Outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation following the 2018 adult heart allocation policy

Outcomes in Heart Transplant Recipients by Bridge to Transplant Strategy When Using the SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System

The last several years have seen a rise in use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to bridge heart transplant recipients. A controlled hypothermic organ preservation system, the SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System (SCTS), was introduced in 2018 and has grown in utilization with reports of improved posttransplant outcomes. The Global Utilization And Registry Database for Improved heArt preservatioN (GUARDIAN)-Heart registry is an international, multicenter registry assessing outcomes after transplant using the SCTS. This analysis examines outcomes in recipients bridged with various MCS devices in the GUARDIAN-Heart Registry. A total of 422 recipients with donor hearts transported using SCTS were included and identified. Durable ventricular assist devices (VADs) were used exclusively in 179 recipients, temporary VADs or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in 197, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in 14 recipients. Average ischemic times were over 3.5 hours in all cohorts. Severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) posttransplant increased across groups (4.5% VAD, 5.1% temporary support, 21.4% ECMO), whereas intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (18.2 days) and total hospital stay (39.4 days) was longer in the ECMO cohort than the VAD and IABP groups. A comparison of outcomes of MCS bridging in SCTS versus traditional ice revealed significantly lower rates of both moderate/severe right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and severe PGD in the SCTS cohort; however, upon propensity matching only the reductions in moderate/severe RV dysfunction were statistically significant. Use of SCTS in transplant recipients with various bridging strategies results in excellent outcomes.

Special Considerations for Advanced Heart Failure Surgeries: Durable Left Ventricular Devices and Heart Transplantation

Heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) represent two definitive therapies for end-stage heart failure in the modern era. Despite technological advances, both treatment modalities continue to experience unique risks that impact surgical and perioperative decision-making. Here, we review special populations and factors that impact risk in LVAD and heart transplant surgery and examine critical decisions in the management of these patients. As both heart transplantation and the use of durable LVADs as destination therapy continue to increase, these considerations will be of increasing relevance in managing advanced heart failure and improving outcomes.

Trends and outcomes of heart transplantation in adults with congenital heart disease

OBJECTIVES

Heart transplantation for adult congenital heart disease is complicated and associated with challenging pretransplant support, long waiting and high early post-transplant mortality. We explored if surgical and medical advances and allocation system changes have affected outcomes.

METHODS

From United Network for Organ Sharing database, adults with congenital heart disease listed for heart transplantation were queried. To explore practice and outcome trends, patients were divided into 4 eras (eras 1-3: nearly 3 equal periods from 1992 to 2018, era 4: after 2018, corresponding with new allocation system). Univariate and multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2737 patients were listed. There was gradual increase in listed and transplanted patients, along with significant increase in use of mechanical support, simultaneous kidney and liver transplantation. While proportion of transplanted remained constant, there was decrease in proportion delisted/died after listing (P = 0.01) and waiting list duration (P = 0.01), especially in era 4. Thirty-day post-transplant mortality remains high; however, it has significantly improved starting era 3 (P = 0.01). Current survival at 1-year and 5-years is 85% and 65%, with improvement mainly related to decreased early death. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with survival were lower glomerular filtration rate (hazard ratio = 0.99, P = 0.042), bilirubin (hazard ratio = 1.17, P<0.001) and mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio = 2.3, P=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Heart transplantation in adults with congenital heart disease is increasing, along with added complexity, higher usage of pretransplant mechanical support and simultaneous organ transplantation. Despite that, more complex patients do not experience worse outcomes. Early mortality improved but remains high. New donor allocation system allowed shorter waiting time and higher proportion transplanted without altering early mortality.

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.

Effect of the UNOS policy change on rates of rejection, infection, and hospital readmission following heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

The 2018 adult heart allocation policy sought to improve waitlist risk stratification, reduce waitlist mortality, and increase organ access. This system prioritized patients at greatest risk for waitlist mortality, especially individuals requiring temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS). Posttransplant complications are significantly higher in patients on tMCS before transplantation, and early posttransplant complications impact long-term mortality. We sought to determine if policy change affected early posttransplant complication rates of rejection, infection, and hospitalization.

METHODS

We included all adult, heart-only, single-organ heart transplant recipients from the UNOS registry with pre-policy (PRE) individuals transplanted between November 1, 2016, and October 31, 2017, and post-policy (POST) between November 1, 2018, and October 31, 2019. We used a multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess the effect of policy change on posttransplant rejection, infection, and hospitalization. Two COVID-19 eras (2019-2020, 2020-2021) were included in our analysis.

RESULTS

The majority of baseline characteristics were comparable between PRE and POST era recipients. The odds of treated rejection (p = 0.8), hospitalization (p = 0.69), and hospitalization due to rejection (p = 0.76) and infection (p = 0.66) were similar between PRE and POST eras; there was a trend towards reduced odds of rejection (p = 0.08). In both COVID eras, there was a clear reduction in rejection and treated rejection with no effect on hospitalization for rejection or infection. Odds of all-cause hospitalization was increased in both COVID eras.

CONCLUSIONS

The UNOS policy change improves access to heart transplantation for higher acuity patients without increasing early posttransplant rates of treated rejection or hospitalization for rejection or infection, factors which portend risk for long-term posttransplant mortality.

Modern outcomes of heart-lung transplantation: assessing the impact of the updated US allocation system

OBJECTIVES

In 2018, the United Network for Organ Sharing modified their heart allocation policy to reduce waitlist mortality and prioritize patients with the greatest acuity. Considering declining rates of combined heart-lung transplantation, this study sought to investigate the impact of the new allocation system on waitlist and post-transplant outcomes of patients listed for combined heart-lung transplantation.

METHODS

Adult patients listed for combined heart-lung transplant between 2012 and 2021 were included. Patients were stratified according to listing era. Competing risk regression was used to assess waitlist outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to establish risk factors for post-transplant mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 511 patients were included, of whom 295 (57.8%) were listed in era 1 and 216 (42.2%) in era 2. Era 2 was associated with increased likelihood of transplant (adjusted standard hazard ratio (aSHR): 1.60 [1.23-2.07]; P < 0.01) and decreased waitlist mortality (aSHR: 0.43 [0.25-0.73]; P < 0.01). Despite longer ischaemic times and increased use of preoperative veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in era 2, early post-transplant survival was equivalent. Predicted heart mass ratio <0.8 (Hazard ratio (HR); 3.24; P = 0.01), ventilator support (HR: 3.83; P < 0.01) and greater ischaemic times (HR: 1.80; P < 0.01) independently predicted the mortality. Procedures at high centre volumes (HR: 0.36; P = 0.04) were associated with decreased mortality. Use of ECMO was not predictive of mortality in the modern era.

CONCLUSIONS

The allocation policy change has led to improvements in waitlist outcomes in patients listed for heart-lung transplantation. Despite increased ischaemic times and use of ECMO, early post-transplant survival was equivalent.

Lack of volume-outcome association in ECMO bridge to heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. As the 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation policy change elevated waitlist status for patients receiving mechanical circulatory support (MCS), we aimed to determine if a center's annual heart transplant volume was associated with ECMO-support duration and posttransplant outcomes.

METHODS

Adults heart transplant candidates between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2021, were isolated in the UNOS database. VA-ECMO use was identified at the time of listing for transplant. Average annual transplant volume was calculated by the center, with stratification as high (≥20 cardiac transplants, high volume center [HVC]) or low (<20 cardiac transplants, low volume center [LVC]) volume centers. Results are reported as mean (interquartile range) or n (%).

RESULTS

In total, 543 patients at HVCs and 275 at LVCs were listed for transplant supported with VA-ECMO. Those listed at HVCs were more likely to be supported by intra-aortic balloon pump (103 [19%] vs. 32 [11.6%], p = .008) and inotropes (267 [49.2%] vs. 106 [38.5%], p = .004) at time of listing. Patients at HVCs received ECMO support for 6 [4-9] days, compared to 8 [4-15] days at low-volume centers (p = .030), and but were cannulated a similar time before listing (2 [1-5] vs. 3 [1-7] days, p = .517). There were no differences in rates of transplant (p = .2126), waitlist mortality (p = .8645), delisting due to clinical deterioration (p = .8419), or recovery (p = .1773) between groups. Among transplanted patients, there were no differences in support duration (6 [4-8] vs. 6 [4-10], p = .187), or time from registration to transplant (5 [2-20] vs. 7 [3-22] days, p = .560). Posttransplant survival did not vary (p = .293).

CONCLUSIONS

LVCs can successfully bridge patients to transplant with VA-ECMO and achieve comparable outcomes to HVCs.

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.