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.

Clinical trends, risk factors, and temporal effects of post-transplant dialysis on outcomes following orthotopic heart transplantation in the 2018 United States heart allocation system.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the current clinical trends, risk factors, and temporal effects of post-transplant dialysis on outcomes following orthotopic heart transplantation after the 2018 United States adult heart allocation policy change. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry was queried to analyze adult orthotopic heart transplant recipients after the October 18, 2018 heart allocation policy change. The cohort was stratified according to the need for post-transplant de novo dialysis. The primary outcome was survival. Propensity score-matching was performed to compare the outcomes between 2 similar cohorts with and without post-transplant de novo dialysis. The impact of post-transplant dialysis chronicity was evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for post-transplant dialysis. RESULTS: A total of 7,223 patients were included in this study. Out of these, 968 patients (13.4%) developed post-transplant renal failure requiring de novo dialysis. Both 1-year (73.2% vs 94.8%) and 2-year (66.3% vs 90.6%) survival rates were lower in the dialysis cohort (p < 0.001), and the lower survival rates persisted in a propensity-matched comparison. Recipients requiring only temporary post-transplant dialysis had significantly improved 1-year (92.5% vs 71.6%) and 2-year (86.6 % vs 52.2%) survival rates compared to the chronic post-transplant dialysis group (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated low pretransplant estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) and bridge with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were strong predictors of post-transplant dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that post-transplant dialysis is associated with significantly increased morbidity and mortality in the new allocation system. Post-transplant survival is affected by the chronicity of post-transplant dialysis. Low pretransplant eGFR and ECMO are strong risk factors for post-transplant dialysis.

Impact of a Medication Optimization Clinic on Heart Failure Hospitalizations.

Efforts to optimize guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) through team-based care may affect outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study evaluated the impact of an innovative medication optimization clinic (MOC) on GDMT and outcomes in patients with HFrEF. Patients with HFrEF who are not receiving optimal GDMT are referred to MOC and managed by a team comprised of a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, clinical pharmacist, and HF cardiologist. We retrospectively evaluated the impact of MOC (n = 206) compared with usual care (n = 412) with a 2:1 propensity-matched control group. The primary clinical outcome was the incidence of HF hospitalizations at 3 months after the index visit. Kaplan-Meier cumulative event curves and Cox proportional hazards regression models with adjustment were conducted. A significantly higher proportion of patients in MOC received quadruple therapy (49% vs 4%, p <0.0001), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (60% vs 27%, p <0.0001), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (59% vs 37%, p <0.0001), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (60% vs 10%, p <0.0001). The primary outcome was significantly lower in the MOC versus the control group (log-rank, p = 0.0008). Cox regression showed that patients in the control group were more than threefold more likely to be hospitalized because of HF than those in the MOC group (p = 0.0014). In conclusion, the MOC was associated with improved GDMT and lower risk of HF hospitalizations in patients with HFrEF.

Left ventricular assist device bridging to heart transplantation: Comparison of temporary versus durable support.

BACKGROUND: Since the revision of the United States heart allocation system, increasing use of mechanical circulatory support has been observed as a means to support acutely ill patients. We sought to compare outcomes between patients bridged to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) with either temporary (t-LVAD) or durable left ventricular assist devises (d-LVAD) under the revised system. METHODS: The United States Organ Network database was queried to identify all adult OHT recipients who were bridged to transplant with either an isolated t-LVAD or d-LVAD from 10/18/2018 to 9/30/2020. The primary outcome was 1-year post-transplant survival. Predictors of mortality were also modeled, and national trends of LVAD bridging were examined across the study period. RESULTS: About 1,734 OHT recipients were analyzed, 1,580 (91.1%) bridged with d-LVAD and 154 (8.9%) bridged with t-LVAD. At transplant, the t-LVAD cohort had higher total bilirubin levels and greater prevalence of pre-transplant intravenous inotrope usage and mechanical ventilation. Median waitlist time was also shorter for t-LVAD. At 1 year, there was a non-significant trend of increased survival in the t-LVAD cohort (94.8% vs 90.1%; p = 0.06). After risk adjustment, d-LVAD was associated with a 4-fold hazards for 1-year mortality (hazard ratio 3.96, 95% confidence interval 1.42-11.03; p = 0.009). From 2018 to 2021, t-LVAD bridging increased, though d-LVAD remained a more common bridging strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Since the 2018 allocation change, there has been a steady increase in t-LVAD usage as a bridge to OHT. Overall, patients bridged with these devices appear to have least equivalent 1-year survival compared to those bridged with d-LVAD.

Recent Changes in Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device Bridging to Heart Transplantation.

This study evaluates the impact of the recent United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation policy change on outcomes of patients bridged with durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). Adults bridged to OHT with durable LVADs between 2010 and 2019 were included. Patients were stratified based on the temporal relationship of their OHT to the UNOS policy change on October 18, 2018. The primary outcome was early post-OHT survival. In total, 9,628 OHTs were bridged with durable LVADs, including 701 (7.3%) under the new policy. Of all OHTs performed during the study period, the proportion occurring following durable LVAD bridging decreased from 45% to 34% (p < 0.001). The more recent cohort was higher risk, including more extracorporeal membrane oxygenation bridging (2.6% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001), more mechanical right ventricular support (9.7% vs. 1.4%, p < 0.001), greater pretransplant ICU admission (22.8% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.001) more need for total functional assistance (62.8% vs. 53.0%, p < 0.001), older donor age (33.3 vs. 31.7 years, p < 0.001), and longer ischemic times (3.38 vs. 3.13 hours, p < 0.001). Despite this, early post-OHT survival was comparable at 30 days (96.1% vs. 96.0%, p = 0.89), 90 days (93.7% vs. 94.0%, p = 0.76), and 6 months (91.0% vs. 93.0%, p = 0.96), findings that persisted after risk-adjustment. In this early analysis, OHT following bridging with durable LVADs is performed less frequently and in higher risk recipients under the new allocation policy. Despite this, short-term posttransplant outcomes appear to be unaffected in this patient cohort in the current era.

Pre-implant left ventricular dimension is not associated with worse outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular dimension has the potential to impact clinical outcomes following implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). We investigated the effect of pre-implant left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) on outcomes following LVAD implantation. METHODS: Patients implanted with a continuous-flow LVAD between 2004 and 2018 at a single institution were included. The primary outcome was death while on LVAD support. Secondary outcomes included adverse event rates such as renal failure requiring dialysis, device thrombosis, and right ventricular failure. The LVEDD measurements were dichotomized using restricted cubic splines and threshold regression. Survival was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine risk-adjusted mortality based on LVEDD. RESULTS: A total of 344 patients underwent implantation of a continuous flow LVAD during the study period. The optimal cut point for LVEDD was 65 mm, with 126 (36.6%) subjects in the <65 mm group and 165 (48.0%) in the >65 mm group. The LVEDD <65 mm group was older, had more females, higher incidence of diabetes, more pre-implant mechanical ventilation, and more admissions for acute myocardial infarctions (all, P<0.05). Importantly, post-implant adverse events were similar between the groups (all, P>0.05). Risk-adjusted survival at 1-year (OR 1.3, 95% CI: 0.6-2.5, P=0.53) was also comparable between the groups. Furthermore, incremental increases in LVEDD when modeled as a continuous variable did not impact overall mortality (OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.9-1.0, P=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative LVEDD was not associated with rates of major morbidities or mortality following LVAD implantation.

Ruptured cerebral mycotic aneurysm in a left ventricular assist device patient with bacteremia.

A 50-year-old male with a history of nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy presented in cardiogenic shock and ultimately underwent durable left ventricular assist device implantation. He recovered well initially but developed persistent bacteremia. His indwelling pacemaker leads were extracted due to evidence of vegetation. Shortly thereafter, around 3 months post-left ventricular assist device, he succumbed to a massive intracranial hemorrhage due to ruptured cerebral mycotic aneurysm. This case highlights the potential importance of brain imaging in left ventricular assist device patients with persistent bacteremia to avoid this likely catastrophic complication.

The Preimplantation Psychosocial Evaluation and Prediction of Clinical Outcomes During Mechanical Circulatory Support: What Information Is Most Prognostic?

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial evaluations are required for long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) candidates, no matter whether MCS will be destination therapy (DT) or a bridge to heart transplantation. Although guidelines specify psychosocial contraindications to MCS, there is no comprehensive examination of which psychosocial evaluation domains are most prognostic for clinical outcomes. We evaluated whether overall psychosocial risk, determined across all psychosocial domains, predicted outcomes, and which specific domains appeared responsible for any effects. METHODS: A single-site retrospective analysis was performed for adults receiving MCS between April 2004 and December 2017. Using an established rating system, we coded psychosocial evaluations to identify patients at low, moderate, or high overall risk. We similarly determined risk within each of 10 individual psychosocial domains. Multivariable analyses evaluated whether psychosocial risk predicted clinical decisions about MCS use (DT versus bridge), and postimplantation mortality, transplantation, rehospitalization, MCS pump exchange, and standardly defined adverse medical events (AEs). RESULTS: In 241 MCS recipients, greater overall psychosocial risk increased the likelihood of a DT decision (odds ratio, 1.76; P = 0.017); and postimplantation pump exchange and occurrence of AEs (hazard ratios [HRs] ≥ 1.25; P ≤ 0.042). The individual AEs most strongly predicted were cardiac arrhythmias and device malfunctions (HRs ≥ 1.39; P ≤ 0.032). The specific psychosocial domains predicting at least 1 study outcome were mental health problem severity, poorer medical adherence, and substance use (odds ratios and HRs ≥ 1.32; P ≤ 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: The psychosocial evaluation predicts not only clinical decisions about MCS use (DT versus bridge) but important postimplantation outcomes. Strategies to address psychosocial risk factors before or soon after implantation may help to reduce postimplantation clinical risks.

Twenty-year survival following orthotopic heart transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated 20-year survival after adult orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). METHODS: The United Network of Organ Sharing Registry database was queried to study adult OHT recipients between 1987 and 1998 with over 20-year posttransplant follow-up. The primary and secondary outcomes were 20-year survival and cause of death after OHT, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify significant independent predictors of long-term survival, and long-term survival was compared among cohorts stratified by number of predictors using Kaplan Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: 20,658 patients undergoing OHT were included, with a median follow-up of 9.0 (IQR, 3.2-15.4) years. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 10-, 15-, and 20-year survival were 50.2%, 30.1%, and 17.2%, respectively. Median survival was 10.1 (IQR, 3.9-16.9) years. Increasing recipient age (>65 years), increasing donor age (>40 years), increasing recipient body mass index (>30), black race, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and longer cold ischemic time (>4 h) were adversely associated with a 20-year survival. Of these 6 negative predictors, presence of 0 risk factors had the greatest 10-year (59.7%) and 20-year survival (26.2%), with decreasing survival with additional negative predictors. The most common cause of death in 20-year survivors was renal, liver, and/or multisystem organ failure whereas graft failure more greatly impacted earlier mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies six negative preoperative predictors of 20-year survival with 20-year survival rates exceeding 25% in the absence of these factors. These data highlight the potential for very long-term survival after OHT in patients with end-stage heart failure and may be useful for patient selection and prognostication.

Evolving Trends in Adult Heart Transplant With the 2018 Heart Allocation Policy Change.

Importance: The US heart allocation policy was changed on October 18, 2018. The association of this change with recipient and donor selection and outcomes remains to be elucidated. Objective: To evaluate changes in patient characteristics, wait list outcomes, and posttransplant outcomes after the recent allocation policy change in heart transplant. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, all 15 631 adults undergoing heart transplants, excluding multiorgan transplants, in the US as identified by the United Network for Organ Sharing multicenter, national registry were reviewed. Patients were stratified according to prepolicy change (October 1, 2015, to October 1, 2018) and postpolicy change (October 18, 2018 or after). Follow-up data were available through March 31, 2020. Exposures: Heart transplants after the policy change. Main Outcomes and Measures: Competing risk regression for wait list outcomes was performed. Posttransplant survival was compared using the Kaplan-Meier method, and risk adjustment was performed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Results: In this cohort study, of the 15 631 patients undergoing transplant, 10 671 (mean [SD] age, 53.1 [12.7] years; 7823 [73.3%] male) were wait listed before and 4960 (mean [SD] age, 52.7 [13.0] years; 3610 [72.8%] male) were wait listed after the policy change. Competing risk regression demonstrated reduced likelihood of mortality or deterioration (subhazard ratio [SHR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.52-0.69; P < .001), increased likelihood of transplant (SHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.32-1.45; P < .001), and reduced likelihood of recovery (SHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40-0.73; P < .001) for wait listed patients after the policy change. A total of 6078 patients underwent transplant before and 2801 after the policy change. Notable changes after the policy change included higher frequency of bridging with temporary mechanical circulatory support and lower frequency of bridging with durable left ventricular assist devices. Posttransplant survival was reduced after the policy change (1-year: 92.1% vs 87.5%; log-rank P < .001), a finding that persisted after risk adjustment (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.55; P = .008). Conclusions and Relevance: Substantial changes have occurred in adult heart transplant in the US after the policy change in October 2018. Wait list outcomes have improved, although posttransplant survival has decreased. These data confirm findings from earlier preliminary analyses and demonstrate that these trends have persisted to 1-year follow-up, underscoring the importance of continued reevaluation of the new heart allocation policy.

Nationwide variability in the use of induction immunosuppression for adult heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Institutional factors have been shown to impact outcomes following orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). This study evaluated center variability in the utilization of induction therapy for OHT and its implications on clinical outcomes. METHODS: Adult OHT patients between 2010 and 2018 were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry. Transplant centers were stratified based on their rates of induction therapy utilization. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were created with drug-treated rejection within 1 year as primary endpoint and individual centers as a random parameter. Risk-adjusted Cox regression was used to evaluate patient-level mortality outcomes. RESULTS: In 17,524 OHTs performed at 100 centers, induction therapy was utilized in 48.6% (n = 8411) with substantial variability between centers (interquartile range, 21.4%-79.1%). There were 36, 30, and 34 centers in the low (<29%), intermediate (29%-66%), and high (>67%) induction utilization terciles groups, respectively. Induction therapy did not account for the observed variability in the treated rejection rate at 1 year among centers after adjusting for donor and recipient factors (p = .20). No differences were observed in postoperative outcomes among induction utilization centers groups (all, p > .05). Furthermore, there was a weak correlation between the percentage of induction therapy utilization at the center-level and recipients found to have moderate (r = .03) or high (r = .04) baseline risks for acute rejection at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that there is substantial variability in the use of induction therapy among OHT centers. In addition, there was a minimal correlation with baseline recipient risk or 1-year rejection rates, suggesting a need for better-standardized practices for induction therapy use in OHT.

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Bridging to Heart Transplantation: Impact of the 2018 Allocation Change.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the impact of the 2018 allocation policy change on outcomes of orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) in patients bridged with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs). METHODS: Adult (≥18 years) patients undergoing OHT between 2013 and 2019 who were bridged with an IABP were stratified based on temporal relation to the policy change. Univariate analysis was used to compare baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to estimate risk-adjusted predictors of post-transplant mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1342 (8.6%) OHT patients were bridged with an IABP during the study period. Rates of bridging with IABP to OHT increased significantly after the policy change (7.0% versus 24.9%, P<0.001). The mean recipient age was 54.1±12.1 years with 981 (73.1%) patients being male. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups whereas post-policy change patients spent fewer days on the waitlist (15 versus 35 days, P<0.001), had longer ischemic times (3.5 versus 3.0 hours, P<0.001), and received organs from a greater distance (301 versus 105 miles, P<0.001). By multivariable analysis, days on the waitlist (for every 30 days; odds ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00-1.02], P=0.031) and diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.16-3.02], P=0.011) emerged as significant predictors of post-transplant mortality. After the policy change, waitlisted patients requiring IABP support were more likely to survive to transplant (76.4 versus 89.8%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IABP utilization has increased over 3-fold since the 2018 policy change with improved waitlist outcomes and comparable post-OHT survival. Thus, bridging patients to OHT with IABPs appears to be an effective strategy in the current era.

Left ventricular assist device implantation in patients with a history of malignancy.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the impact of a history of malignancy on outcomes of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. METHODS: Adult patients with a preimplant history of malignancy who underwent LVAD implantation between 2006 and 2018 were included. The primary outcome was post-LVAD survival. RESULTS: A total of 250 patients underwent LVAD implant during the study period, including 37 (14.8%) patients with a history of malignancy. Of these 37 patients, five (13.5%) had active malignancy at the time of LVAD implantation, and seven had more than one type of cancer. The median disease-free duration before LVAD was 3.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 1.0-7.75 years). The most common types of malignancy included urologic (n = 20; 45.5%), skin (n = 7, 15.9%), and leukemia or lymphoma (n = 6; 13.6%). Median follow-up was 244 (IQR, 126-571) days and 313 (IQR 127-738) days for those with and without a history of malignancy, respectively (P = .49). Unadjusted post-LVAD survival was reduced in those with a malignancy history (2-year survival 53.4% vs 66.9%; P = .01), a finding that persisted after risk-adjustment (hazard ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.14; P = .01). Only one (2.7%) patient died post-LVAD from their cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Although a history of malignancy is associated with reduced survival after LVAD implantation, more than half of the patients are alive at 2 years. This combined with the fact that most do not die from causes directly related to their cancer suggest that LVAD implantation is reasonable to perform in carefully selected patients with a history of malignancy.

Outcomes of left ventricular assist device implantation in hypercoagulable patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) in patients who tested positive for hypercoagulable hematologic disorders. METHODS: Adults undergoing continuous-flow LVAD implantation with preoperative hypercoagulability testing between 2004 and 2018 at a single center were reviewed. Hypercoagulability was defined as testing positive for antiphospholipid antibody, anticardiolipin antibody, lupus anticoagulant, protein C, protein S, factor V Leiden, and/or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The primary outcome was survival on the original LVAD. Secondary outcomes included rates of thromboembolic complications and readmission for intravenous heparin treatment. RESULTS: A total of 270 LVAD patients with pre-implant hypercoagulability testing were included, and 157 (58%) tested positive for a hypercoagulable disorder. Of those testing positive, 10 (6.4%) had a clinical pre-LVAD history of thromboembolic events. Survival was comparable between hypercoagulable and non-hypercoagulable patients (1 year: 73.3% vs 78.9%, P = .2195, 2-year: 60.7% vs 62.8%, P = .3627). Rates of pump thrombosis (14.0% vs 13.3%, P = .8618), hemolysis (4.5% vs 3.5%, P = .3536), stroke (18.5% vs 14.2%, P = .3483) and readmission for IV heparin therapy (87.3% (n = 137) vs 77.9% (n = 88), P = .7560) were similar. Outcomes were comparable in patients with positive hypercoagulable tests when stratified by pre-implant clinical history of hypercoagulability as well as stratified by recent preoperative exposure to heparin or warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, positive laboratory tests for hypercoagulability were common amongst patients undergoing LVAD implantation although few had positive clinical histories. Survival and freedom from thromboembolic complications were comparable to non-hypercoagulable patients. Hypercoagulability alone should therefore not serve as a contraindication to LVAD implantation.

Sex-Based Heart Transplant Outcomes After Bridging With Centrifugal Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies demonstrated that female sex is associated with an increased mortality after orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). The impact of sex on OHT outcomes after bridging with newer-generation durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) remains unclear. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried to study OHT recipients bridged with a newer-generation LVAD (ie, HeartMate III or HeartWare) between 2010 and 2018. The primary outcome was mortality at 30 and 90-days and 1-year. Secondary outcomes included rates of posttransplant complications. Propensity score matching and Cox multivariable analysis were used to assess comorbidity-adjusted sex differences in outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3010 patients (76.7% male) bridged with newer-generation LVADs underwent OHT. After adjusting for relevant covariates, both age and heart failure etiology, but not sex, were independent predictors of mortality. In the matched cohorts, sex did not affect posttransplant outcomes, including renal failure, cerebrovascular events, allograft rejection, functional status, or mortality (all P > .05). Survival at 1-year after OHT was 90.5% in males and 92.8% in females (P = .058). CONCLUSIONS: Among 3010 OHT recipients, matched females bridged with newer-generation HeartWare or HeartMate III LVADs have comparable posttransplant outcomes compared with males. Furthermore, survival at 1-year follow-up was not affected by sex; instead, it was driven by well-established risk factors including increased age, worse preoperative renal function, and heart failure etiology. These data suggest that considerable progress has been made in mitigating sex differences in heart failure outcomes in the modern era.

Preoperative prealbumin does not impact outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation.

BACKGROUND: This single-center, the retrospective study evaluates the impact of preoperative serum prealbumin levels on outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. METHODS: Adults undergoing LVAD implantation, with a recorded preoperative prealbumin level, between 2004 to 2018 were included. Primary outcomes included rates of 1-year survival and secondary outcomes included rates of postimplant adverse events. Threshold regression and restricted cubic splines were utilized to identify a cut-point to dichotomize prealbumin level. Prealbumin was also evaluated as a continuous variable. Multivariable logistic regression was used for risk-adjustment. RESULTS: A total of 333 patients were included. Patients were dichotomized according to an optimal prealbumin threshold of 15 mg/dL: 47.4% (n = 158) had levels below and 52.6% (n = 175) had levels above this threshold, respectively. The rates of postimplant adverse events, including bleeding, infection, stroke, renal failure, and right heart failure, were similar between the groups (all P > .05). Furthermore, the rates of cardiac transplantation and device explantation were also similar (all P > .05). Unadjusted survival was comparable between the groups at 30-days, 90-days, and 1-year following LVAD implantation (all P > .05). In addition, lower prealbumin did not impact risk-adjusted 1-year mortality when modeled either as a categorical (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.48-2.12; P = .82) or continuous variable (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 0.73-2.34; P = .96). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that lower prealbumin levels were not predictive of increased post-LVAD morbidity or mortality. Although an established marker of nutritional and inflammatory status, the role of prealbumin in patient selection or prognostication appears limited in LVAD patients.

Outcomes of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Are Improved in a Specialty Care Center.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is characterized by elevated pulmonary arterial pressures and is managed by vasodilator therapies. Current guidelines encourage PAH management in specialty care centers (SCCs), but evidence is sparse regarding improvement in clinical outcomes and correlation to vasodilator use with referral. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is PAH management at SCCs associated with improved clinical outcomes? STUDY DESIGNAND METHODS: A single-center, retrospective study was performed at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC; overseeing 40 hospitals). Patients with PAH were identified between 2008 and 2018 and classified into an SCC or non-SCC cohort. Cox proportional hazard modeling was done to compare for all-cause mortality, as was negative binomial regression modeling for hospitalizations. Vasodilator therapy was included to adjust outcomes. RESULTS: Of 580 patients with PAH at UPMC, 455 (78%) were treated at the SCC, comprising a younger (58.8 vs 64.8 years; P < .001) and more often female (68.4% vs 51.2%; P < .001) population with more comorbidities without differences in race or income. SCC patients demonstrated improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .012) and fewer hospitalizations (incidence ratio, 0.54; P < .001), and provided more frequent disease monitoring. Early patient referral to SCC (< 6 months from time of diagnosis) was associated with improved outcomes compared with non-SCC patients. SCC patients were more frequently prescribed vasodilators (P < .001) and carried more diagnostic PAH coding (P < .001). Vasodilators were associated with improved outcomes irrespective of location but without statistical significance when comparing between locations (P > .05). INTERPRETATION: The UPMC SCC demonstrated improved outcomes in mortality and hospitalizations. The SCC benefit was multifactorial, with more frequent vasodilator therapy and disease monitoring. These findings provide robust evidence for early and regular referral of patients with PAH to SCCs.