Mechanical Circulatory Support Device Utilization and Heart Transplant Waitlist Outcomes in Patients With Restrictive and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Pediatric Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Restrictive and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Single Center Experience

Patients with restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) were previously considered poor candidates for mechanical circulatory support due to technical limitations related to restrictive ventricular physiology and small ventricular size, limiting the ability to provide adequate flows and decompress the heart. Literature examining use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in this population consists of a single case series reporting no survivors. We report our experience providing ECMO in children with RCM or HCM at a large pediatric quaternary cardiac center. Between 2012 and 2022, five patients (four RCM, one HCM) were supported with seven ECMO runs. All patients were cannulated to ECMO with ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Four patients survived decannulation from ECMO (median support time 209 hr, interquartile range [IQR]: 48-265), of which three (60%) survived to hospital discharge after transitioning to a ventricular assist device (VAD) and undergoing orthotopic heart transplant (OHT). Two remain alive at long-term follow-up with normal or mildly impaired functional status. These findings suggest that while RCM and HCM have traditionally been considered contraindications to ECMO due to adverse outcomes, this population may be successfully supported with ECMO with survival comparable to international registry outcomes in select centers where VAD as a bridge to OHT is available.

International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Evaluation and Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2024

The "International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Evaluation and Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2024" updates and replaces the "Listing Criteria for Heart Transplantation: International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the Care of Cardiac Transplant Candidates-2006" and the "2016 International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation Listing Criteria for Heart Transplantation: A 10-year Update." The document aims to provide tools to help integrate the numerous variables involved in evaluating patients for transplantation, emphasizing updating the collaborative treatment while waiting for a transplant. There have been significant practice-changing developments in the care of heart transplant recipients since the publication of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines in 2006 and the 10-year update in 2016. The changes pertain to 3 aspects of heart transplantation: (1) patient selection criteria, (2) care of selected patient populations, and (3) durable mechanical support. To address these issues, 3 task forces were assembled. Each task force was cochaired by a pediatric heart transplant physician with the specific mandate to highlight issues unique to the pediatric heart transplant population and ensure their adequate representation. This guideline was harmonized with other ISHLT guidelines published through November 2023. The 2024 ISHLT guidelines for the evaluation and care of cardiac transplant candidates provide recommendations based on contemporary scientific evidence and patient management flow diagrams. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association modular knowledge chunk format has been implemented, allowing guideline information to be grouped into discrete packages (or modules) of information on a disease-specific topic or management issue. Aiming to improve the quality of care for heart transplant candidates, the recommendations present an evidence-based approach.

Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: From Medical Treatment to Advanced Heart Failure Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been much debate surrounding novel medical therapies and heart transplantation listing challenges in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent clinical trials led to FDA approval of mavacamten (a cardiac myosin inhibitor), offering symptom relief and potentially delaying/avoiding invasive septal reduction therapies for some patients with HCM and left ventricular outflow obstruction (LVOTO). For those with refractory symptoms and end-stage heart failure, heart transplantation remains the gold standard. However, the concern for the organ allocation system failing to prioritize those individuals persists. HCM is a heterogeneous genetic condition with variable penetration and clinical presentation. Even though a large portion of patients remain asymptomatic, an important minority develops debilitating symptoms refractory to medical therapy. Post-HT short- and long-term outcomes are favorable. However, HT waitlist mortality remains high. For highly selected patients with HCM, a left ventricular assist device is a viable option.

Impact of the New Heart Allocation System on the Medium-Term Outcomes in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

The introduction of the new heart allocation system in the United States in 2018 resulted in an increase in the number of heart transplants (HT) performed among patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). However, whether that affected medium-term post-HT outcomes in this group of patients remains unknown. We conducted an analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing Transplant Database, including adults with HCM who underwent heart transplantation between 2015 and 2021. Patients were divided into two equal-duration eras: Era 1 (October 17, 2015, to October 17, 2018) and Era 2 (October 18, 2018, to October 18, 2021). In the studied period, 444 patients with HCM underwent HT: 204 in Era 1 and 240 in Era 2. In Era 2, the waitlist time was shorter, transplant rates were higher, patients were less frequently supported with inotropes but more often with an IABP, ischemic time was longer, and donor-to-recipient distance larger. Pre- and post-transplant functional status was comparable across the two eras, while the pre-HT employment rate was higher in the new system. The 3 year survival was unchanged across eras. In the new allocation system, despite more frequent mechanical circulatory support (MCS) use and increased ischemic time, the medium-term outcomes of patients with HCM remained favorable.

ECMO as a bridge to heart transplantation: Insights into stratification by heart failure etiology

Background

Revisions to the heart allocation criteria in 2018 motivated an increased use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridge to transplantation. Studies have demonstrated inferior post-transplant outcomes in patients bridged with ECMO but do not account for underlying diagnosis. Our objective was to elucidate the differential impact of ECMO on outcomes by heart failure (HF) etiology.

Methods

The United Network of Organ Sharing database was queried for adults who underwent isolated heart transplantation after October 2018. Patients were stratified by ECMO utilization at the time of transplantation and then by HF etiology. After baseline statistical comparisons, survival analysis relied on Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional models.

Results

A total of 13,203 patients were included, of whom 761 (5.8%) were supported with ECMO. ECMO patients were younger (48 vs 54 years, p < 0.001), less likely to have diabetes (24% vs 30%, p < 0.001), smoke cigarettes (31% vs 41%, p < 0.001), or have prior cardiac surgery (29% vs 36%, p < 0.001), more likely to require dialysis (20% vs 5%, p < 0.001), and spent fewer days on the waitlist (59 vs 190, p < 0.001). After adjustment, ECMO was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.85, p < 0.001) in the full cohort. After incorporating HF etiology, this increased mortality risk persisted in all subgroups except restrictive cardiomyopathy and congenital heart disease (CHD).

Conclusions

Our findings illustrate that HF etiology is associated with differing outcomes when bridging with ECMO. ECMO patients with restrictive cardiomyopathy or CHD did not have increased mortality risk. With ECMO utilization increasing, these data are hypothesis-generating and serve as a basis for further studies.

2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the management of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 14, 2022, to November 22, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 23, 2023, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy remains a common genetic heart disease reported in populations globally. Recommendations from the "2020 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians.

2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the management of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 14, 2022, to November 22, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 23, 2023, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy remains a common genetic heart disease reported in populations globally. Recommendations from the "2020 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians.

Prognosis after heart transplant in patients with hypertrophic and restrictive cardiomyopathy. A nationwide registry analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Posttransplant outcomes among recipients with a diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) or restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) remain controversial.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a nationwide registry of first-time recipients undergoing isolated heart transplant between 1984 and 2021. One-year and 5-year mortality in recipients with HCM and RCM were compared with those with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM).

RESULTS

We included 3703 patients (3112 DCM; 331 HCM; 260 RCM) with a median follow-up of 5.0 [3.1-5.0] years. Compared with DCM, the adjusted 1-year mortality risk was: HCM: HR, 1.38; 95%CI, 1.07-1.78; P=.01, RCM: HR, 1.48; 95%CI, 1.14-1.93; P=.003. The adjusted 5-year mortality risk was: HCM: HR, 1.17; 95%CI, 0.93-1.47; P=.18; RCM: HR, 1.52; 95%CI, 1.22-1.89; P<.001. Over the last 20 years, the RCM group showed significant improvement in 1-year survival (adjusted R2=0.95) and 5-year survival (R2=0.88); the HCM group showed enhanced the 5-year survival (R2=0.59), but the 1-year survival remained stable (R2=0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Both RCM and HCM were linked to a less favorable early posttransplant prognosis compared with DCM. However, at the 5-year mark, this unfavorable difference was evident only for RCM. Notably, a substantial temporal enhancement in both early and late mortality was observed for RCM, while for HCM, this improvement was mainly evident in late mortality.

The role of temporary mechanical circulatory support in de novo heart failure syndromes with cardiogenic shock: A contemporary review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex clinical syndrome with a high mortality rate. It can occur to due to multiple etiologies of cardiovascular disease and is phenotypically heterogeneous. Acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS) has historically been the most prevalent cause, and thus, research and guidance have focused primarily on this. Recent data suggest that the burden of non-ischemic CS is increasing in the population of patents requiring intensive care admission. There is, however, a paucity of data and guidelines to inform the management of these patients who fall into two broad groups: those with existing heart failure and CS and those with no known history of heart failure who present with "de novo" CS. The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has expanded across all etiologies, despite its high cost, resource intensity, complication rates, and lack of high-quality outcome data. Herein, we discuss the currently available evidence on the role of MCS in the management of patients with de novo CS to include fulminant myocarditis, right ventricular (RV) failure, Takotsubo syndrome, post-partum cardiomyopathy, and CS due to valve lesions and other cardiomyopathies.

Theoretical considerations for a left atrial pump in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogenous group of disorders, unified by findings of elevated left atrial and left ventricular filling pressures in the setting of normal systolic function. Medical therapies for HFpEF patients are markedly limited, and these patients are often unable to tolerate conventional left ventricular assist device therapies because of small chamber size. The Synergy System (CircuLite, Inc., Saddle Brook, NJ) was a micropump-based form of mechanical circulatory support in which flow derived from the left atrium was delivered to the subclavian artery. In this review, we discuss the potential role of the Synergy left atrial pump to address the hemodynamic derangements of HFpEF.

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.

Long-term survival after heart transplantation for cardiac sarcoidosis

BACKGROUND

Cardiac sarcoidosis is an increasingly common indication for a heart transplant, but there is a paucity of knowledge with regard to long-term outcomes following transplant.

METHODS

We utilized the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database to retrospectively analyze adult patients undergoing first-time, single-organ heart transplant between January 1999 and March 2020.

RESULTS

Of the 41,447 patients that underwent heart transplant during the study period, 289 (0.7%) were transplanted for a primary diagnosis of restrictive cardiomyopathy due to cardiac sarcoidosis (RCM-Sarcoidosis). RCM-Sarcoidosis was associated with 33% reduced risk of mortality over 10 years compared to non-RCM indications in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model (p = .03). Ten-year survival functions were improved among RCM-Sarcoidosis compared to this reference group (73.4% [64.2%-80.6%] vs. 59.5% [58.8%-60.1%], p = .002). Among patients transplanted after 1999 who had at least 10 years of follow-up (n = 19,489), median survival of RCM-Sarcoidosis patients was 11.9 [8.3-14.6] years while that of non-RCM patients was 9.9 [4.0-13.1] years. RCM-Sarcoidosis was not associated with an increased risk of secondary outcomes such as graft failure, rejection, or infection. The incidence of retransplant was comparable between RCM-Sarcoidosis and non-RCM patients (1.38% vs. 1.50%, p = .93).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that long-term outcomes following transplant for cardiac sarcoidosis are favorable compared to heart transplant for other indications.

Exception Status Listing in the New Adult Heart Allocation System: A New Solution to an Old Problem?

BACKGROUND

One of the goals of the revised 6-tiered US adult heart allocation policy was to improve risk stratification of patients to lower exception status utilization for transplant listing. We sought to define the characteristics and outcomes of waitlisted patients using exception status and to examine region- and center-level differences in utilization of exception status in the new heart allocation system.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database included adult waitlisted patients for heart transplant between October 18, 2018, and June 30, 2020, in the United States, stratified by use of exception status versus standard criteria.

RESULTS

Out of 6351 patients, 1907 (30.0%) were waitlisted under exception status. Patients using exception status were more likely to have a nonischemic cause of heart failure, blood type O, United Network for Organ Sharing status 2 at listing and were less likely to have a durable left ventricular assist device at listing. Exception status utilization varied significantly between and within United Network for Organ Sharing regions. Listing by exception criteria was associated with a significantly higher incidence of heart transplantation compared with listing by standard criteria (hazard ratio, 1.25 [1.15-1.38], P<0.001), without increased risk of death or delisting for worsening clinical status (hazard ratio, 0.83 [0.65-1.05], P=0.12) after multivariable adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

The status tiers of the new heart allocation system may not fully capture medical urgency and complexity of waitlisted patients as assessed by transplant physicians and review committees and may limit the ability to develop a heart allocation score.

Impact of the new heart allocation policy on patients with restrictive, hypertrophic, or congenital cardiomyopathies

Background

Patients with restrictive or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (RCM/HCM) and congenital heart disease (CHD) do not derive clinical benefit from inotropes and mechanical circulatory support. Concerns were expressed that the new heart allocation system implemented in October 2018 would disadvantage these patients. This paper aimed to examine the impact of the new adult heart allocation system on transplantation and outcomes among patients with RCM/HCM/CHD.

Methods

We identified adult patients with RCM/HCM/CHD in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database who were listed for or received a cardiac transplant from April 2017-June 2020. The cohort was separated into those listed before and after allocation system changes. Demographics and recipient characteristics, donor characteristics, waitlist survival, and post-transplantation outcomes were analyzed.

Results

The number of patients listed for RCM/HCM/CHD increased after the allocation system change from 429 to 517. Prior to the change, the majority RCM/HCM/CHD patients were Status 1A at time of transplantation; afterwards, most were Status 2. Wait times decreased significantly for all: RCM (41 days vs 27 days; P<0.05), HCM (55 days vs 38 days; P<0.05), CHD (81 days vs 49 days; P<0.05). Distance traveled increased for all: RCM (76 mi. vs 261 mi, P<0.001), HCM (88 mi. vs 231 mi. P<0.001), CHD (114 mi vs 199 mi, P<0.05). Rates of transplantation were higher for RCM and CHD (P<0.01), whereas post-transplant survival remained unchanged.

Conclusions

The new allocation system has had a positive impact on time to transplantation of patients with RCM, HCM, and CHD without negatively influencing survival.

Changes in heart transplant waitlist and posttransplant outcomes in patients with restrictive and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with the new heart transplant allocation system

Historically, patients with restrictive (RCM) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) experienced longer wait-times for heart transplant (HT) and increased waitlist mortality. Recently, a new HT allocation system was implemented in the United States. We sought to determine the impact of the new HT system on RCM/HCM patients. Adult patients with RCM/HCM listed for HT between November 2015 and September 2019 were identified from the UNOS database. Patients were stratified into two groups: old system and new system. We identified 872 patients who met inclusion criteria. Of these, 608 and 264 were classified in the old and new system groups, respectively. The time in the waitlist was shorter (25 vs. 54 days, P < .001), with an increased frequency of HT in the new system (74% vs. 68%, P = .024). Patients who were transplanted in the new system had a longer ischemic time, increased use of temporary mechanical circulatory support and mechanical ventilation. There was no difference in posttransplant survival at 9 months (91.1% vs. 88.9%) (p = .4). We conclude that patients with RCM/HCM have benefited from the new HT allocation system, with increased access to HT without affecting short-term posttransplant survival.

Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation in Hypertrophic and Restrictive Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in patients with advanced heart failure due to hypertrophic or restrictive cardiomyopathy (HCM/RCM) presents technical and physiologic challenges. We conducted a systematic review of observational studies to evaluate the utilization and clinical outcomes associated with LVAD implantation in patients with HCM/RCM and compared these to patients with dilated or ischemic cardiomyopathy (DCM/ICM). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus from inception through May 2019 and included appropriate studies describing the use of an LVAD in patients with HCM/RCM. We identified six studies with a total of 2,766 patients with HCM/RCM and advanced heart failure, among whom 338 patients (12.2%) underwent LVAD implantation. In patients listed for transplant, the rate of LVAD implantation was significantly lower in patients with HCM/RCM compared to that in patients with DCM/ICM (4.4% vs. 18.2%, p < 0.001). Adverse clinical outcomes were significantly higher in HCM/RCM than in DCM/ICM, including operative/short-term mortality (14.0% vs. 9.0%), right ventricular failure (50.0% vs. 21.0%), infection (15.5% vs. 11.2%), bleeding (40.2% vs. 12.5%), renal failure (15.0% vs. 5.1%), stroke (5.0% vs. 2.4%), and arrhythmias (18.0% vs. 7.7%) (all p values <0.001).

Heart transplantation candidacy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Timely referral of eligible candidates for consideration of advanced therapies, such as a heart transplantation or mechanical circulatory support is essential. The characteristics of heart transplantation candidates have changed significantly over the years, leading to a more complex evaluation process. The present review summarizes recent advances in the evaluation process for heart transplantation eligibility.

RECENT FINDINGS

The heart transplantation allocation policy was recently reviewed in the USA in an effort to reduce waitlist mortality and to ensure fair geographic allocation of organs to the sickest patients. Moreover, patients with chronic infectious diseases, as well as malignancies, are being currently considered acceptable candidates for transplantation. Listing practices for heart transplantation vary between programmes, with a greater willingness to consider high-risk candidates at higher-volume centres.

SUMMARY

The ultimate decision to place high-risk candidates on the heart transplantation waitlist should be based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative data analysis informed by clinical judgement, and the chronic shortage of organ donors makes this process an important ethical concern for any society. Future guidelines should discuss approaches to achieve fair organ allocation while preserving improved outcomes after transplantation.

Comparing outcomes for infiltrative and restrictive cardiomyopathies under the new heart transplant allocation system

The new heart transplantation (HT) allocation policy was introduced on 10/18/2018. Using the UNOS registry, we examined early outcomes following HT for restrictive cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, cardiac sarcoidosis, or cardiac amyloidosis compared to the old system. Those listed who had an event (transplant, death, or waitlist removal) prior to 10/17/2018 were in Era 1, and those listed on or after 10/18/2018 were in Era 2. The primary endpoint was death on the waitlist or delisting due to clinical deterioration. A total of 1232 HT candidates were included, 855 (69.4%) in Era 1 and 377 (30.6%) in Era 2. In Era 2, there was a significant increase in the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support and a reduction in the primary endpoint, (20.9 events per 100 PY (Era 1) vs. 18.6 events per 100 PY (Era 2), OR 1.98, p = .005). Median waitlist time decreased (91 vs. 58 days, p < .001), and transplantation rate increased (119.0 to 204.7 transplants/100 PY for Era 1 vs Era 2). Under the new policy, there has been a decrease in waitlist time and waitlist mortality/delisting due to clinical deterioration, and an increase in transplantation rates for patients with infiltrative, hypertrophic, and restrictive cardiomyopathies without any effect on post-transplant 6-month survival.

Cardiac transplantation for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in the United States 2003-2011

Background:

Cardiac transplant (CT) is the sole option in a minority of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HC) adults with refractory symptoms or end-stage disease.

Aims/Methods:

We aimed to examine the trends and hospital outcomes of CT in HC using 2003-2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database.

Results:

HC comprised 1.1% of CT (151 of 14,277) performed during this time period (age 45±12 years, 67% male, 79% Caucasians). Number of HC CT increased from 2003 to 2011 (odds ratio=1.174; 95% confidence interval=1.102-1.252; P< 0.001). Comorbidities included congestive heart failure (76%), hypertension (23%), chronic kidney disease (23%), hyperlipidemia (19%), diabetes (13%), and coronary artery disease (10%). Acute in-hospital major adverse events occurred in 1 in 4 (23%) patient and 1 in 25 (3.8%) patients died perioperatively. Other major adverse events included allograft rejection or vasculopathy (23%), postoperative stroke or transient ischemic attack (3.5%), acute renal failure (43%), respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (13%), sepsis (10%) or need for blood transfusion (10%). Compared to 1990-2004 United Network of Organ Sharing registry data (n=303), patients in current cohort had more comorbid conditions [diabetes (13%-vs-0%); chronic obstructive lung disease (9%-vs-1%); P < 0.001 for both), were more likely to be male (66%-vs-48% P< 0.001), were less likely to be Caucasian (79%-vs-86%; P < 0.001) or smokers (3%-vs-17%; P < 0.001) and less often required perioperative circulatory support or hemodialysis (17%-vs-49%, P < 0.001 and 3.2%-vs-8.3%, P = 0.04, respectively).

Conclusion:

HC comprises a small proportion of patients undergoing CT. The annual number of CT in HC has increased in recent years at least in part due to inclusion of patients with more comorbid conditions. Transplant recipients in the current cohort, however, required less postoperative circulatory support or renal replacement therapy.

Utility of the INTERMACS profile at the time of assessment for heart transplant

The Interagency Registry of Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profiles are associated with mortality in heart failure patients undergoing ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation and heart transplantation (HTx). We assessed the prognostic value of the INTERMACS profile at the time of assessment for HTx or durable VAD implantation as bridge to candidacy (BTC). A total of 503 consecutive patients considered for HTx or VAD between 2006 and 2016 were included. The associations between INTERMACS profile and (a) waitlist mortality or delisting, (b) probability of HTx, and (c) overall mortality or delisting were evaluated using multivariable analysis. Median follow-up time was 2.9 years (IQR: 0.9-5.5) during which 184 received VAD, 347 received HTx, and 73 died (27 waitlist, 46 post-transplant). INTERMACS I-II profile was associated with higher waitlist mortality or delisting (HR: 3.83, 95% CI: 1.22-12.03), and this risk was reversed by VAD implantation (HR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.03-0.50). INTERMACS III-IV profile was associated with a higher probability of HTx (HR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.37-2.40). INTERMACS profile was not associated with the composite outcome of overall mortality or delisting. These results emphasize the prognostic utility of INTERMACS at time of decision for advanced therapies and its potential value in selecting patients for different interventions.

Advanced Heart Failure Management and Transplantation

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a genetic heart disease with heterogeneous clinical features, including progression to advanced heart failure. The development of these symptoms can be related to outflow obstruction but in some patients reflects an underlying process of fibrosis and progressive ventricular dysfunction. For patients with end-stage disease, traditional heart failure therapies have not proved beneficial. As such, more advanced therapies, such as left ventricular assist device or cardiac transplantation, should be considered for these patients. Although left ventricular assist device support is used infrequently due to the restrictive physiology underlying hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, transplant represents an effective treatment, with encouraging long-term outcome data.