Comparison of HTK-Custodiol and St-Thomas solution as cardiac preservation solutions on early and midterm outcomes following heart transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: The choice of the cardiac preservation solution for myocardial protection at time of heart procurement remains controversial and uncertainties persist regarding its effect on the early and midterm heart transplantation (HTx) outcomes. We retrospectively compared our adult HTx performed with 2 different solutions, in terms of hospital mortality, mid-term survival, inotropic score, primary graft dysfunction and rejection score. METHODS: From January 2009 to December 2020, 154 consecutive HTx of adult patients, followed up in pre- and post-transplantation by 2 different tertiary centres, were performed at the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland. From 2009 to 2015, the cardiac preservation solution used was exclusively St-Thomas, whereafter an institutional decision was made to use HTK-Custodiol only. Patients were classified in 2 groups accordingly. RESULTS: There were 75 patients in the St-Thomas group and 79 patients in the HTK-Custodiol group. The 2 groups were comparable in terms of preoperative and intraoperative characteristics. Postoperatively, compared to the St-Thomas group, the Custodiol group patients showed significantly lower inotropic scores [median (interquartile range): 35.7 (17.5-60.2) vs 71.8 (31.8-127), P < 0.001], rejection scores [0.08 (0.0-0.25) vs 0.14 (0.05-0.5), P = 0.036] and 30-day mortality rate (2.5% vs 14.7%, P = 0.007) even after adjusting for potential confounders. Microscopic analysis of the endomyocardial biopsies also showed less specific histological features of subendothelial ischaemia (3.8% vs 17.3%, P = 0.006). There was no difference in primary graft dysfunction requiring postoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The use of HTK-Custodiol solution significantly improved midterm survival (Custodiol versus St-Thomas: hazard ratio = 0.20, 95% confidence interval: 0.069-0.60, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study comparing St-Thomas solution and HTK-Custodiol as myocardial protection during heart procurement showed that Custodiol improves outcomes after HTx, including postoperative inotropic score, rejection score, 30-day mortality and midterm survival.

Post-transplant survival with pre-transplant durable continuous-flow mechanical circulatory support in a Swiss cohort of heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, almost half of all heart transplantation candidates arrive today at their transplant operation with durable continuous-flow mechanical circulatory support (CF-MCS). This evolution is due to a progressive increase of waiting list time and hence an increased risk of haemodynamic worsening. Longer duration of CF-MCS is associated with a higher risk of device-related complications with potential adverse impact on post-transplant outcome as suggested by recent results from the United Network of Organ Sharing of the United States. METHODS: A 2-centre Swiss heart transplantation programme conducted a retrospective observational study of consecutive patients of theirs who underwent a transplant in the period 2008-2020. The primary aim was to determine whether post-transplant all-cause mortality is different between heart transplant recipients without or with pre-transplant CF-MCS. The secondary outcome was the acute cellular rejection score within the first year post-transplant. RESULTS: The study participants had a median age of 54 years; 38/158 (24%) were females. 53/158 study participants (34%) had pre-transplant CF-MCS with a median treatment duration of 280 days. In heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant CF-MCS, the prevalence of ischaemic cardiomyopathy was higher (51 vs 32%; p = 0.013), the left ventricular ejection fraction was lower (20 vs 25; p = 0.047) and pulmonary vascular resistance was higher (2.3 vs 2.1 Wood Units; p = 0.047). Over the study period, the proportion of heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant CF-MCS and the duration of pre-transplant CF-MCS treatment increased (2008-2014 vs 2015-2020: 22% vs 45%, p = 0.009; increase of treatment days per year: 34.4 ± 11.2 days, p = 0.003; respectively). The primary and secondary outcomes were not different between heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant CF-MCS or direct heart transplantation (log-rank p = 0.515; 0.16 vs 0.14, respectively; p = 0.81). CONCLUSION: This data indicates that the strategy of pre-transplant CF-MCS with subsequent orthotopic heart transplantation provides post-transplant outcomes not different to direct heart transplantation despite the fact that the duration of pre-transplant assist device treatment has progressively increased.

Has the profile of heart transplantation recipients changed within the last three decades?

BACKGROUND: Heart transplantation remains the most durable treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure refractory to medical treatment. Central elements of the listing criteria for heart transplantation have remained largely unchanged in the last three decades whereas treatment of heart failure has significantly increased survival and reduced disease-related symptoms. It remains unknown whether the improvement of heart failure therapy changed the profile of heart transplantation candidates or affected post-transplant survival. METHODS: The study investigated a total of 323 heart transplant recipients of the Lausanne University Hospital with 328 transplant operations between 1987 and 2018. Patients were separated into three groups on the basis of availability of heart failure therapy: period 1 (1987-1998; n = 115) when renin-angiotensin system blockade and diuretic treatment were available; period 2 (1999-2010; n = 106) marked by the addition of beta-blocker and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist treatment in severe heart failure, and the establishment of cardiac defibrillator and resynchronisation therapy; period 3 (2011-2018; n = 107) characterised by the increasing use of ventricular assist devices for bridge to transplantation. RESULTS: The patient characteristics age (all: 53.4 years), male sex (all: 79%) and body mass index (all: 24.5 kg/m2) did not differ between periods. History of arterial hypertension was less prevalent in period 2 (period 1 vs 2 vs 3: 44 vs 28 vs 43%, p = 0.04) whereas other cardiovascular risk factors were equally distributed. Left ventricular ejection fraction, VO2max, and pulmonary vascular resistance were not different between the three periods. The prevalence of ischaemic cardiomyopathy was higher in periods 1 and 3; dilated non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy was more frequent in period 2. Post-transplant 1-year survival was highest in period 3 (1 vs 2 vs 3: 87.2 ± 3.2% vs 70.8 ± 4.4% vs 93.0 ± 2.6%, p always ≤0.02), and the Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivors of the first year post-transplant were not different between the three periods. In descriptive analysis, early mortality was not associated with acknowledged pretransplant predictors of post-transplant mortality. CONCLUSION: Availability of different medical heart failure treatments did not result in greatly different pretransplant characteristics of heart transplantation recipients across the three periods. This suggests that the maintained central criteria of listing for heart transplantation still identify end-stage heart failure patients with a similar profile. This finding can explain the unchanged overall mortality on condition of 1-year survival across the three periods, since pretransplant characteristics are relevant for long-term survival after heart transplantation.