National outcomes of bridge to multiorgan cardiac transplantation using mechanical circulatory support.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the profile of patients with multiorgan failure listed for simultaneous cardiac transplantation and secondary organ. In addition, few studies have reported how these patients are bridged with mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In this study, we examined national data of patients listed for multiorgan transplantation and their outcomes after bridging with or without MCS. METHODS: United Network for Organ Sharing data were reviewed for adult multiorgan transplantations from 1986 to 2019. Post-transplant patients and total waitlist listings were examined and stratified according to MCS status. Survival was assessed via Cox regression in the post-transplant cohort and Fine-Gray competing risk regression with transplantation as a competing risk in the waitlist cohort. RESULTS: There were 4534 waitlist patients for multiorgan transplant during the study period, of whom 2117 received multiorgan transplants. There was no significant difference in post-transplant survival between the MCS types and those without MCS in the whole cohort and heart-kidney subgroup. Fine-Gray competing risk regression showed that patients bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation had significantly greater waitlist mortality compared with those without MCS when controlling for preoperative characteristics (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-3.47; P < .001), whereas those bridged with a ventricular assist device had a decreased incidence of death compared with those without MCS (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.96; P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: MCS, as currently applied, does not appear to compromise the survival of multiorgan heart transplant patients. Waitlist data show that extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients have profoundly worse survival irrespective of preoperative factors including organ type listed. Survival on the waitlist for multiorgan transplant has improved across device eras.

Correlation between aortic valve protein levels and vector flow mapping of wall shear stress and oscillatory shear index in patients supported with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND: Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices commonly lead to aortic regurgitation, which results in decreased pump efficiency and worsening heart failure. We hypothesized that non-physiological wall shear stress and oscillatory shear index alter the abundance of structural proteins in aortic valves of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients. METHODS: Doppler images of aortic valves of patients undergoing heart transplants were obtained. Eight patients had been supported with LVADs, whereas 10 were not. Aortic valve tissue was collected and protein levels were analyzed using mass spectrometry. Echocardiographic images were analyzed and wall shear stress and oscillatory shear index were calculated. The relationship between normalized levels of individual proteins and in vivo echocardiographic measurements was evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 57 proteins of interest, there was a strong negative correlation between levels of 15 proteins and the wall shear stress (R < -0.500, p ≤ 0.05), and a moderate negative correlation between 16 proteins and wall shear stress (R -0.500 to -0.300, p ≤ 0.05). Gene ontology analysis demonstrated clusters of proteins involved in cellular structure. Proteins negatively correlated with WSS included those with cytoskeletal, actin/myosin, cell-cell junction and extracellular functions. C: In aortic valve tissue, 31 proteins were identified involved in cellular structure and extracellular junctions with a negative correlation between their levels and wall shear stress. These findings suggest an association between the forces acting on the aortic valve (AV) and leaflet protein abundance, and may form a mechanical basis for the increased risk of aortic leaflet degeneration in LVAD patients.

In COVID-19 Patients Who Suffer In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Outcomes May Be Impacted by Arrest Etiology and Local Pandemic Conditions.

OBJECTIVES: The utility and risks to providers of performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation after in-hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19 patients have been questioned. Additionally, there are discrepancies in reported COVID-19 in-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates. We describe outcomes after cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest in two COVID-19 patient cohorts. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, NY. PATIENTS: Those admitted with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020, as well as between March 1, 2021, and May 31, 2021, who received resuscitation after in-hospital cardiac arrest. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 103 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who were resuscitated after in-hospital cardiac arrest in spring 2020, most self-identified as Hispanic/Latino or African American, 35 (34.0%) had return of spontaneous circulation for at least 20 minutes, and 15 (14.6%) survived to 30 days post-arrest. Compared with nonsurvivors, 30-day survivors experienced in-hospital cardiac arrest later (day 22 vs day 7; p = 0.008) and were more likely to have had an acute respiratory event preceding in-hospital cardiac arrest (93.3% vs 27.3%; p < 0.001). Among 30-day survivors, 11 (73.3%) survived to hospital discharge, at which point 8 (72.7%) had Cerebral Performance Category scores of 1 or 2. Among 26 COVID-19 patients resuscitated after in-hospital cardiac arrest in spring 2021, 15 (57.7%) had return of spontaneous circulation for at least 20 minutes, 3 (11.5%) survived to 30 days post in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 2 (7.7%) survived to hospital discharge, both with Cerebral Performance Category scores of 2 or less. Those who survived to 30 days post in-hospital cardiac arrest were younger (46.3 vs 67.8; p = 0.03), but otherwise there were no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation after in-hospital cardiac arrest had low survival rates. Our findings additionally show return of spontaneous circulation rates in these patients may be impacted by hospital strain and that patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest preceded by acute respiratory events might be more likely to survive to 30 days, suggesting Advanced Cardiac Life Support efforts may be more successful in this subpopulation.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Impact of an Anorectal Surgery Multimodal Enhanced Recovery Program on Opioid Use.

BACKGROUND: Anorectal cases may be a common gateway to the opioid epidemic. Opioid reduction is inherent in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, but little work has evaluated ERAS in these cases. OBJECTIVE: To determine if ERAS could reduce postoperative opioid utilization in ambulatory anorectal surgery without sacrificing patient pain or satisfaction. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial assigned ambulatory anorectal patients to ERAS (experimental) or routine care (surgeon's choice) for pain management (control) over 30-days postoperatively. Primary outcome was overall days of opioid use. Secondary outcomes included pain and satisfaction scores over multiple time points and new persistent opioid use. The Visual Analog Scale, Functional Pain Scale, and EQ-5D-3L measured patient-reported pain and satisfaction. Univariate analysis compared outcomes overall and at individual time points. Two-way mixed ANOVA evaluated pain and satisfaction measures between groups and over time. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were randomized into each arm (64 total). The control group consumed significantly more opioids after discharge (median 121.3MME vs 23.5MME, P < 0.001). Significantly more control patients requested additional narcotics (P  =  0.004), made unplanned calls (P = 0.009), and had unplanned clinic visits (P = 0.003). The control group had significantly more days on opioids (mean 14.4 vs 2.2, P < 0.001). Three control patients (9.4%) versus no experimental patients had new persistent opioid use. The mean global health, EQ5D-3L, Visual Analog Scale, and Functional Pain scores were comparable between groups over time. CONCLUSIONS: An ERAS protocol in ambulatory anorectal surgery is feasible, and resulted in reduced opioid use, and healthcare utilization, with no difference in pain or patient satisfaction. This challenges the paradigm that extended opioids are needed for effective postoperative pain management.

Adoption and Usage of Video Telehealth in a Large, Academic Department of Surgery.

Objectives: To understand the impact that video telehealth has on outpatient visit volume and reimbursement as a method of maintaining care. Background: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread across the United States starting in 2020, it caused numerous areas of medicine and healthcare to reexamine how we provide care to patients across all disciplines. One method clinicians used to rapidly adapt to these transformed settings was video telehealth, which was previously rarely used. Methods: This retrospective review examined outpatient volume and reimbursement data of a large, academic department of surgery. The study reviewed data during 2 time periods: pre-COVID-19 (February 1, 2020, to March 15, 2020) and COVID-19 (March 16, 2020, to April 30, 2020). Results: During the period of February 1 to April 30, 13,193 outpatient visits were analyzed. The pre-COVID-19 group contained 9041 (68.5%) visits, whereas the COVID-19 group contained 4152 (31.4%) visits. All divisions noted a drop in visit volume from pre-COVID-19 compared with COVID-19. There was rapid adoption of video telehealth during COVID-19, which made up most patient visits during that time (61.3%). We also found that video telehealth led to significant reimbursements while also allowing patients in numerous states to receive care. Conclusions: Previously, video telehealth was used by clinicians in a small portion of outpatient visits. However, safety concerns surrounding COVID-19 forced multiple changes to the way care is provided. Although outpatient volume at our center was less than that before the pandemic, video telehealth was rapidly adopted by providers and allowed for safe and effective outpatient care to patients in a high number of states while still being reimbursed at a high rate.