Large Variation in Heart Transplant Selection Practices During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Purpose

A growing proportion of transplant donors and recipients have a history of COVID infection. Transplant societies issued guidelines to support decisions regarding donor selection and recipient activation after COVID infection, but outcome data are still limited. This study sought to characterize heterogeneity in current clinical practice and opinions regarding cardiac donation after recipient or donor COVID infection.

Methods

An online survey was distributed to heart transplant clinicians through a professional society message board and social media. Responses were collected between September 29 and October 18, 2021.

Results

204 healthcare professionals from diverse geographic regions (North and South America, Europe, Middle East, Asia and Australia) completed the survey, including 143 (70%) transplant cardiologists, 42 (21%) cardiac surgeons and 19 (9%) other heart transplant clinicians. 80% of clinicians felt COVID vaccine should be mandatory before transplant. There was significant variation in clinical practice for donor acceptance and recipient management, including several scenarios directly addressed by society guidelines - see Figure 1 for a sample of responses.

Conclusion

There is significant variation in the clinical approach to common scenarios following donor or recipient COVID infection. This reflects continued uncertainty with post-transplant outcomes impacted by pre-transplant COVID infection. Granular outcome data are needed to better inform clinical decisions.

P5419Cardiac reverse remodeling and recovery in dilated cardiomyopathy medication-naive patients requiring durable left ventricular assist device support

Background

Occasionally new onset cardiomyopathy patients (pts) present late and with such advanced disease stage that they cannot tolerate heart failure (HF) drug therapy. We sought to investigate the cardiac recovery (CR) potential following a combination of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and guideline-directed HF drug therapy in this medication-naive population.

Methods

Chronic advanced HF requiring durable continuous-flow LVAD were prospectively evaluated. Patients with acute HF (myocarditis etc.) or post LVAD follow up <3 months were excluded. The “meds-treated” group (n=203) comprised patients treated adequately with at least one neurohormonal blocking agent during their HF history (b-blocker, ACEI/ARB, Aldosterone antagonist) and “meds-naive” group (n=8) comprised patients who were never before treated adequately with any HF medication. Baseline and follow up clinical, hemodynamic, imaging and laboratory data were analyzed. LVAD patients were phenotyped as CR responders or non responders, based on published predefined criteria.

Results

Univariate analysis showed that “med-naive” patients were younger, more likely to be on intravenous vasoactive agents, temporary mechanical support and with lower INTERMACS profile before LVAD implantation. Interestingly, no differences were seen in HF symptoms duration or other comorbidities. Baseline and follow up hemodynamics were similar in both groups, besides higher right atrial pressure pre-LVAD in the “meds-naive” group (16 vs 11 mmHg; p=0.04). Baseline echocardiographic (including LV dilation) and biochemical parameters revealed no differences between the groups, besides lower LVEF and higher BNP in the “meds-naive” group (14 vs 19%; p=0.03 and 2352 vs 1270; p=0.03, respectively). CR rates were significantly higher on “meds-naive” versus “meds-failed” group (50.0 vs 13.8%; p=0.005). Despite higher cardiac recovery rates in the “meds-naive” group the time course and magnitude of the favorable functional and structural response was similar among the CR responders of each of the 2 groups.

Conclusion

Young patients with new onset dilated cardiomyopathy sometimes present late, with advanced disease stage, unable to tolerate HF medications and requiring durable LVAD support. This patient population appears to have a potential for CR up to 50% and this could be factored in decisions surrounding their long-term therapeutic options.

P2628Predicting cardiac recovery before durable left ventricular assist device implantation in advanced heart failure patients

Background

Predicting cardiac recovery (CR) in advanced heart failure (HF) patients before left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains challenging. This study sought to investigate whether CR after LVAD unloading can be predicted by cardiac functional and structural parameters together with clinical characteristics.

Methods

From 2008 to 2016, consecutive advanced chronic HF patients (N=347) supported with durable continuous-flow LVADs were prospectively evaluated. Patients with acute HF etiologies or without adequate post-LVAD follow up (<3 months) were excluded. A great variety of clinical characteristics were evaluated in the remaining 285 subjects. LVAD patients were phenotyped while on support, as CR Responders or Non Responders, based on published predefined echocardiographic criteria. Multivariable logistic regression was used to form the model and the Utah Cardiac Recovery (UCAR) score was created from the regression beta coefficients of the final model.

Results

CR occurred in 13.7% of patients. Univariate analysis showed that responders were more likely to be young, female, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, with shorter HF symptoms duration and no prior cardiac surgery. They had lower blood urea nitrogen and were more likely to be on temporary mechanical support before LVAD. The multivariable UCAR model (AUC=0.755; p<0.001) predicted CR using 3 clinical parameters – Figure.

Conclusion

Univariate and multivariable predictors of CR include both modifiable and non-modifiable patient characteristics that are known prior to LVAD implantation. The UCAR score can serve as a practical tool for targeted patient selection to implement protocols that facilitate CR in the advanced HF patient subpopulation that is most likely to respond.