Is an emergency heart transplantation justified?

Heart transplantation as a rescue strategy for patients with refractory electrical storm

AIMS

Heart transplantation (HT) can be proposed as a therapeutic strategy for patients with severe refractory electrical storm (ES). Data in the literature are scarce and based on case reports. We aimed at determining the characteristics and survival of patients transplanted for refractory ES.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients registered on HT waiting list during the following days after ES and eventually transplanted, from 2010 to 2021, were retrospectively included in 11 French centres. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Forty-five patients were included [82% men; 55.0 (47.8-59.3) years old; 42.2% and 26.7% non-ischaemic dilated or ischaemic cardiomyopathies, respectively]. Among them, 42 (93.3%) received amiodarone, 29 received (64.4%) beta blockers, 19 (42.2%) required deep sedation, 22 had (48.9%) mechanical circulatory support, and 9 (20.0%) had radiofrequency catheter ablation. Twenty-two patients (62%) were in cardiogenic shock. Inscription on wait list and transplantation occurred 3.0 (1.0-5.0) days and 9.0 (4.0-14.0) days after ES onset, respectively. After transplantation, 20 patients (44.4%) needed immediate haemodynamic support by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). In-hospital mortality rate was 28.9%. Predictors of in-hospital mortality were serum creatinine/urea levels, need for immediate post-operative ECMO support, post-operative complications, and surgical re-interventions. One-year survival was 68.9%.

CONCLUSION

Electrical storm is a rare indication of HT but may be lifesaving in those patients presenting intractable arrhythmias despite usual care. Most patients can be safely discharged from hospital, although post-operative mortality remains substantial in this context of emergency transplantation. Larger studies are warranted to precisely determine those patients at higher risk of in-hospital mortality.

Impact of Preoperative Pulmonary Hypertension on Survival in Patients Undergoing Elective Heart Transplant

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) represents a marker of bad prognosis in left heart disease. Nonetheless, the effect on survival after heart transplant remains controversial. The objective was to study the impact of preoperative PAH on survival in patients undergoing elective heart transplant.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 173 transplant recipients was conducted at a single hospital from January 2009 to December 2018. Congenital etiology and emergent heart transplant were exclusion criteria as well as those patients without enough data in the hemodynamic study. Two groups were considered: A (without PAH) and B (with HTP). PAH was classified as mild (mean pulmonary arterial pressure [mPAP] 25-34 mm Hg, pulmonary vascular resistance [PVR] 2.5-3.4 Wood units and/or transpulmonary gradient [TPG] 13-16 mm Hg), moderate (mPAP 35-44 mm Hg, PVR 3.5-4.9 Wood units and/or TPG 17-19 mm Hg), and severe (mPAP > 44 mm Hg, PVR > 4.9 Wood units and/or TPG > 19 mm Hg).

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients were enrolled; 71.6% were male and average age was 52.3 (SD, 10.02) years. The main etiology was ischemic cardiomyopathy; 13.7% underwent previous heart operations. A total of 61 patients (59.8%) had PAH prior to heart transplant: 25 mild, 34 moderate, and 2 severe. Mean overall survival after transplant was 79.9 (SD, 5.68) months, without differences between the 2 groups (P = .82). One-month survival was 89% (the main cause of mortality was primary graft dysfunction), and 1-year survival was 78%. Four patients required mechanical circulatory support during early post-transplant period.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative PAH does not have a significant impact on survival in elective heart transplant.

DURABLE MECHANICAL CIRCULATION SUPPORT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO HEART TRANSPLANTATION

In the review a comparative analysis of the treatment of end-stage chronic heart failure using heart transplantation and durable mechanical circulatory is conducted. It shows the main advantages and limitations of heart transplantation and the prospects of application of durable mechanical circulatory support technology. The main directions of this technology, including two-stage heart transplant (bridge to transplant – BTT), assisted circulation for myocardial recovery (bridge to recovery – BTR) and implantation of an auxiliary pump on a regular basis (destination therapy, DT). 

Results of heart transplantation in the urgent recipient--who should be transplanted?

Objective

To evaluate immediate and long-term results of cardiac transplantation at two different levels of urgency.

Methods

From November 2003 to December 2012, 228 patients underwent cardiac transplantation. Children and patients in cardiogenic shock were excluded from the study. From the final group (n=212), 58 patients (27%) were hospitalized under inotropic support (Group A), while 154 (73%) were awaiting transplantation at home (Group B). Patients in Group A were younger (52.0±11.3 vs. 55.2±10.4 years, P=0.050) and had shorter waiting times (29.4±43.8 vs. 48.8±45.2 days; P=0.006). No difference was found for sex or other comorbidities. Haemoglobin was lower and creatinine higher in Group A. The characteristics of the donors were similar. Follow-up was 4.5±2.7 years.

Results

No differences were found in time of ischemia (89.1±37.0 vs. 91.5±34.5 min, P=0.660) or inotropic support (13.8% vs. 11.0%, P=0.579), neither in the incidence of cellular or humoral rejection and of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. De novo diabetes de novo in the first year was slightly higher in Group A (15.5% vs. 11.7%, P=0.456), and these patients were at increased risk of serious infection (22.4% vs. 12.3%, P=0.068). Hospital mortality was similar (3.4% vs. 4.5%, P=0.724), as well as long-term survival (7.8±0.5 vs. 7.4±0.3 years).

Conclusions

The results obtained in patients hospitalized under inotropic support were similar to those of patients awaiting transplantation at home. Allocation of donors to the first group does not seem to compromise the benefit of transplantation. These results may not be extensible to more critical patients.

Advanced heart failure in critical patients (INTERMACS 1 and 2 levels): ventricular assist devices or emergency transplantation?

OBJECTIVE

For patients in advanced heart failure, emergency transplantation or ventricular assist devices (VADs) are possible strategies. The aim of this single-centre, retrospective study was to evaluate early and long-term results for these two strategies.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2011, we analysed 49 INTERMACS level 1 and 2 patients, who were divided into the following two groups: group A comprised 26 patients on the waiting list for heart transplantation with urgent conditions; and group B comprised 23 patients who underwent VAD implantation as a bridge to candidacy.

RESULTS

In group A, 25 patients underwent transplantation. In group B, 19 patients were supported with left VAD and four with biventricular VAD. Of these 23 patients, 13 underwent transplantation (mean time 279 ± 196 days). The 30 day mortality was 42.3 and 4.3% in group A and B, respectively. Survival at 6 and 12 months was significantly better in group B than in group A (87 vs 53%, P = 0.018 at 6 months; and 77 vs 48%, P = 0.045 at 12 months).

CONCLUSION

Improved outcomes may justify the use of mechanical assistance devices as a bridge to candidacy or bridge to transplantation in INTERMACS 1 and 2 patients in order to avoid high-risk transplants. Evaluation of long-term multicentre outcomes is needed to assess future strategies.

[Major complications in the recovery unit following heart transplant: incidence and risk factors]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence of major complications in the postoperative recovery unit and to analyze the associated recipient, donor, and surgical risk factors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We studied a series of consecutive orthotopic heart transplants carried out in our hospital from 2001 through 2007. Patients who experienced major complications during their stay in the recovery ward were compared with those who did not. Exitus, primary graft failure, severe infection, and need for hemodialysis were considered major complications.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-two patients were enrolled. The mean stay in the recovery unit was 3 days (range, 225-5 days). Thirty-nine patients (26%) developed major complications in the recovery unit and 113 did not. The complications were primary graft failure (20%), infection (12%), and acute renal failure (53%). Patients with and without major complications were significantly different with respect to mean (SD) age (55 [6] vs 50 [12] years, respectively; P=.001), presence of diabetes mellitus (41% vs 14%, P=.0001), classification in New York Heart Association functional class IV/IV status (54% vs 34%, P=.05), emergency transplantation (46% vs 18%, P=.001), mean cardiopulmonary bypass time (145 [66] vs 119 [35], P=.03), pretransplant use of an intra-aortic balloon pump (15% vs 6%, P=.04). Multivariate analysis demonstrated an association between major complications and emergency transplantation (OR, 5.67; P=.001), recipient age over 55 years (OR, 2.99; P=.027), and diabetes mellitus (OR, 2.86; P=.048).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of major complications in our postoperative recovery unit was 26%. The most common complications were primary graft failure, infection, and acute renal failure. Emergency transplantation, older age, and a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in the recipient were predictors of complication.

Differences in early postoperative complications in elective and emergency heart transplantation

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The immediate postoperative period is a critical phase in heart transplantation. Severe complications occur that may influence short-term and medium-term morbidity and mortality in these patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence of severe complications in emergency and nonemergency transplantations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We studied 152 patients who underwent heart transplantation between 2001 and 2007. Combined transplantations and retransplantations were excluded. Two groups were considered: emergency transplantations (36 patients, 24%) and elective transplantations. We compared survival and occurrence of infection, primary graft failure (PGF), renal and hepatic failure, respiratory complications, cardiac tamponade, arrhythmias, reoperation, and intensive care unit (ICU) stay.

RESULTS

The emergency transplantation group had a greater number of ischemic patients, with a more prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time, and a larger proportion of donors were women. Overall mortality in the intensive care unit was 2.6%, with no differences between groups. However, emergency procedures were significantly associated with a higher incidence of PGF, need for intraaortic balloon pump, and a more prolonged mechanical ventilation time, as well as a greater number of bacterial infections and a significantly longer ICU stay.

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, emergency transplantation showed no greater perioperative mortality. We observed a greater number of severe complications, such as PGF, bacterial infection, and more prolonged mechanical ventilation time.