focuses on the importance and the characteristics of prevention and rehabilitation designed for HTx recipients.

"Durable left ventricular assist devices as a bridge to transplantation in The Old and The New World"

Heart transplantation remains the gold standard treatment for end-stage heart failure patients without contraindications. However, limited donor availability and long wait times have created a need for left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) to be used as a bridge to transplantation in appropriately selected patients. Improvements in LVAD technology have resulted in improved short- and long-term outcomes, further supporting the use of these devices for a bridge-to-transplant (BTT) indication. LVAD utilization as BTT exhibits notable disparities worldwide, mainly due to variations in organ availability, allocation policies, and financial constraints. Although Europe has experienced a consistent increase in the use of LVAD for this purpose, the United Network for Organ Sharing 2018 policy amendment resulted in a significant reduction in the number of LVADs used for BTT in the US. To overcome this issue, modifications in the US allocation policy to consider factors such as days on device support, age, and type of complications may be necessary to potentially increase implantation rates.The authors provide an overview comparing the current state of heart transplantation in the US and Europe, with a particular focus on how distinct allocation policies and organ availability impact medical practices. Additionally, the review will examine critical aspects ranging from patient selection and pre-implantation optimization to post-transplant outcomes.

Development and Validation of a Risk Score Predicting Death Without Transplant in Adult Heart Transplant Candidates

Importance

The US heart allocation system prioritizes medically urgent candidates with a high risk of dying without transplant. The current therapy-based 6-status system is susceptible to manipulation and has limited rank ordering ability.

Objective

To develop and validate a candidate risk score that incorporates current clinical, laboratory, and hemodynamic data.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A registry-based observational study of adult heart transplant candidates (aged ≥18 years) from the US heart allocation system listed between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, split by center into training (70%) and test (30%) datasets. Adult candidates were listed between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A US candidate risk score (US-CRS) model was developed by adding a predefined set of predictors to the current French Candidate Risk Score (French-CRS) model. Sensitivity analyses were performed, which included intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (VAD) in the definition of short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for the US-CRS. Performance of the US-CRS model, French-CRS model, and 6-status model in the test dataset was evaluated by time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for death without transplant within 6 weeks and overall survival concordance (c-index) with integrated AUC.

Results

A total of 16 905 adult heart transplant candidates were listed (mean [SD] age, 53 [13] years; 73% male; 58% White); 796 patients (4.7%) died without a transplant. The final US-CRS contained time-varying short-term MCS (ventricular assist-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or temporary surgical VAD), the log of bilirubin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, the log of B-type natriuretic peptide, albumin, sodium, and durable left ventricular assist device. In the test dataset, the AUC for death within 6 weeks of listing for the US-CRS model was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83), for the French-CRS model was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.67-0.76), and 6-status model was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.62-0.73). Overall c-index for the US-CRS model was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73-0.80), for the French-CRS model was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.65-0.73), and 6-status model was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71). Classifying IABP and percutaneous VAD as short-term MCS reduced the effect size by 54%.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this registry-based study of US heart transplant candidates, a continuous multivariable allocation score outperformed the 6-status system in rank ordering heart transplant candidates by medical urgency and may be useful for the medical urgency component of heart allocation.

Waitlist Outcomes in Candidates With Rare Causes of Heart Failure After Implementation of the 2018 French Heart Allocation Scheme

BACKGROUND

In 2018, an algorithm-based allocation system for heart transplantation (HT) was implemented in France. Its effect on access to HT of patients with rare causes of heart failure (HF) has not been assessed.

METHODS

In this national study, including adults listed for HT between 2018 and 2020, we analyzed waitlist and posttransplant outcomes of candidates with rare causes of HF (restrictive cardiomyopathy [RCM], hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and congenital heart disease). The primary end point was death on the waitlist or delisting for clinical deterioration. Secondary end points included access to HT and posttransplant mortality. The cumulative incidence of waitlist mortality estimated with competing risk analysis and incidence of transplantation were compared between diagnosis groups. The association of HF cause with outcomes was determined by Fine-Gray or Cox models.

RESULTS

Overall, 1604 candidates were listed for HT. At 1 year postlisting, 175 patients met the primary end point and 1040 underwent HT. Candidates listed for rare causes of HF significantly differed in baseline characteristics and had more frequent score exceptions compared with other cardiomyopathies (31.3%, 32.0%, 36.4%, and 16.7% for patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, RCM, congenital heart disease, and other cardiomyopathies). The cumulative incidence of death on the waitlist and probability of HT were similar between diagnosis groups (P=0.17 and 0.40, respectively). The adjusted risk of death or delisting for clinical deterioration did not significantly differ between candidates with rare and common causes of HF (subdistribution hazard ratio (HR): hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.19-1.38]; P=0.18; RCM, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.42-2.58]; P=0.94; congenital heart disease, 1.82 [95% CI, 0.78-4.26]; P=0.17). Similarly, the access to HT did not significantly differ between causes of HF (hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.92-1.51]; P=0.19; RCM: HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.90-1.58]; P=0.23; congenital heart disease: HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.53-1.09]; P=0.14). RCM was an independent risk factor for 1-year posttransplant mortality (HR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.06-4.24]; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows equitable waitlist outcomes among HT candidates whatever the indication for transplantation with the new French allocation scheme.

Predictors of Survival After Heart Transplant in the New Allocation System: A UNOS Database Analysis

Clinical predictors of posttransplant graft loss since the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation system change have not been well characterized. Single organ adult heart transplants from the UNOS database were identified (n = 10,252) and divided into a test cohort (n = 6,869, 67%) and validation cohort (n = 3,383, 33%). A Cox regression analysis was performed on the test cohort to identify recipient and donor risk factors for posttransplant graft loss. Based on the risk factors, a score (max 16) was developed to classify patients in the validation cohort into risk groups of low (≤1), mid (2-3), high (≥4) risk. Recipient factors of advanced age, Black race, recipient blood group O, diabetes, etiology of heart failure, renal dysfunction, elevated bilirubin, redo-transplantation, elevated pulmonary artery pressure, transplant with a durable ventricular assist device, or transplant on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or ventilator were associated with more posttransplant graft loss. Donor factors of ischemic time and donor age were also associated with outcomes. One year graft survival for the low-, mid-, high-risk groups was 94%, 91%, and 85%, respectively. In conclusion, easily obtainable clinical characteristics at time of heart transplant can predict posttransplant outcomes in the current era.

Review of the allocation criteria for heart transplant in Spain in 2023. SEC-Heart Failure Association/ONT/SECCE consensus document

Heart transplant (HT) remains the best therapeutic option for patients with advanced heart failure (HF). The allocation criteria aim to guarantee equitable access to HT and prioritize patients with a worse clinical status. To review the HT allocation criteria, the Heart Failure Association of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (HFA-SEC), the Spanish Society of Cardiovascular and Endovascular Surgery (SECCE) and the National Transplant Organization (ONT), organized a consensus conference involving adult and pediatric cardiologists, adult and pediatric cardiac surgeons, transplant coordinators from all over Spain, and physicians and nurses from the ONT. The aims of the consensus conference were as follows: a) to analyze the organization and management of patients with advanced HF and cardiogenic shock in Spain; b) to critically review heart allocation and priority criteria in other transplant organizations; c) to analyze the outcomes of patients listed and transplanted before and after the modification of the heart allocation criteria in 2017; and d) to propose new heart allocation criteria in Spain after an analysis of the available evidence and multidisciplinary discussion. In this article, by the HFA-SEC, SECCE and the ONT we present the results of the analysis performed in the consensus conference and the rationale for the new heart allocation criteria in Spain.

Evolution of Mechanical Circulatory Support for advanced heart failure

This comprehensive review highlights the significant advancements in Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) therapy, emphasizing its evolution from the early pulsatile flow systems to the cutting-edge continuous-flow devices, particularly the HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD. These advancements have notably improved survival rates, reduced complications, and enhanced the quality of life (QoL) for patients with advanced heart failure. The dual role of LVADs, as a bridge-to-transplantation and destination therapy is discussed, highlighting the changing trends and policies in their application. The marked reduction in hemocompatibility-related adverse events (HRAE) with the HM3 LVAD, compared to previous models signifies ongoing progress in the field. Challenges such as managing major infections are discussed, including innovative solutions like energy transfer systems aimed at eliminating external drivelines. It explores various LVAD-associated complications, including HRAE, infections, hemodynamic-related adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias, and underscores emerging strategies for predicting post-implantation outcomes, fostering a more individualized patient care approach. Tools such as the HM3 risk score are introduced for predicting survival based on pre-implant factors, along with advanced imaging techniques for improved complication prediction. Additionally, the review highlights potential new technologies and therapies in LVAD management, such as hemodynamic ramp tests for optimal speed adjustment and advanced remote monitoring systems. The goal is to automate LVAD speed adjustments based on real-time hemodynamic measurements, indicating a shift towards more effective, patient-centered therapy. The review concludes optimistically that ongoing research and potential future innovations hold the promise of revolutionizing heart failure management, paving the way for more effective and personalized treatment modalities.

Utilization of the percutaneous left ventricular support as bridge to heart transplantation across the United States: In-depth UNOS database analysis

BACKGROUND

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and Impella device utilization as a bridge to heart transplantation (HTx) have risen exponentially. We aimed to explore the influence of device selection on HTx outcomes, considering regional practice variation.

METHODS

A retrospective longitudinal study was performed on a United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry dataset. We included adult patients listed for HTx between October 2018 and April 2022 as status 2, as justified by requiring IABP or Impella support. The primary end-point was successful bridging to HTx as status 2.

RESULTS

Of 32,806 HTx during the study period, 4178 met inclusion criteria (Impella n = 650, IABP n = 3528). Waitlist mortality increased from a nadir of 16 (in 2019) to a peak of 36 (in 2022) per thousand status 2 listed patients. Impella annual use increased from 8% in 2019 to 19% in 2021. Compared to IABP, Impella patients demonstrated higher medical acuity and lower success rate of transplantation as status 2 (92.1% vs 88.9%, p < 0.001). The IABP:Impella utilization ratio varied widely between regions, ranging from 1.77 to 21.31, with high Impella use in Southern and Western states. However, this difference was not justified by medical acuity, regional transplant volume, or waitlist time and did not correlate with waitlist mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The shift in utilizing Impella as opposed to IABP did not improve waitlist outcomes. Our results suggest that clinical practice patterns beyond mere device selection determine successful bridging to HTx. There is a critical need for objective evidence to guide tMCS utilization and a paradigm shift in the UNOS allocation system to achieve equitable HTx practice across the United States.

Practical application of the French two-score heart allocation scheme: Insights from a high-volume heart transplantation centre

BACKGROUND

In 2018, a cardiac allocation scheme based on an individual score considering the risk of death both on the waitlist and after heart transplantation was implemented in France.

AIMS

To analyse the practical application of the pre- and post-transplant risk score in a French high-volume heart transplantation centre.

METHODS

All consecutive adult patients listed for a first non-combined heart transplantation between 02 January 2018 and 30 June 2022 at our centre were included. Baseline characteristics of candidates and recipients were retrieved from the national CRISTAL registry. Both scores were calculated at listing and at transplant.

RESULTS

Overall, 364 patients were included. During follow-up, 257 patients (70.6%) were transplanted, and 57 (15.6%) died or were removed from the waitlist. Post-transplant 3-month survival was 84.8%. Total bilirubin and natriuretic peptides had the most important weight in the pretransplant risk score. This score had a major impact on waitlist outcomes: quartile 1 was characterized by low access to heart transplantation (58.2%) and risk of death on the waitlist (9.9%) compared with quartile 4 (heart transplantation rate 74.1%, mortality on the waiting list>20%). According to the post-transplant risk score, a minimal number of candidates were considered ineligible for heart transplantation (<1%), but 12.4% were contraindicated to at least one donor category. The number of contraindicated donor categories had a significant impact on waitlist outcomes. Although adequately calibrated, the post-transplant score had a limited discrimination (area under the curve 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.71).

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight the major impact of pre- and post-transplantation risk scores on waitlist outcomes following the allocation scheme update.

Impact of the 2018 French two-score allocation scheme on the profile of heart transplantation candidates and recipients: Insights from a high-volume centre

BACKGROUND

In 2018, a new cardiac allograft allocation scheme, based on an individual scoring system, considering the risk of death both on the waiting list and after heart transplantation, was implemented in France.

AIM

To assess the impact of this new scheme on the profile of transplantation candidates and recipients.

METHODS

In this single-centre retrospective study, we included consecutive patients listed and/or transplanted between 01 January 2012 and 30 September 2021 at La Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital. Baseline characteristics of patients were retrieved from the national CRISTAL registry and were compared according to the type of allocation scheme (before or after 2018).

RESULTS

A total of 1098 newly listed transplantation candidates and 855 transplant recipients were included. One-year mortality rates after listing and after transplantation were 12.4% and 20%, respectively. At listing, the proportion of candidates on inotropes significantly declined following the scheme update (26.3 versus 20.9%; P=0.038), reflecting a change in medical practice. At transplantation, recipients had worse kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate<60mL/min/1.73 m²: old scheme, 29.7%; new scheme, 46.4%; P<0.001) and were more likely to be on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support (33.5% versus 28.1%; P=0.080) under the new scheme, reflecting the prioritization of more severe patients. Outcomes after transplantation were not significantly influenced by the allocation system.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of the 2018 French allocation scheme had a limited impact on the profile of transplantation candidates, but selected more severe patients for transplantation without significant impact on outcomes after transplantation.

The ABCDE approach to difficult weaning from venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) has been increasingly applied in patients with cardiogenic shock in recent years. Nevertheless, many patients cannot be successfully weaned from VA ECMO support and 1-year mortality remains high. A systematic approach could help to optimize clinical management in favor of weaning by identifying important factors in individual patients. Here, we provide an overview of pivotal factors that potentially prevent successful weaning of VA ECMO. We present this through a rigorous approach following the relatable acronym ABCDE, in order to facilitate widespread use in daily practice.

Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as a Bridge to Heart Transplant-Change of Paradigm

Despite advances in medical therapy and mechanical circulatory support (MCS), heart transplant (HT) remains the gold standard therapy for end-stage heart failure. Patients in cardiogenic shock require prompt intervention to reverse hypoperfusion and end-organ damage. When medical therapy becomes insufficient, MCS should be considered. Historically, it has been reported that critically ill patients bridged with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) directly to HT have worse outcomes. However, when the heart allocation system gives the highest priority to patients on VA-ECMO support, those patients have a higher incidence of HT and a lower incidence of death or removal from the transplant list. Moreover, patients with a short waiting time on VA-ECMO have a similar hazard of mortality to non-ECMO patients. According to the reported data, bridging with VA-ECMO directly to HT may be a solution in the selection of critically ill patients when the anticipated waiting list time is short. However, when a prolonged waiting time is expected, more durable MCS should be considered. Regardless of the favorable results of the direct bridging to HT with ECMO in selected patients, the superiority of this strategy compared to the bridge-to-bridge strategy (ECMO to durable MCS) has not been established and further studies are mandatory in order to clarify this issue.

Enhanced survival prediction using explainable artificial intelligence in heart transplantation

The most limiting factor in heart transplantation is the lack of donor organs. With enhanced prediction of outcome, it may be possible to increase the life-years from the organs that become available. Applications of machine learning to tabular data, typical of clinical decision support, pose the practical question of interpretation, which has technical and potential ethical implications. In particular, there is an issue of principle about the predictability of complex data and whether this is inherent in the data or strongly dependent on the choice of machine learning model, leading to the so-called accuracy-interpretability trade-off. We model 1-year mortality in heart transplantation data with a self-explaining neural network, which is benchmarked against a deep learning model on the same development data, in an external validation study with two data sets: (1) UNOS transplants in 2017-2018 (n = 4750) for which the self-explaining and deep learning models are comparable in their AUROC 0.628 [0.602,0.654] cf. 0.635 [0.609,0.662] and (2) Scandinavian transplants during 1997-2018 (n = 2293), showing good calibration with AUROCs of 0.626 [0.588,0.665] and 0.634 [0.570, 0.698], respectively, with and without missing data (n = 982). This shows that for tabular data, predictive models can be transparent and capture important nonlinearities, retaining full predictive performance.

Preoperative Evaluation and Care of Heart Transplant Candidates

Heart transplantation is recommended for patients with advanced heart failure refractory to medical and device therapy, and who do not have absolute contraindications. When patients become eligible for heart transplantation, they undergo comprehensive evaluation and preparation to optimize their posttransplantation outcomes. This review provides an overview of the processes that are employed to enable the candidates to be transplant-ready when donor hearts are available.

Prognosis value of Forrester's classification in advanced heart failure patients awaiting heart transplantation

AIMS

The value of Forrester's perfusion/congestion profiles assessed by invasive catheter evaluation in non-inotrope advanced heart failure patients listed for heart transplant (HT) is unclear. We aimed to assess the value of haemodynamic evaluation according to Forrester's profiles to predict events on the HT waitlist.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All non-inotrope patients (n = 837, 79% ambulatory at listing) registered on the French national HT waiting list between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2019 with right heart catheterization (RHC) were included. The primary outcome was a combined criteria of waitlist death, delisting for aggravation, urgent HT or left ventricular assist device implantation. Secondary outcome was waitlist death. The 'warm-dry', 'cold-dry', 'warm-wet', and 'cold-wet' profiles represented 27%, 18%, 27%, and 28% of patients, respectively. At 12 months, the respective rates of primary outcome were 15%, 17%, 25%, and 29% (P = 0.008). Taking the 'warm-dry' category as reference, a significant increase in the risk of primary outcome was observed only in the 'wet' categories, irrespectively of 'warm/cold' status: hazard ratios, 1.50; 1.06-2.13; P = 0.024 in 'warm-wet' and 1.77; 1. 25-2.49; P = 0.001 in 'cold-wet'.

CONCLUSIONS

Haemodynamic assessment of advanced HF patients using perfusion/congestion profiles predicts the risk of the combine endpoint of waitlist death, delisting for aggravation, urgent heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation. 'Wet' patients had the worst prognosis, independently of perfusion status, thus placing special emphasis on the cardinal prominence of persistent congestion in advanced HF.

Heart Transplantation, Either Alone or Combined With Liver and Kidney, a Viable Treatment Option for Selected Patients With Severe Cardiac Amyloidosis

Heart transplantation in cardiac amyloidosis (CA) patients is possible and generally considered for transplantation if other organs are not affected. In this study, we aimed to describe and assess outcome in patients following heart transplantations at our CA referral center.

Methods

We assessed all CA patients that had heart transplantations at our center between 2005 and 2018. Patients with New York Heart Association status 3 out of 4, with poor short-term prognosis due to heart failure, despite treatment, and without multiple myeloma, systemic disease, severe neuropathic/digestive comorbidities, cancer, or worsening infections were eligible for transplantation. Hearts were transplanted by bicaval technique. Standard induction and immunosuppressive therapies were used. Survival outcome of CA patients after transplantation was compared with recipients with nonamyloid pathologies in France.

Results

Between 2005 and 2018, 23 CA patients had heart transplants: 17 (74%) had light chain (light chain amyloidosis [AL]) and 6 (26%) had hereditary transthyretin (hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis [ATTRv]) CA. Also, 13 (57%) were male, and the mean age at diagnosis was 56.5 y (range, 47.7-62.8). Among AL patients, 13 had heart-only and 5 had heart-kidney transplantations. Among ATTRv patients, 1 had heart-only and 5 had heart-liver transplantations. The 1-y survival rate after transplantation was 78%, 70% with AL, and 100% with ATTRv. At 2 y, 74% were alive: 65% with AL and 100% with ATTRv.

Conclusion

After heart transplantation, French CA and nonamyloid patients have similar survival outcomes. Among CA patients, ATTRv patients have better prognosis than those with AL, possibly due to the combined heart-liver transplantation. Selected CA patients should be considered for heart transplantations.

Heart transplantation: focus on donor recovery strategies, left ventricular assist devices, and novel therapies

Heart transplantation is advocated in selected patients with advanced heart failure in the absence of contraindications. Principal challenges in heart transplantation centre around an insufficient and underutilized donor organ pool, the need to individualize titration of immunosuppressive therapy, and to minimize late complications such as cardiac allograft vasculopathy, malignancy, and renal dysfunction. Advances have served to increase the organ donor pool by advocating the use of donors with underlying hepatitis C virus infection and by expanding the donor source to use hearts donated after circulatory death. New techniques to preserve the donor heart over prolonged ischaemic times, and enabling longer transport times in a safe manner, have been introduced. Mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to transplantation has allowed patients with advanced heart failure to avoid progressive deterioration in hepato-renal function while awaiting an optimal donor organ match. The management of the heart transplantation recipient remains a challenge despite advances in immunosuppression, which provide early gains in rejection avoidance but are associated with infections and late-outcome challenges. In this article, we review contemporary advances and challenges in this field to focus on donor recovery strategies, left ventricular assist devices, and immunosuppressive monitoring therapies with the potential to enhance outcomes. We also describe opportunities for future discovery to include a renewed focus on long-term survival, which continues to be an area that is under-studied and poorly characterized, non-human sources of organs for transplantation including xenotransplantation as well as chimeric transplantation, and technology competitive to human heart transplantation, such as tissue engineering.

Extracorporeal Photopheresis With Low-Dose Immunosuppression in High-Risk Heart Transplant Patients-A Pilot Study

In severely ill patients undergoing urgent heart transplant (HTX), immunosuppression carries high risks of infection, malignancy, and death. Low-dose immunosuppressive protocols have higher rejection rates. We combined extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP), an established therapy for acute rejection, with reduced-intensity immunosuppression. Twenty-eight high-risk patients (13 with high risk of infection due to infection at the time of transplant, 7 bridging to transplant via extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 8 with high risk of malignancy) were treated, without induction therapy. Prophylactic ECP for 6 months (24 procedures) was initiated immediately postoperatively. Immunosuppression consisted of low-dose tacrolimus (8–10 ng/ml, months 1–6; 5–8 ng/ml, >6 months) with delayed start; mycophenolate mofetil (MMF); and low maintenance steroid with delayed start (POD 7) and tapering in the first year. One-year survival was 88.5%. Three patients died from infection (POD 12, 51, 351), and one from recurrence of cancer (POD 400). Incidence of severe infection was 17.9% (n = 5, respiratory tract). Within the first year, antibody-mediated rejection was detected in one patient (3.6%) and acute cellular rejection in four (14.3%). ECP with reduced-intensity immunosuppression is safe and effective in avoiding allograft rejection in HTX recipients with risk of severe infection or cancer recurrence.

Transplantation for pulmonary arterial hypertension with congenital heart disease: Impact on outcomes of the current therapeutic approach including a high-priority allocation program

Patients with end-stage pulmonary arterial hypertension due to congenital heart disease have limited access to heart-lung transplantation or double-lung transplantation. We aimed to assess the effects of a high-priority allocation program established in France in 2007. We conducted a retrospective study to compare waitlist and posttransplantation outcomes before versus after implementation of the high-priority allocation program. We included 67 consecutive patients (mean age at listing, 33.2 ± 10.5 years) with pulmonary arterial hypertension due to congenital heart disease listed for heart-lung transplantation or double-lung transplantation from 1997 to 2016. At one month, the incidences of transplantation and death before transplantation were 3.5% and 24.6% in 1997-2006, 4.8% and 4.9% for patients on the regular list in 2007-2016, and 41.2% and 7.4% for patients listed under the high-priority allocation program (p < .001 and p = .0001, respectively). Overall survival was higher in patients listed in 2007-2016 (84.2% and 61.2% at 1 and 10 years vs. 36.8% and 22.1%, p = .0001). Increased incidence of transplantation, decreased waiting list mortality, and improved early and long-term outcomes were observed in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension due to congenital heart disease listed for transplantation in the recent era, characterized by implementation of a high-priority allocation program.

Mechanical ventilation at the time of heart transplantation and associations with clinical outcomes

AIMS

The impact of mechanical ventilation (MV) at the time of heart transplantation is not well understood. In addition, MV was recently removed as a criterion from the new US heart transplantation allocation system. We sought to assess for the association between MV at transplantation and 1-year mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We utilized the United Network for Organ Sharing database and included all adult, single organ heart transplantations from 1990 to 2019. We utilized multivariable logistic regression adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and markers of clinical acuity. We identified 60 980 patients who underwent heart transplantation, 2.4% (n = 1431) of which required MV at transplantation. Ventilated patients were more likely to require temporary mechanical support, previous dialysis, and had a shorter median waitlist time (21 vs. 95 days, P < 0.001). At 1 year, the mortality was 33.7% (n = 484) for ventilated patients and 11.7% (n = 6967) for those not ventilated at the time of transplantation (log-rank P < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, patients requiring MV continued to have a substantially higher 90-day [odds ratio (OR) 3.20, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.79-3.66, P < 0.001] and 1-year mortality (OR 2.67, 95% CI: 2.36-3.03, P < 0.001). For those that survived to 90 days, the adjusted mortality at 1 year continued to be higher (OR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.16-1.89, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

We found a strong association between the presence of MV at heart transplantation and 90-day and 1-year mortality. Future studies are needed to identify which patients requiring MV have reasonable outcomes, and which are associated with substantially poorer outcomes.

Veno-arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as Bridge to Heart Transplantation: The Way Forward

Advanced heart failure (HF) represents a public health priority due to the increase of affected patients and the meaningful mortality. Durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and heart transplantation (HTx) are unique therapies for end-stage HF (ESHF), with positive early and long-term outcomes. The patients who underwent HTx have a 1-y survival of 91% and a median survival of 12-13 y, whereas the median survival of ESHF is <12 mo. Short-term MCS with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) can be used as a bridge to transplantation strategy. Patients bridged with VA ECMO have significantly lower survival in comparison with non-MCS bridged and left ventricular assist device-bridged patients. VA ECMO represents an effective, and sometimes unique, system to obtain rapid hemodynamic stabilization, but possible negative effects on patients' outcomes after HTx must be considered. Here, we discuss the use of VA ECMO as bridge to transplantation.

Successful heart transplantation for COVID-19-associated post-infectious fulminant myocarditis

Various clinical presentations of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) have been described, including post‐infectious acute and fulminant myocarditis. Here, we describe the case of a young patient admitted for COVID‐19‐associated post‐infectious fulminant myocarditis. Despite optimal pharmacologic management, haemodynamic status worsened requiring support by veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Emergent heart transplantation was required at Day 11 given the absence of cardiac function improvement. The diagnosis of post‐infectious COVID‐19‐associated myocarditis was made from both pathologic examination of the explanted heart and positive SARS‐CoV‐2 serology.

Removing administrative boundaries using a gravity model for a national liver allocation system

Geographic disparities emerged as an increasing issue in organ allocation policies. Because of the sequential and discrete geographical models used for allocation scores, artificial regional boundaries may impede the access of candidates with the greatest medical urgency to vital organs. This article describes a continuous geographical allocation model that provides accurate organ access by introducing a multiplicative interaction between the patient's condition and the distance to the graft by using a gravity model. Patients with the most urgent need will thus have access to organs from farther away, while those in less urgent need may only have access to organs geographically closer. Compared to the previous French liver allocation scheme, the gravity model precluded transplantations for candidates with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≤ 14 for decompensated cirrhosis from 10.3% to 0.6%. Death and delisting while on the waiting list at 1 year also decreased from 30.1% to 22.4% for MELD ≥ 35. Waiting list (cumulative hazard ratio (CHR)  0.84 after adjustment) and posttransplant survival improved significantly (hazard ratio = 0.83 after adjustment). This new liver allocation system provides more equitable access to liver transplants and an efficient and safe alternative to administrative boundaries for geographical models in organ allocation.

Statistical performance of 16 posttransplant risk scores in a contemporary cohort of heart transplant recipients

Accurate risk stratification of early heart transplant failure is required to avoid futile transplants and rationalize donor selection. We aimed to evaluate the statistical performance of existing risk scores on a contemporary cohort of heart transplant recipients. After an exhaustive search, we identified 16 relevant risk scores. From the UNOS database, we selected all first noncombined adult heart transplants performed between 2014 and 2017 for validation. The primary endpoint was death or retransplant during the first year posttransplant. For all scores, we analyzed their association with outcomes, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and discrimination (concordance index and overlap of individual scores). The cohort included 9396 patients. All scores were significantly associated with the primary outcome (P < .001 for all scores). Their likelihood ratios, both negative and positive, were poor. The discriminative performance of all scores was limited, with concordance index ranging from 0.544 to 0.646 (median 0.594) and an important overlap of individual scores between patients with or without the primary endpoint. Subgroup analyses revealed important variation in discrimination according to donor age, recipient age, and the type of assist device used at transplant. Our findings raise concerns about the use of currently available scores in the clinical field.

Impact of age mismatch between donor and recipient on heart transplant mortality

The effect of donor-to-recipient (D-R) age mismatch in adult heart transplant population is not clearly described, and we undertook this study to determine the impact of age mismatch on mortality. Heart transplant recipients from 2000 to 2017 were identified using the United Network of Organ Sharing database. The cohort was divided into three groups: donor age within 5 years of recipient age (Group 1), donors >5 years younger than recipient (group 2), and donors >5 years older than recipients (Group 3). We also evaluated if this finding changed by recipient age. Twenty eight thousand, four hundred and eleven patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared to group 1, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for mortality for group 2 was 0.91 (0.83-0.99, p value <.039) and for group 3 was 1.36 (1.21-1.52, p value <.001); however, when looking at recipient age as continuous variable, receiving a younger heart was protective only for recipients younger than 45 years of age, and receiving a heart transplant from an older donor was detrimental only in recipients aged 25-35.