Complicaciones infecciosas relacionadas con la asistencia circulatoria mecánica de corta duración en candidatos a trasplante cardiaco urgente / Infectious complications associated with short-term mechanical circulatory support in urgent heart transplant candidates

Introducción y objetivos: El uso de dispositivos de asistencia circulatoria mecánica de corta duración como puente a trasplante es frecuente en España. Se desconocen la epidemiología y la repercusión de las complicaciones infecciosas en estos pacientes. Métodos: Descripción sistemática de la epidemiología y análisis de la repercusión pronóstica de las complicaciones infecciosas en un registro multicéntrico retrospectivo de pacientes tratados con dispositivos de asistencia circulatoria mecánica de corta duración como puente a trasplante cardiaco urgente entre 2010 y 2015 en 16 hospitales españoles. Resultados: Se estudió a 249 pacientes; 87 (34,9%) de ellos tuvieron un total de 102 infecciones. La vía respiratoria fue la localización más frecuente (n=47; 46,1%). En 78 casos (76,5%) se obtuvo confirmación microbiológica; se aislaron en total 100 gérmenes causales, con predominio de bacterias gramnegativas (n=58, 58%). Los pacientes con complicaciones infecciosas presentaron mayor mortalidad durante el periodo de asistencia circulatoria mecánica (el 25,3 frente al 12,3%; p=0,009) y menor probabilidad de recibir un trasplante (el 73,6 frente al 85,2%; p=0,025) que los pacientes sin infección. La mortalidad posoperatoria tras el trasplante fue similar en ambos grupos (con infección, el 28,3%; sin infección, el 23,4%; p=0,471). Conclusiones: Los pacientes tratados con dispositivos de asistencia circulatoria mecánica de corta duración como puente al trasplante cardiaco están expuestos a un alto riesgo de complicaciones infecciosas, las cuales se asocian con una mayor mortalidad en espera del órgano (AU)

Introduction and objectives: Short-term mechanical circulatory support is frequently used as a bridge to heart transplant in Spain. The epidemiology and prognostic impact of infectious complications in these patients are unknown. Methods: Systematic description of the epidemiology of infectious complications and analysis of their prognostic impact in a multicenter, retrospective registry of patients treated with short-term mechanical devices as a bridge to urgent heart transplant from 2010 to 2015 in 16 Spanish hospitals. Results: We studied 249 patients, of which 87 (34.9%) had a total of 102 infections. The most frequent site was the respiratory tract (n=47; 46.1%). Microbiological confirmation was obtained in 78 (76.5%) episodes, with a total of 100 causative agents, showing a predominance of gram-negative bacteria (n=58, 58%). Compared with patients without infection, those with infectious complications showed higher mortality during the support period (25.3% vs 12.3%, P=.009) and a lower probability of receiving a transplant (73.6% vs 85.2%, P=.025). In-hospital posttransplant mortality was similar in the 2 groups (with infection: 28.3%; without infection: 23.4%; P=.471). Conclusions: Patients supported with temporary devices as a bridge to heart transplant are exposed to a high risk of infectious complications, which are associated with higher mortality during the organ waiting period (AU)

Prognostic Value of Blood Panel Parameters in Patients With Dilated Cardiomyopathy and Advanced Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and left ventricular dysfunction have a varied clinical course, not only dependent on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and symptoms. Finding prognostic markers for stratification in these 2 conditions is a critical area of research. Our aim was determine the prognostic value of blood panel basic parameters. METHODS: We analyzed all patients with idiopathic or familial DCM and LVEF <30% coming to our heart failure unit for evaluation for non-urgent heart transplant during the period of 2009 to 2011. With 5 years of follow-up data, we could study the prognostic value of blood panel parameters. Moreover, we determined the combination of platelet count and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio score from the BIOSTAT-CHF study. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were included in the study. After 5 years follow-up, 49 patients (57%) remain alive (group A) and 38 (43%) either died or needed a heart transplant. There were no differences between groups with regard to age or sex. Patients with good progress showed a lower red cell distribution width (RDW), a higher lymphocyte count, and a lower neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio in the initial blood panel. An RDW ≥15% was associated with long-term mortality or heart transplant. CONCLUSION: A basic blood panel could be a useful tool in assessing patients with heart failure. Larger studies are necessary to confirm our findings. A multimarker strategy could also be useful for stratification of patients with advanced heart failure.

Complex Congenital Heart Disease: Is Heart Transplantation an Option?

INTRODUCTION: Within the heart transplant (HT) population, few patients have complex congenital heart disease (CHD) underlying disease. Our objective is to assess the complications and follow-up of patients with CHD transplanted in our center (1991-present). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients older than 14 years old with CHD and HT. Clinical and surgical variables were analyzed. RESULTS: Ten patients (age 25 ± 7 years old, 60% male) were analyzed, which represents 2.2% of the entire series of HT; 9 of the 10 patients were electively transplanted and 1 was under support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Compared with the rest of the transplanted patients, patients with CHD had a lower median age (25 [25-36] vs 53 [15-69]; P < .009); more cardiac surgeries prior to HT (100% vs 14.4%; P < .001); a lower percentage of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF; 0% vs 60%; P < .001). The left ventricle ejection fraction also showed statistically significant differences (33.5 [12-67] vs 20 [6-70]). CONCLUSIONS: Our patients with CHD and HT are younger and have less CVRF and more cardiac surgeries, which highlights that it is a subgroup with clear clinical differences in its comorbidity and pretransplantation assessment. They also require longer extracorporeal circulation time, more hours of intubation, and more days in the intensive care unit. Primary graft failure is more common in patients with CHD. Therefore, survival at 1-month follow-up is lower than the rest of the series and equalizes after the year of follow-up. This long-term survival reaffirms the possibility of HT in CHD despite the fact that its postoperative period is more difficult.

Preoperative Cardiac Assessment of Patients Undergoing Orthotopic Liver Transplantation: Experience in One Center.

Preoperative cardiac evaluation of patients undergoing liver transplantation is not well established. Stress testing is used in many centers, and clinical guidelines suggest its use. However, the specificity and sensibility of stress echocardiography to predict coronary lesions have been very low in some studies. Moreover, it has a low positive predictive value to predict complications after liver transplantation. We retrospectively analyzed 143 patients who underwent liver transplantation in our center and report our experience in the use of stress echocardiography. We describe cardiac complications during and after liver transplantation. Low prevalence of ischemic heart disease in asymptomatic patients undergoing liver transplantation make stress testing useless in risk stratification because it has a low positive predictive value. So the risk stratification of these patients before liver transplant surgery remains a challenge.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator for primary prevention in patients with severe ventricular dysfunction awaiting heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Despite an increase in patients with end-stage heart failure, the acceptance rate has been going down in recent years owing to a change in donor demographics. Furthermore, the rate of emergency heart transplantation has progressively increased. The result is an increase in the time awaiting heart transplantation in elective patients and therefore in the risk of sudden death in this population. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) could be a preventive option in these cases. However, indications for the implantation in this population are not well established. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of ICDs for primary prevention in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 30% included on the heart transplantation list. METHODS: Records from patients accepted for heart transplantation in our institution from January 1, 2006, to July 30, 2012, and whose LVEF was <31% were reviewed. Patients who received ICDs for primary prevention (n = 28) were compared with patients without ICDs (n = 51). Descriptive and univariate (χ(2) and t tests) statistics and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used for analyses. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 77 days (range 1-1,231), the overall mortality in the ICD group was 7.1% (2/28) and in the non-ICD group was 17.6% (9/51; P = .062). The main cause of death in patients without ICDs was sudden death (5/9, 55.6%), followed by heart failure (4/9, 44.4%). In patients with ICDs, heart failure was the only reported cause of death. Appropriate ICD therapies were recorded in 42.9% (12/28) in this population. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that ICD could reduce the risk of sudden death in patients with LVEF ≤ 30% while awaiting heart transplantation. However, more studies are needed to confirm these results.