Hemodynamic effects of COVID-19 vaccination in hospitalized patients awaiting heart transplantation.

Background: The hemodynamic effects of pre-transplant vaccination against COVID-19 among heart transplant candidates hospitalized for advanced heart failure remains unknown. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted at a high-volume transplant center from January through December 2021. 22 COVID-19 vaccination events occurred among patients hospitalized for decompensated heart failure while awaiting transplantation. Primary outcomes included inotrope and vasopressor dosages. Secondary outcomes included vital signs, pulmonary artery catheter measurements, diuretic dosages, and renal function. Data were extracted 24 h before through 72 h after vaccination. Results: One of 22 vaccination events was associated with hemodynamic changes requiring increased inotropic and vasopressor support post-vaccination. In all other cases, transient hemodynamic changes occurred without need for escalated therapy. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination can be administered safely to most critically ill patients with advanced heart failure including those awaiting transplantation. All patients should be monitored closely as some may be susceptible to significant hemodynamic changes.

The Impact of Transitioning From In-Person to Virtual Heart Transplantation Selection Committee Meetings: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Heart transplant selection committee meetings have transitioned from in-person to remote video meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic, but how this impacts committee members and patient outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine the perceived impact of remote video transplant selection meetings on usability and patient care and to measure patient selection outcomes during the transition period from in-person to virtual meetings. METHODS: A 35-item anonymous survey was developed and distributed electronically to the heart transplant selection committee. We reviewed medical records to compare the outcomes of patients presented at in-person meetings (January-March 2020) to those presented during video meetings (March-June 2020). RESULTS: Among 83 committee members queried, 50 were regular attendees. Of the 50 regular attendees, 24 (48%) were physicians and 26 (52%) were nonphysicians, including nurses, social workers, and coordinators; 46 responses were received, 23 (50%) from physicians and 23 (50%) from nonphysicians, with 41 responses fully completed. Overall, respondents were satisfied with the videoconference format and felt that video meetings did not impact patient care and were an acceptable alternative to in-person meetings. However, 54% (22/41) preferred in-person meetings, with 71% (15/21) of nonphysicians preferring in-person meetings compared to only 35% (7/20) of physicians (P=.02). Of the 46 new patient evaluations presented, there was a statistically nonsignificant trend toward fewer patients initially declined at video meetings compared with in-person meetings (6/24, 25% compared to 10/22, 45%; P=.32). CONCLUSIONS: The transition from in-person to video heart transplant selection committee meetings was well-received and did not appear to affect committee members' perceived ability to deliver patient care. Patient selection outcomes were similar between meeting modalities.

Heart transplantation in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: A single-center case series.

The infectious disease coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on solid organ transplantations, including heart transplantation, is currently unclear. Many transplant programs have been forced to swiftly re-evaluate and adapt their practices, leading to a marked decrease in transplants performed. This trend has been due to various factors, including increased donor COVID-19 screening scrutiny and recipient waiting list management in anticipation of COVID-19 critical care surge capacity planning. In the face of these unknown variables, determining when and how to proceed with transplantation in our population of patients with end-stage cardiomyopathies is challenging. Here, we describe our center's experience with orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) in one of the country's pandemic epicenters, where we performed eight OHTs in the first 2 months after community spread began in late February 2020.

Effect of high-frequency chest wall oscillation versus chest physiotherapy on lung function after lung transplant.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of chest physiotherapy (CPT) and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO) on lung function in lung transplant recipients. BACKGROUND: Chest physiotherapy and HFCWO are routinely used after lung transplant to attenuate dyspnea, increase expiratory flow, and improve secretion clearance. METHODS: In a two-group experimental, crossover design with repeated-measures, 45 lung transplant recipients (27 single, 18 bilateral; 64% male; mean age, 57 years) were randomized to receive CPT at 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM followed by HFCWO at 6:00 PM and 10:00 PM (n=22) or vice versa (n=23) on postoperative day 3. Dyspnea (modified Borg score), Spo2/FiO2, and peak expiratory flow (PEF) were measured pre-treatment and post-treatment. Data were analyzed using chi-square tests, t tests, and linear mixed effects models. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant treatment effect for dyspnea or PEF in patients who received HFCWO versus CPT. However, there was a significant treatment effect on the Spo2/FiO2 ratio (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results suggest that lung function (measured by Spo2/FiO2) improves with HFWCO after lung transplantation. Although dyspnea and PEF did not differ significantly between treatment types, HFCWO may be an effective, feasible alternative to CPT.

CNE article: pain after lung transplant: high-frequency chest wall oscillation vs chest physiotherapy.

Background Chest physiotherapy and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO) are routinely used after lung transplant to facilitate removal of secretions. To date, no studies have been done to investigate which therapy is more comfortable and preferred by lung transplant recipients. Patients who have less pain may mobilize secretions, heal, and recover faster. Objectives To compare effects of HFCWO versus chest physiotherapy on pain and preference in lung transplant recipients. Methods In a 2-group experimental, repeated-measures design, 45 lung transplant recipients (27 single lung, 18 bilateral) were randomized to chest physiotherapy (10 AM, 2 PM) followed by HFCWO (6 PM, 10 PM; group 1, n=22) or vice versa (group 2, n=23) on postoperative day 3. A verbal numeric rating scale was used to measure pain before and after treatment. At the end of the treatment sequence, a 4-item patient survey was administered to assess treatment preference, pain, and effectiveness. Data were analyzed with χ(2) and t tests and repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results A significant interaction was found between mean difference in pain scores from before to after treatment and treatment method; pain scores decreased more when HFCWO was done at 10 AM and 6 PM (P =.04). Bilateral transplant recipients showed a significant preference for HFCWO over chest physiotherapy (11 [85%] vs 2 [15%], P=.01). However, single lung recipients showed no significant difference in preference between the 2 treatments (11 [42%] vs 14 [54%]). Conclusions HFCWO seems to provide greater decreases in pain scores than does chest physiotherapy. Bilateral lung transplant recipients preferred HFCWO to chest physiotherapy. HFCWO may be an effective, feasible alternative to chest physiotherapy. (American Journal of Critical Care. 2013;22:115-125).