Serial Shock Severity Assessment Within 72 Hours After Diagnosis: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Report.

BACKGROUND: The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-modified Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) staging was developed to risk stratify cardiogenic shock (CS) severity. Data showing progressive changes in SCAI stages and outcomes are limited. OBJECTIVES: We investigated serial changes in CSWG-SCAI stages and outcomes of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI-CS) and heart failure-related CS (HF-CS). METHODS: The multicenter CSWG registry was queried. CSWG-SCAI stages were computed at CS diagnosis and 24, 48, and 72 hours. RESULTS: A total of 3,268 patients (57% HF-CS; 27% MI-CS) were included. At CS diagnosis, CSWG-SCAI stage breakdown was 593 (18.1%) stage B, 528 (16.2%) stage C, 1,659 (50.8%) stage D, and 488 (14.9%) noncardiac arrest stage E. At 24 hours, >50% of stages B and C patients worsened, but 86% of stage D patients stayed at stage D. Among stage E patients, 54% improved to stage D and 36% stayed at stage E by 24 hours. Minimal SCAI stage changes occurred beyond 24 hours. SCAI stage trajectories were similar between MI-CS and HF-CS groups. Within 24 hours, unadjusted mortality rates of patients with any SCAI stage worsening or improving were 44.6% and 34.2%, respectively. Patients who presented in or progressed to stage E by 24 hours had the worst prognosis. Survivors had lower lactate than nonsurvivors. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with CS changed SCAI stages within 24 hours from CS diagnosis. Stage B patients were at high risk of worsening shock severity by 24 hours, associated with excess mortality. Early CS recognition and serial assessment may improve risk stratification.

Mid-term Waitlist and Posttransplant Outcomes With Hepatitis C-positive Donor Hearts.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the clinical trends and impact of hepatitis C virus-positive (HCV+) donors on waitlist and posttransplant outcomes after heart transplantation. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried to identify adult waitlisted and transplanted patients from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2022. In the waitlist analysis, the candidates were stratified into 2 cohorts based on whether they were willing to accept HCV+ donor offers. Waitlist outcomes included 1-y cumulative incidences of transplantation and death/delisting. In the posttransplant analysis, the recipients were stratified into 2 cohorts with and without HCV nucleic acid test (NAT)-positive donors. Outcomes included 1- and 4-y posttransplant survival. Propensity score-matching was performed. Risk adjustment was performed using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: During the study period, the number of centers using HCV NAT+ donors increased from 1 to 65 centers, along with the number of transplants. In the waitlist analysis, 26 648 waitlisted candidates were analyzed, and 4535 candidates (17%) were approved to accept HCV+ donors. Approval to accept HCV+ donors was associated with a higher likelihood of transplantation and a lower likelihood of death/delisting within 1 y of waitlisting. In the posttransplant analysis, 21 131 recipients were analyzed, and 997 recipients (4.7%) received HCV NAT+ hearts. The 1- and 4-y posttransplant survival were comparable between the recipients of HCV NAT+ and NAT- donors. Furthermore, the similar 1- and 4-y posttransplant survival persisted in the propensity score-matched comparison and multivariable Cox regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of HCV+ donors is rising. Heart transplants using HCV+ donors are associated with improved waitlist and comparable posttransplant outcomes.

Evolving Trends and Impact of Waitlist Transfusion on Recipient Outcomes Following Heart Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the clinical trends, risk factors, and impact of waitlist blood transfusion on outcomes following isolated heart transplantation. METHODS: The UNOS registry was queried to identify adult recipients from January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2022. The recipients were stratified into two groups depending on whether they received a blood transfusion while on the waitlist. The incidence of waitlist transfusion was compared before and after the 2018 allocation policy change. The primary outcome was survival. Propensity score-matching was performed. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of waitlist transfusion. A sub-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of waitlist time on waitlist transfusion. RESULTS: From the 21 926 recipients analyzed in this study, 4201 (19.2%) received waitlist transfusion. The incidence of waitlist transfusion was lower following the allocation policy change (14.3% vs. 23.7%, p < 0.001). The recipients with waitlist transfusion had significantly reduced 1-year posttransplant survival (88.8% vs. 91.9%, p < 0.001) compared to the recipients without waitlist transfusion in an unmatched comparison. However, in a propensity score-matched comparison, the two groups had similar 1-year survival (90.0% vs. 90.4%, p = 0.656). Multivariable analysis identified ECMO, Impella, and pretransplant dialysis as strong predictors of waitlist transfusion. In a sub-analysis, the odds of waitlist transfusion increased nonlinearly with longer waitlist time. CONCLUSION: There is a lower incidence of waitlist transfusion among transplant recipients under the 2018 allocation system. Waitlist transfusion is not an independent predictor of adverse posttransplant outcomes but rather a marker of the patient's clinical condition. ECMO, Impella, and pretransplant dialysis are strong predictors of waitlist transfusion.

Donor and Recipient Age Influence Outcomes Following Orthotopic Heart Transplantation in the 2018 US Heart Allocation System.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the interaction of donor and recipient age with outcomes following heart transplantation under the 2018 heart allocation system. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried to analyze adult primary isolated orthotopic heart transplant recipients and associated donors from August 18, 2018, to June 30, 2021. Both recipient and donor cohorts were grouped according to age: <65 and ≥65 y for recipients and <50 and ≥50 y for donors. The primary outcome was survival. Subanalyses were performed to evaluate the impact of donor age. RESULTS: A total of 7601 recipients and 7601 donors were analyzed. Of these, 1584 recipients (20.8%) were ≥65 y old and 560 donors (7.4%) were ≥50 y old. Compared with recipients <65, recipients ≥65 had decreased 1-y (88.8% versus 92.3%) and 2-y (85.1% versus 88.5%) survival rates (P < 0.001). The association of recipient age ≥65 with lower survival persisted after adjusting for potential cofounders (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.61; P < 0.001). Recipients <65 with donors ≥50 had comparable 1-y and 2-y survival rates to recipients <65 with donors <50 (P =0.997). Conversely, transplantation of older allografts was associated with lower 1-y (84.2% versus 89.4%) and 2-y (79.5% versus 85.8%) survival rates in recipients ≥65 (P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Recipient age ≥65 continues to be associated with worse survival following heart transplantation in the 2018 heart allocation system compared with younger recipients. Donors ≥50 may be acceptable among recipients <65 with comparable outcomes. However, careful donor age selection should be considered for recipients ≥65, as the use of younger donor allografts appears to improve posttransplantation survival.

Extended Duration of Impella 5.5 Support Does Not Adversely Impact Outcomes Following Heart Transplantation: A National Registry Analysis.

Prior studies assessing the effects of Impella 5.5 support duration on posttransplant outcomes have been limited to single-center case reports and series. This study evaluates the impact of Impella 5.5 support duration on outcomes following heart transplantation using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Adult heart transplant recipients who were directly bridged to primary isolated heart transplantation with Impella 5.5 were included. The cohort was stratified into two groups based on the duration of Impella support: less than or equal to 14 and greater than 14 days. The primary outcome was 90 day posttransplant survival. Propensity score matching was performed. Sub-analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of greater than 30 days of Impella support on 90 day survival. Three hundred thirty-two recipients were analyzed. Of these, 212 recipients (63.9%) were directly bridged to heart transplantation with an Impella support duration of greater than 14 days. The two groups had comparable 90 day posttransplant survival and complication rates. The comparable posttransplant survival persisted in a propensity score-matched comparison. In the sub-analysis, Impella support duration of greater than or equal to 30 days did not adversely impact 90 day survival. This study demonstrates that extended duration of support with Impella 5.5 as a bridge to transplantation does not adversely impact posttransplant outcomes. Impella 5.5 is a safe and effective bridging modality to heart transplantation.

Factors associated with acute limb ischemia in cardiogenic shock and downstream clinical outcomes: Insights from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data depicting the prevalence and ramifications of acute limb ischemia (ALI) among cardiogenic shock (CS) patients. METHODS: We employed data from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group (CSWG), a consortium including 33 sites. We constructed a multi-variable logistic regression to examine the association between clinical factors and ALI, we generated another logistic regression model to ascertain the association of ALI with mortality. RESULTS: There were 7,070 patients with CS and 399 (5.6%) developed ALI. Patients with ALI were more likely to be female (40.4% vs 29.4%) and have peripheral arterial disease (13.8% vs 8.3%). Stratified by maximum society for cardiovascular angiography & intervention (SCAI) shock stage, the rates of ALI were stage B 0.0%, stage C 1.8%, stage D 4.1%, and stage E 10.3%. Factors associated with higher risk for ALI included: peripheral vascular disease OR 2.24 (95% CI: 1.53-3.23; p < 0.01) and ≥2 mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices OR 1.66 (95% CI: 1.24-2.21, p < 0.01). ALI was highest for venous-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) patients (11.6%) or VA-ECMO+ intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP)/Impella CP (16.6%) yet use of distal perfusion catheters was less than 50%. Mortality was 38.0% for CS patients without ALI but 57.4% for CS patients with ALI. ALI was significantly associated with mortality, adjusted OR 1.40 (95% CI 1.01-1.95, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of ALI was 6% among CS patients. Factors most associated with ALI include peripheral vascular disease and multiple MCS devices. The downstream ramifications of ALI were dire with a considerably higher risk of mortality.

Clinical outcomes among cardiogenic shock patients supported with high-capacity Impella axial flow pumps: A report from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group.

BACKGROUND: The Impella 5.0 and 5.5 pumps (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) are large-bore transvalvular micro-axial assist devices used in cardiogenic shock (CS) for patients requiring high-capacity flow. Despite their increasing use, real-world data regarding indications, rates of utilization and clinical outcomes with this therapy are limited. The objective of our study was to examine clinical profiles and outcomes of patients in a contemporary, real-world CS registry of patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 alone or in combination with other temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices. METHODS: The CS Working Group (CSWG) Registry includes patients from 34 US hospitals. For this analysis, data from patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 between 2020-2023 were analyzed. Use of Impella 5.0/5.5 with or without additional tMCS therapies, duration of support, adverse events and outcomes at hospital discharge were studied. Adverse events including stroke, limb ischemia, bleeding and hemolysis were not standardized by the registry but reported per individual CSWG Primary Investigator discretion. For those who survived, rates of native heart recovery (NHR) or heart replacement therapy (HRT) including heart transplant (HT), or durable ventricular assist device (VAD) were recorded. We also assessed outcomes based on shock etiology (acute myocardial infarction or MI-CS vs. heart failure-related CS or HF-CS). RESULTS: Among 6,205 patients, 754 received an Impella 5.0/5.5 (12.1%), including 210 MI-CS (27.8%) and 484 HF-CS (64.1%) patients. Impella 5.0/5.5 was used as the sole tMCS device in 32% of patients, while 68% of patients received a combination of tMCS devices. Impella cannulation sites were available for 524/754 (69.4%) of patients, with 93.5% axillary configuration. Survival to hospital discharge for those supported with an Impella 5.0/5.5 was 67%, with 20.4% NHR and 45.5% HRT. Compared to HF-CS, patients with MI-CS supported on Impella 5.0/5.5 had higher in-hospital mortality (45.2% vs 26.2%, p < 0.001) and were less likely to receive HRT (22.4% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001. For patients receiving a combination of tMCS during hospitalization, this was associated with higher rates of limb ischemia (9% vs. 3%, p < 0.01), bleeding (52% vs 33%, p < 0.01), and mortality (38% vs 25%; p < 0.001) compared to Impella 5.0/5.5 alone. Among Impella 5.0/5.5 recipients, the median duration of pump support was 12.9 days (IQR: 6.8-22.9) and longer in patients bridged to HRT (14 days; IQR: 7.7-28.4). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center cohort of patients with CS, use of Impella 5.0/5.5 was associated with an overall survival of 67.1% and high rates of HRT. Lower adverse event rates were observed when Impella 5.0/5.5 was the sole support device used. Further study is required to determine whether a strategy of early Impella 5.0/5.5 use for CS improves survival. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: High capacity Impella heart pumps are capable of provide up to 5.5 liter/min of flow while upper body surgical placement allows for ambulation. Patients with advanced cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction or heart failure requiring temporary mechanical circulatory support may benefit from upfront use of Impella 5.5 to improve overall survival, including native heart recovery or successful bridge to durable left ventricular assist device surgery or heart transplantation.

Beta blockers are associated with lower all-cause mortality among HFpEF patients.

BACKGROUND: The evidence regarding beta blocker (BB) benefit in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains inconclusive, leading to consideration of BB withdrawal in this population. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the association of BB on all-cause mortality in HFpEF patients. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of 20,206 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50% who were hospitalized with decompensated HF between January 2011 and March 2020. Survival is reported at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years. A secondary analysis comparing mortality for patients on BB with additional indications including hypertension (HTN), coronary artery disease (CAD), and atrial fibrillation (AF) was completed. Mortality was compared between patients on BB and additional therapies of spironolactone or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARBs). RESULTS: BB showed lower all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years (p < 0.0001). This association with lower all-cause mortality was validated by a supplementary propensity score-matched analysis. At 3 years, there was significant mortality reduction with addition of BB to either spironolactone (p = 0.0359) or ACEi/ARBs (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In a large single-center retrospective registry, BB use was associated with lower mortality in HFpEF patients with a recent decompensated HF hospitalization. The mortality benefit persisted in those treated with spironolactone or ACEi/ARBs, and in those with AF. This provocative data further highlights the uncertainty of the benefit of BB use in this cohort and calls for re-consideration of BB withdrawal, especially in those tolerating it well, without conclusive, large, and randomized trials showing lack of benefit or harm.

Clinical Outcomes Associated With Diltiazem Use in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction After Implementation of a Clinical Support System.

BACKGROUND: Despite atrial fibrillation guideline recommendations, many patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF) continue to receive IV diltiazem for acute rate control. OBJECTIVE: Our institution recently implemented a clinical decision support system (CDSS)-based tool that recommends against the use of diltiazem in patients with an EF ≤ 40%. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of adherence to the aforementioned CDSS-based tool. METHODS: This multi-hospital, retrospective study assessed patients who triggered the CDSS alert and compared those who did and did not discontinue diltiazem. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinical deterioration. The primary endpoint was compared utilizing a Fisher's Exact Test, and a multivariate logistic regression model was developed to confirm the results of the primary analysis. RESULTS: A total of 246 patients were included in this study with 146 patients in the nonadherent group (received diltiazem) and 100 patients in the adherent group (did not receive diltiazem). There was a higher proportion of patients experiencing clinical deterioration in the alert nonadherence group (33% vs 21%, P = 0.044), including increased utilization of inotropes and vasopressors, and higher rate of transfer to ICU. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In patients with heart failure with reduced EF, diltiazem use after nonadherence to a CDSS alert resulted in an increased risk of clinical deterioration. This study highlights the need for improved provider adherence to diltiazem clinical decision support systems.

Concomitant use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous microaxial assist device support for cardiogenic shock.

Objectives: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support is an emerging treatment modality for cardiogenic shock (CS). Survival outcomes by CS etiology with this support strategy have not been well described. Methods: This study was a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) supported with VA-ECMO with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support from December 2020 to January 2023. Results: A total of 44 patients were included (AMI-CS, n = 20, and ADHF-CS, n = 24). Patients with AMI-CS and ADHF-CS had similar survival at 90 days postdischarge (P = .267) with similar destinations after support (P = .220). Patients with AMI-CS initially supported with VA-ECMO were less likely to survive 90 days postdischarge (P = .038) when compared with other cohorts. Limb ischemia and acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in patients presenting with AMI-CS (P =.013; P = .030). Subanalysis of ADHF-CS patients into acute-on-chronic decompensated HF and de novo HF demonstrated no difference in survival or destination. Conclusions: VA-ECMO with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support can be used to successfully manage patients with CS. There is no difference in survival or destination for AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with this support strategy. AMI-CS patients with initial VA-ECMO support have increased mortality in comparison to other cohorts. Future multicenter studies are required to fully analyze the differences between AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with this support strategy.

Outcomes of Impella 5.0 and 5.5 for cardiogenic shock: A single-center 137 patient experience.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) supported with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 and identified risk factors for in-hospital mortality. METHODS: Adults with CS who were supported with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 at a single institution were included. Patients were stratified into three groups according to their CS etiology: (1) acute myocardial infarction (AMI), (2) acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), and (3) postcardiotomy (PC). The primary outcome was survival, and secondary outcomes included adverse events during Impella support and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-seven patients with CS secondary to AMI (n = 47), ADHF (n = 86), and PC (n = 4) were included. The ADHF group had the highest survival rates at all time points. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was the most common complication during Impella support in all 3 groups. Increased rates of AKI and de novo renal replacement therapy were observed in the PC group, and the AMI group experienced a higher incidence of bleeding requiring transfusion. Multivariable analysis demonstrated diabetes mellitus, elevated pre-insertion serum lactate, and elevated pre-insertion serum creatinine were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality, but the etiology of CS did not impact mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that Impella 5.0 and 5.5 provide effective mechanical support for patients with CS with favorable outcomes, with nearly two-thirds of patients alive at 180 days. Diabetes, elevated pre-insertion serum lactate, and elevated pre-insertion serum creatinine are strong risk factors for in-hospital mortality.

Impact of post-transplant stroke and subsequent functional independence on outcomes following heart transplantation under the 2018 United States heart allocation system.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the clinical trends, risk factors, and effects of post-transplant stroke and subsequent functional independence on outcomes following orthotopic heart transplantation under the 2018 heart allocation system. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried to identify adult recipients from October 18, 2018 to December 31, 2021. The cohort was stratified into 2 groups with and without post-transplant stroke. The incidence of post-transplant stroke was compared before and after the allocation policy change. Outcomes included post-transplant survival and complications. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for post-transplant stroke. Sub-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of functional independence among recipients with post-transplant stroke. RESULTS: A total of 9,039 recipients were analyzed in this study. The incidence of post-transplant stroke was higher following the policy change (3.8% vs 3.1%, p = 0.017). Thirty-day (81.4% vs 97.7%) and 1-year (66.4% vs 92.5%) survival rates were substantially lower in the stroke cohort (p < 0.001). The stroke cohort had a higher rate of post-transplant renal failure, longer hospital length of stay, and worse functional status. Multivariable analysis identified extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, durable left ventricular assist device, blood type O, and redo heart transplantation as strong predictors of post-transplant stroke. Preserved functional independence considerably improved 30-day (99.2% vs 61.2%) and 1-year (97.7% vs 47.4%) survival rates among the recipients with post-transplant stroke (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a higher incidence of post-transplant stroke under the 2018 allocation system, and it is associated with significantly worse post-transplant outcomes. However, post-transplant stroke recipients with preserved functional independence have improved survival, similar to those without post-transplant stroke.

Improved waitlist and comparable post-transplant outcomes in simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation under the 2018 heart allocation system.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the clinical trends and the impact of the 2018 heart allocation policy change on both waitlist and post-transplant outcomes in simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation in the United States. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried to compare adult patients before and after the allocation policy change. This study included 2 separate analyses evaluating the waitlist and post-transplant outcomes. Multivariable analyses were performed to determine the 2018 allocation system's risk-adjusted hazards for 1-year waitlist and post-transplant mortality. RESULTS: The initial analysis investigating the waitlist outcomes included 1779 patients listed for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation. Of these, 1075 patients (60.4%) were listed after the 2018 allocation policy change. After the policy change, the waitlist outcomes significantly improved with a shorter waitlist time, lower likelihood of de-listing, and higher likelihood of transplantation. In the subsequent analysis investigating the post-transplant outcomes, 1130 simultaneous heart-kidney transplant recipients were included, where 738 patients (65.3%) underwent simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation after the policy change. The 90-day, 6-month, and 1-year post-transplant survival and complication rates were comparable before and after the policy change. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that the 2018 allocation system positively impacted risk-adjusted 1-year waitlist mortality (sub-hazard ratio, 0.66, 95% CI, 0.51-0.85, P < .001), but it did not significantly impact risk-adjusted 1-year post-transplant mortality (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.72-1.47, P = .876). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates increased rates of simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation with a shorter waitlist time after the 2018 allocation policy change. Furthermore, there were improved waitlist outcomes and comparable early post-transplant survival after simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation under the 2018 allocation system.

Donation after circulatory death improves probability of heart transplantation in waitlisted candidates and results in post-transplant outcomes similar to those achieved with brain-dead donors.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitate the impact of heart donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor utilization on both waitlist and post-transplant outcomes in the United States. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried to identify all adult waitlisted and transplanted candidates between October 18, 2018, and December 31, 2022. Waitlisted candidates were stratified according to whether they had been approved for donation after brain death (DBD) offers only or also approved for DCD offers. The cumulative incidence of transplantation was compared between the 2 cohorts. In a post-transplant analysis, 1-year post-transplant survival was compared between unmatched and propensity-score-matched cohorts of DBD and DCD recipients. RESULTS: A total of 14,803 candidates were waitlisted, including 12,287 approved for DBD donors only and 2516 approved for DCD donors. Overall, DCD approval was associated with an increased sub-hazard ratio (HR) for transplantation and a lower sub-HR for delisting owing to death/deterioration after risk adjustment. In a subgroup analysis, candidates with blood type B and status 4 designation received the greatest benefit from DCD approval. A total of 12,238 recipients underwent transplantation, 11,636 with DBD hearts and 602 with DCD hearts. Median waitlist times were significantly shorter for status 3 and status 4 recipients receiving DCD hearts. One-year post-transplant survival was comparable between unmatched and propensity score-matched cohorts of DBD and DCD recipients. CONCLUSIONS: The use of DCD hearts confers a higher probability of transplantation and a lower incidence of death/deterioration while on the waitlist, particularly among certain subpopulations such as status 4 candidates. Importantly, the use of DCD donors results in similar post-transplant survival as DBD donors.

Cardiogenic shock etiology and exit strategy impact survival in patients with Impella 5.5.

BACKGROUND: Despite historical differences in cardiogenic shock (CS) outcomes by etiology, outcomes by CS etiology have yet to be described in patients supported by temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with Impella 5.5. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to identify differences in survival and post-support destination for these patients in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) CS at a high-volume, tertiary, transplant center. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who received Impella 5.5 at our center from November 2020 to June 2022 was conducted. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients underwent Impella 5.5 implantation for CS; 23 (34%) for AMI and 44 (66%) for ADHF. AMI patients presented with higher SCAI stage, pre-implant lactate, and rate of prior MCS devices, and fewer days from admission to implantation. Survival was lower for AMI patients at 30 days, 90 days, and discharge. No difference in time to all-cause mortality was found when excluding patients receiving transplant. There was no significant difference in complication rates between groups. CONCLUSIONS: ADHF-CS patients with Impella 5.5 support have a significantly higher rate of survival than patients with AMI-CS. ADHF patients were successfully bridged to heart transplant more often than AMI patients, contributing to increased survival.

Persistence of pulmonary hypertension in patients undergoing ventricular assist devices and orthotopic heart transplantation.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is common in advanced heart failure and often improves quickly after left ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation or orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT), but long-term effects and outcomes are not well-described. This study evaluated PH persistence after VAD as destination therapy (VAD-DT), bridge to transplant (VAD-OHT), or OHT-alone. The study constituted a retrospective review of patients who underwent VAD-DT (n = 164), VAD-OHT (n = 111), or OHT-alone (n = 138) at a single tertiary-care center. Right heart catheterization (RHC) data was collected pre-, post-intervention (VAD and/or OHT), and 1-year from final intervention (latest-RHC) to evaluate the longitudinal hemodynamic course of right ventricular function and pulmonary vasculature. PH (Group II and Group I) definitions were adapted from expert guidelines. All groups showed significant improvements in mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP), pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP), cardiac output, and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) at each RHC with greatest improvement at post-intervention RHC (post-VAD or post-OHT). PH was reduced from 98% to 26% in VAD-OHT, 92%-49% in VAD-DT, and 76%-28% in OHT-alone from preintervention to latest-RHC. At latest-RHC mPAP remained elevated in all groups despite normalization of PAWP and PVR. VAD-supported patients exhibited suppressed pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PaPi < 3.7) with improvement only posttransplant at latest-RHC. Posttransplant patients with PH at latest-RHC (n = 60) exhibited lower survival (HR: 2.1 [95% CI: 1.3-3.4], p < 0.001). Despite an overall significant improvement in pulmonary pressures and PH proportion, a notable subset of patients exhibited PH post-intervention. Post-intervention PH was associated with lower posttransplant survival.

Association of pre-left ventricular assist device defibrillator shocks for ventricular arrhythmia with clinical outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation.

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillation (ICD) shocks after left ventricular assist device therapy (LVAD) are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Little is known about the association of pre-LVAD ICD shocks on post-LVAD clinical outcomes and whether LVAD therapy affects the prevalence of ICD shocks. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine whether pre-LVAD ICD shocks are associated with adverse clinical outcomes post-LVAD and to compare the prevalence of ICD shocks before and after LVAD therapy. Methods: Patients 18 years or older with continuous-flow LVADs and ICDs were retrospectively identified within the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system from 2006-2020. We analyzed the association between appropriate ICD shocks within 1 year pre-LVAD with a primary composite outcome of death, stroke, and pump thrombosis and secondary outcomes of post-LVAD ICD shocks and ICD shock hospitalizations. Results: Among 309 individuals, average age was 57 ± 12 years, 87% were male, 80% had ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 42% were bridge to transplantation. Seventy-one patients (23%) experienced pre-LVAD shocks, and 69 (22%) experienced post-LVAD shocks. The overall prevalence of shocks pre-LVAD and post-LVAD were not different. Pre-LVAD ICD shocks were not associated with the composite outcome. Pre-LVAD ICD shocks were found to predict post-LVAD shocks (hazard ratio [HR] 5.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.42-9.48; P <.0001) and hospitalizations related to ICD shocks from ventricular arrhythmia (HR 10.34; 95% CI 4.1-25.7; P <.0001). Conclusion: Pre-LVAD ICD shocks predicted post-LVAD ICD shocks and hospitalizations but were not associated with the composite outcome of death, pump thrombosis, or stroke at 1 year. The prevalence of appropriate ICD shocks was similar before and after LVAD implantation in the entire cohort.

Impact of Female Sex on Cardiogenic Shock Outcomes: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Report.

BACKGROUND: Studies reporting cardiogenic shock (CS) outcomes in women are scarce. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared survival at discharge among women vs men with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) and heart failure (HF-CS). METHODS: The authors analyzed 5,083 CS patients in the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed with the use of baseline characteristics. Logistic regression was performed for log odds of survival. RESULTS: Among 5,083 patients, 1,522 were women (30%), whose mean age was 61.8 ± 15.8 years. There were 30% women and 29.1% men with AMI-CS (P = 0.03). More women presented with de novo HF-CS compared with men (26.2% vs 19.3%; P < 0.001). Before PSM, differences in baseline characteristics and sex-specific outcomes were seen in the HF-CS cohort, with worse survival at discharge (69.9% vs 74.4%; P = 0.009) and a higher rate of maximum Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions stage E (26% vs 21%; P = 0.04) in women than in men. Women were less likely to receive pulmonary artery catheterization (52.9% vs 54.6%; P < 0.001), heart transplantation (6.5% vs 10.3%; P < 0.001), or left ventricular assist device implantation (7.8% vs 10%; P = 0.01). Regardless of CS etiology, women had more vascular complications (8.8% vs 5.7%; P < 0.001), bleeding (7.1% vs 5.2%; P = 0.01), and limb ischemia (6.8% vs 4.5%; P = 0.001). More vascular complications persisted in women after PSM (10.4% women vs 7.4% men; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Women with HF-CS had worse outcomes and more vascular complications than men with HF-CS. More studies are needed to identify barriers to advanced therapies, decrease complications, and improve outcomes of women with CS.

Reduction of HLA donor specific antibodies in heart transplant patients treated with proteasome inhibitors for antibody mediated rejection.

In this project, we describe proteasome inhibitor (PI) treatment of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in heart transplantation (HTX). From January 2018 to September 2021, 10 patients were treated with PI for AMR: carfilzomib (CFZ) n = 8; bortezomib (BTZ) n = 2. Patients received 1-3 cycles of PI. All patients had ≥1 strong donor-specific antibody (DSA) (mean fluorescence intensity [MFI] > 8000) in undiluted serum. Most DSAs (20/21) had HLA class II specificity. The MFI of strong DSAs had a median reduction of 56% (IQR = 13%-89%) in undiluted serum and 92% (IQR = 53%-95%) at 1:16 dilution. Seventeen DSAs in seven patients were reduced > 50% at 1:16 dilution after treatment. Four DSAs from three patients did not respond. DSA with MFI > 8000 at 1:16 dilution was less responsive to treatment. 60% (6/10) patients presented with graft dysfunction; 4/6 recovered ejection fraction > 40% after treatment. Pathologic AMR was resolved in 5/7 (71.4%) of patients within 1 year after treatment. 9/10 (90%) patients survived to 1 year after AMR diagnosis. Using PI in AMR resulted in significant DSA reduction with some resolution of graft dysfunction. Larger studies are needed to evaluate PI for AMR.