Covid-19 positive donor utilization for heart transplantation: The new frontier for donor pool expansion.

BACKGROUND: Hearts from COVID-19 positive donors (CPD) are being utilized for heart transplantation by some centers; however, this is in the setting of the lack of guidelines or robust evidence. The paucity of evidence is reflected in the recent Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) communication describing CPD utilization as an "unknown risk." METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed the UNOS database for adult heart transplants performed between January 2021 to December 2022, and CPD comprised of a significant percentage of donors, being used in >10% of recipients in some UNOS regions. Between July 2022 and December 2022, 7.9% of heart transplants were with CPD, and in the same period Hepatitis C positive donors accounted for 7.1% and donation after circulatory death (DCD) accounted for 10.3%. CONCLUSION: If the transplant community comes up with a standardized approach and guidance in using CPD hearts, this could provide an effective donor pool expansion strategy.

Patterns and outcomes of COVID-19 donor utilization for heart transplant.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes following COVID-19 positive donor (CPD) utilization for heart transplant are unknown. METHODS: UNOS database was analyzed for heart transplants performed from the declaration of COVID-19 pandemic until September 30, 2022. RESULT: Since the onset of pandemic, there were 9876 heart transplants reported. COVID-19 antigen or NAT results were available in 7698 adult donors within 14 days of donation, of which 177 (2.3%) were positive. There was no difference in recipient demographics, including age (COVID positive donor vs. negative: 55 vs. 56 years, p = .2) and BMI. Listing status 1 and 2 were similar in both groups (7% vs. 10% and 48% vs. 49% respectively, p = .4). Durable and temporary mechanical support were similar in both groups pre-transplant (both groups 33%, p = .9). There was no difference in days on the waitlist (median 31 days, p = .9). Simultaneous renal transplant rates were similar (11% vs. 10%, p = .9). CPD utilization has increased since the onset of the pandemic, and the adoption is present across most UNOS regions. Post-transplant, there was no difference in length of stay (median 16 vs. 17 days, p = .9) and acute rejection episodes prior to discharge (3% vs. 8%, p = .1). In survival analysis of 90-day follow up, number of deaths reported were comparable (5% in both groups, p = .9) Follow-up LVEF was comparable (62% vs. 60%, p = .4). CONCLUSION: Active COVID-19 infection in donors did not affect survival or rejection rates in the short-term post-heart transplant.

Comparison of Bivalirudin Versus Unfractionated Heparin for Anticoagulation in Adult Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) contributes to coagulopathy, necessitating systemic anticoagulation to prevent thrombosis. Traditionally, unfractionated heparin (UFH) has been the anticoagulant of choice, however, due to many inadequacies new evidence suggests benefit with the use of direct thrombin inhibitors. This retrospective cohort sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin compared to UFH in ECMO patients. Primary endpoints included incidence of bleeding and thrombosis. Percent time in therapeutic range (TR), time to achieve TR and number of dose titrations required to maintain TR were calculated to assess efficacy of institutional protocols. Overall incidence of thrombosis was low, with one event in the bivalirudin group and no events in the UFH group. No difference was found in rates of bleeding between groups (6% vs . 10%, P = 0.44). Bivalirudin yielded higher percent time in TR (86% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), faster time to TR (2 vs . 18 hr, P < 0.001) and required fewer dose adjustments to maintain TR (2 vs . 11, P < 0.001) compared to UFH. These results suggest bivalirudin and UFH are associated with similar rates of bleeding and thrombosis in patients requiring ECMO support. Our results demonstrate the favorable pharmacokinetic profile of bivalirudin, and its ability to consistently maintain TR when compared to UFH.

Cardiac surgeons' concerns, perceptions, and responses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on health care and cardiac surgery. We report cardiac surgeons' concerns, perceptions, and responses during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A detailed survey was sent to recruit participating adult cardiac surgery centers in North America. Data regarding cardiac surgeons' perceptions and changes in practice were analyzed. RESULTS: Our study comprises 67 institutions with diverse geographic distribution across North America. Nurses were most likely to be redeployed (88%), followed by advanced care practitioners (69%), trainees (28%), and surgeons (25%). Examining surgeon concerns in regard to COVID-19, they were most worried with exposing their family to COVID-19 (81%), followed by contracting COVID-19 (68%), running out of personal protective equipment (PPE) (28%), and hospital resources (28%). In terms of PPE conservation strategies among users of N95 respirators, nearly half were recycling via decontamination with ultraviolet light (49%), followed by sterilization with heat (13%) and at home or with other modalities (13%). Reuse of N95 respirators for 1 day (22%), 1 week (21%) or 1 month (6%) was reported. There were differences in adoption of methods to conserve N95 respirators based on institutional pandemic phase and COVID-19 burden, with higher COVID-19 burden institutions more likely to resort to PPE conservation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates the impact of COVID-19 on North American cardiac surgeons. Our study should stimulate further discussions to identify optimal solutions to improve workforce preparedness for subsequent surges, as well as facilitate the navigation of future healthcare crises.