Does bortezomib influence pre-transplant desensitization therapy or benefit post-heart transplant outcomes for highly sensitized patients?

BACKGROUND

The use of bortezomib which is a proteasome inhibitor has been demonstrated to be efficacious in small number of patients as a desensitization strategy in heart transplant. We reviewed our single center's experience using Bortezomib along with plasmapheresis as desensitization therapy for highly sensitized patients to assess pre- and post-transplant outcomes.

METHOD

We assessed 43 highly sensitized patients awaiting HTx (defined as cPRA > 50%) between 2010 and 2021 who underwent desensitization therapy with bortezomib. Only those patients who subsequently underwent HTx were included in this study. Enrolled patients received up to four doses of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 ) over 2 weeks in conjunction with plasmapheresis. The efficacy of PP/BTZ was assessed by comparing the calculated panel reactive antibodies to HLA class I or class II antigens. Post-transplant outcomes including overall survival and incidence of rejection were compared to those of non-sensitized patients (PRA < 10%, n = 649) from the same center.

RESULTS

The average cPRA prior to PP/BTZ was 94.5%. Post-PP/BTZ there was no statistically significant decline in mean cPRA, class I cPRA, or class II cPRA, though the average percentage decrease in class I cPRA (8.7 ± 17.0%) was higher than the change in class II cPRA (4.4 ± 13.3%). Resulted were also replicated with C1q-binding antibodies showing more effect on I class compared to class II (15.0 ± 37.4% vs. 6.8 ± 33.6%) as well as with 1:8 dilutional assay (14.0 ± 23.0% vs. 9.1 ± 34.9%). Additionally, PP/BTZ treated patients and the control group of non-sensitized patients had similar overall 1 year survival (95.4 vs. 92.5%) but patients with PP/BTZ had increased incidence of AMR (79.1% vs. 97.1%, p = < .001), any treated rejection (62.8% vs. 86.7%, p = < .001) and de novo DSA development (81.4% vs. 92.5%, p = .007). Major side effects of PP/BTZ included thrombocytopenia (42%), infection requiring antibiotics (28%), and neuropathy (12%).

CONCLUSION

The use of bortezomib in highly sensitized patients does not significantly lower circulating antibodies prior to heart transplantation. However, its use may improve the chances of obtaining an immuno-compatible donor heart and contribute to acceptable post-transplant outcomes.

Simultaneous heart-kidney transplant in patients with borderline estimated glomerular filtration rate without dialysis dependency

BACKGROUND

Appropriate patient selection for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation (sHK) in patients with moderate renal dysfunction remains challenging.

METHODS

From the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2003-2020), we identified 5678 adults with an estimated pre-transplant glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between 30 and 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 and no pre-transplant dialysis. Patients undergoing sHK (n = 293) were compared with those undergoing heart transplantation alone (n = 5385) using 1:3 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The sHK utilization rate increased from 1.8% in 2003 to 12.2% in 2020 (p < .001). After matching, 1 and 5-year survival was 87.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83.3-91.0) and 80.0% (95% CI 74.2-84.6) after sHK, and 87.3% (95% CI 85.2-89.1) and 71.8% (95% CI 68.4-74.9) after heart transplant alone (p = .04). In the subgroup analysis, sHK was associated with a 5-year survival benefit only in patients with 30 < eGFR ≤ 35 mL/min/1.73 m2 (p = .05) but not in those with 35 < eGFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (p = .45). Patients who underwent heart transplants alone also had a higher incidence of becoming chronic dialysis-dependent after transplant within 5-year follow-up (10.2%, 95% CI 8.0-12.6 vs. 3.8%, 95% CI 1.7-7.1, p = .004). The 5-year incidence of subsequent kidney waitlisting and transplants after heart transplants alone was 5.6% and 1.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Among propensity-matched patients without pre-transplant dialysis, compared to heart transplants alone, sHK had improved 5-year survival in those with 30 < eGFR ≤ 35 but not in those with 35 < eGFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 . One-year survival was similar irrespective of eGFR. Receiving a kidney after a heart transplant alone is rare under the current allocation system.

Heart retransplant recipients with renal dysfunction benefit from simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Given ongoing donor shortages, appropriate patient selection for dual-organ transplantation is critical. We evaluated outcomes of heart retransplant with simultaneous kidney transplant (HRT-KT) vs isolated heart retransplant (HRT) across varying levels of renal dysfunction.

METHODS

The United Network for Organ Sharing database identified 1189 adult patients undergoing heart retransplantation between 2005 and 2020. Recipients undergoing HRT-KT (n = 251) were compared to those undergoing HRT (n = 938). The primary outcome was 5-year survival; subgroup analyses and multivariable adjustment were performed utilizing the following 3 estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) groups: <30 ml/min/1.73m2, 30-45 ml/min/1.73m2, and >45 ml/min/1.73m2.

RESULTS

HRT-KT recipients were older and had longer waitlist times, longer inter-transplant periods, and lower eGFR levels. HRT-KT recipients were less likely to require pretransplant ventilator (1.2% vs 9.0%, p < 0.001) or ECMO (2.0% vs 8.3%, p < 0.001) support but were more likely to have severe functional limitation (63.4% vs 52.6%, p = 0.001). After retransplantation, HRT-KT recipients had less treated acute rejection (5.2% vs 9.3%, p = 0.02) and more dialysis requirement (29.1% vs 20.2%, p < 0.001) before discharge. Survival at 5-years was 69.1% after HRT and 80.5% after HRT-KT (p < 0.001). After adjustment, HRT-KT was associated with improved 5-year survival among recipients with eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73m2 (HR:0.42, 95% CI: 0.26-0.67) and 30 to 45 ml/min/1.73m2 (HR:0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.65), but not among those with eGFR>45 ml/min/1.73sm2 (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.30-1.54).

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous kidney transplantation is associated with improved survival following heart retransplantation in patients with eGFR <45 ml/min/1.73m2 and should be strongly considered to optimize organ allocation stewardship.

Donation after circulatory death heart procurement strategy impacts utilization and outcomes of concurrently procured abdominal organs

INTRODUCTION

The impact of donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart procurement techniques on the utilization and outcomes of concurrently procured DCD livers and kidneys remains unclear.

METHODS

Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we identified 246 DCD donors whose heart was procured using direct procurement and ex-situ machine perfusion and 128 DCD donors whose heart was procured using in-situ thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (12/2019-03/2022). We evaluated the transplantation rate of concurrently procured DCD livers and kidneys (defined as the number of organs transplanted/total number of organs available for procurement) and their post-transplant outcomes.

RESULTS

The transplantation rate of concurrently procured DCD livers was higher with in-situ perfusion compared to direct procurement (67.1% vs 56.5%, p = 0.045). After excluding pediatric, multiorgan, and repeat transplant recipients, there was no difference in 6-month liver graft failure rate (direct procurement 0.9% vs in-situ perfusion 0%, p > 0.99). Recipients of kidneys procured with in-situ perfusion had less delayed graft function (11.3% vs 41.5%, p < 0.0001) shorter length of stay, and lower serum creatinine at discharge (both p < 0.05). Six-month recipient survival in the direct procurement and in-situ perfusion group were similar after DCD liver and kidney transplantation (p = 0.24 and 0.79 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to direct procurement, DCD heart procurement with in-situ thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion was associated with increased utilization of DCD livers and a lower incidence of delayed graft function in concurrently procured DCD kidneys. Broader implementation of DCD heart transplantation must maximize the transplant potential of concurrently procured abdominal organs and ensure their successful outcomes.

Experience With SynCardia Total Artificial Heart as a Bridge to Transplantation in 100 Patients

BACKGROUND

The SynCardia temporary total artificial heart (TAH-t) is an effective bridge to transplantation for patients with severe biventricular failure. However, granular single-center data from high-volume centers are lacking. We report our experience with the first 100 TAH-t recipients.

METHODS

A prospective institutional database was used to identify 100 patients who underwent 101 TAH-t implantations between 2012 and 2022. Patients were stratified and compared according to Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile 1 vs 2 or greater. Median follow-up on device support was 94 days (interquartile range, 33-276), and median follow-up after transplantation was 4.6 years (interquartile range, 2.1-6.0).

RESULTS

Overall, 61 patients (61%) were successfully bridged to transplantation and 39 (39%) died on TAH-t support. Successful bridge rates between INTERMACS profile 1 and INTERMACS profile 2 or greater patients were similar (55.6% [95% CI, 40.4%-68.3%] vs 67.4% [95% CI, 50.5%-79.6%], respectively; P = .50). The most common adverse events (rates per 100 patient-months) on TAH-t support included infection (15.8), ischemic stroke (4.6), reoperation for mediastinal bleeding (3.5), and gastrointestinal bleeding requiring intervention (4.3). The most common cause of death on TAH-t support was multisystem organ failure (n = 20, 52.6%). Thirty-day survival after transplantation was 96.7%; survival at 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years after transplantation was 95.1% (95% CI, 85.4%-98.4%), 86.6% (95% CI, 74.9%-93.0%), and 77.5% (95% CI, 64.2%-86.3%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptable outcomes can be achieved in the highest acuity patients using the TAH-t as a bridge to heart transplantation.

The impact of the United Network of Organ Sharing allocation change on waitlist trajectories of inpatients listed with inotropic support: A single-center analysis

BACKGROUND

In the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation scheme prior to October 18, 2018, heart transplant (HTx) candidates with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS), or pulmonary artery (PA) catheter inotropic support all received Status 1A priority. In revised scheme, patients with PA catheter and inotropic support are Status 3 after those on ECMO (Status 1) or temporary MCS (Status 2). We examined the impact of the allocation change on HTx candidates listed Status 1A versus Status 3 at a high-volume transplant center.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and January 2021, 75 patients were listed with a PA catheter and inotropic support prior to the allocation change (Era 1) and 48 were listed after (Era 2). Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared for these 123 patients.

RESULTS

Heart transplant (HTx) candidates in Era 2 had higher median inotrope doses at listing. There was no significant difference in inpatient wait list days (12 vs. 20 days, P = .15), transition to temporary MCS (33.3% vs. 22.7%, P = .15), or wait list mortality (6.3% vs. 4.0%, P = .68). There was also no significant difference in survival to transplantation (91.7% vs. 94.7%, P = .71). There were no differences in post-transplant outcomes including 1-year survival (88.6% vs. 93.0%, P = .38).

CONCLUSION

At a high-volume transplant center, the UNOS allocation change did not result in increased wait list time, use of temporary MCS, or mortality on the waitlist or post-transplant for candidates on inotropic support with continuous hemodynamic monitoring.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to durable mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

Patients with cardiogenic shock may require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) prior to durable mechanical circulatory support (dMCS) or heart transplantation (HTx).

METHODS

We investigated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of adult patients with ECMO support as bridge to dMCS or HTx between 1/1/13 and 12/31/20.

RESULTS

Of 57 patients who underwent bridging ECMO, 41 (72%) received dMCS (approximately half with biventricular support) and 16 (28%) underwent HTx, 13 (81%) after the 2018 UNOS allocation system change. ECMO → HTx patients had shorter ventilatory time (3.5 vs 7.5 days; p = 0.018), ICU stay (6 vs 18 days; p = 0.001), and less need for inpatient rehabilitation (18.8% vs 57.5%; p = 0.016). The 1-year survival post HTx was 81.3% in the ECMO → HTx group and 86.4% in the ECMO → dMCS group (p = 0.11). For those patients in the ECMO → dMCS group who did not undergo HTx, 1-year survival was significantly lower, 31.6% (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients on ECMO who undergo HTx, with or without dMCS bridge, have acceptable post-HTx survival. These findings suggest that HTx from ECMO is a viable option for carefully selected patients deemed acceptable to proceed with definitive advanced therapies, especially in the era of the new UNOS allocation system.

Heart transplant recipient 1-year outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID‐19 pandemic initially brought forth considerable challenges to the field of heart transplantation. To prevent the spread of the virus and protect immunocompromised recipients, our center made the following modifications to post‐transplant outpatient management: eliminating early coronary angiograms, video visits for postoperative months 7, 9, and 11, and home blood draws for immunosuppression adjustments. To assess if these changes have impacted patient outcomes, the current study examines 1‐year outcomes for patients transplanted during the pandemic. Between March and September 2020, we assessed 50 heart transplant patients transplanted during the pandemic. These patients were compared to patients who were transplanted during the same months between 2011 and 2019 (n = 482). Endpoints included subsequent 1‐year survival, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy, any‐treated rejection, acute cellular rejection, antibody‐mediated rejection, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events (NF‐MACE), and hospital and ICU length of stay. Patients transplanted during the pandemic had similar 1‐year endpoints compared to those of patients transplanted from years prior apart from 1‐year freedom from NF‐MACE which was significantly higher for patients transplanted during the pandemic. Despite necessary changes being made to outpatient management of heart transplant recipients, heart transplantation continues to be safe and effective with similar 1‐year outcomes to years prior.

Long-term outcomes after heart transplantation using ex vivo allograft perfusion in standard risk donors: A single-center experience

INTRODUCTION

The Organ Care System (OCS) is an ex vivo perfusion platform for donor heart preservation. Short/mid-term post-transplant outcomes after its use are comparable to standard cold storage (CS). We evaluated long-term outcomes following its use.

METHODS

Between 2011 and 2013, 38 patients from a single center were randomized as a part of the PROCEED II trial to receive allografts preserved with CS (n = 19) or OCS (n = 19). Endpoints included 8-year survival, survival free from graft-related deaths, freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), non-fatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE), and rejections.

RESULTS

Eight-year survival was 57.9% in the OCS group and 73.7% in the CS group (p = .24). Freedom from CAV was 89.5% in the OCS group and 67.8% in the CS group (p = .13). Freedom from NF-MACE was 89.5% in the OCS group and 67.5% in the CS group (p = .14). Eight-year survival free from graft-related death was equivalent between the two groups (84.2% vs. 84.2%, p = .93). No differences in rejection episodes were observed (all p > .5).

CONCLUSIONS

In select patients receiving OCS preserved allografts, late post-transplant survival trended lower than those transplanted with an allograft preserved with CS. This is based on a small single-center series, and larger numbers are needed to confirm these findings.