Primary graft failure (PGF) is a devastating complication that occurs in the immediate postoperative period following heart transplantation. It manifests as severe ventricular dysfunction of the donor graft and carries significant mortality and morbidity. In the last decade, advances in pharmacological treatment and mechanical circulatory support have improved the outlook for heart transplant recipients who develop this complication. Despite these advances in treatment, PGF is still the leading cause of death in the first 30 days after transplantation. In today's climate of significant organ shortages and growing waiting lists, transplant units worldwide have increasingly utilised “marginal donors” to try and bridge the gap between “supply and demand.” One of the costs of this strategy has been an increased incidence of PGF. As the threat of PGF increases, the challenges of predicting and preventing its occurrence, as well as the identification of more effective treatment modalities, are vital areas of active research and development.
BackgroundWe recently reported that frailty is independently predictive of increased mortality in patients with advanced heart failure referred for heart transplantation (HTx). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of frailty on short-term outcomes after bridge-to-transplant ventricular assist device (BTT-VAD) implantation and/or HTx and to determine if frailty is reversible after these procedures.MethodsBetween August 2013 and August 2016, 100 of 126 consecutive patients underwent frailty assessment using Fried’s Frailty Phenotype before surgical intervention: 40 (21 nonfrail, 19 frail) BTT-VAD and 77 (60 nonfrail, 17 frail) HTx—including 17 of the 40 BTT-VAD supported patients. Postprocedural survival, intubation time, intensive care unit, and hospital length of stay were compared between frail and nonfrail groups. Twenty-six frail patients were reassessed at 2 months or longer postintervention.ResultsFrail patients had lower survival (63 ± 10% vs 94 ± 3% at 1 year, P = 0.012) and experienced significantly longer intensive care unit (11 vs 5 days, P = 0.002) and hospital (49 vs 25 days, P = 0.003) length of stay after surgical intervention compared with nonfrail patients. Twelve of 13 frail patients improved their frailty score after VAD (4.0 ± 0.8 to 1.4 ± 1.1, P < 0.001) and 12 of 13 frail patients improved their frailty score after HTx (3.2 ± 0.4 to 0.9 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). Handgrip strength and depression improved postintervention. Only a slight improvement in cognitive function was seen postintervention.ConclusionsFrail patients with advanced heart failure experience increased mortality and morbidity after surgical intervention with BTT-VAD or HTx. Among those who survive frailty is partly or completely reversible underscoring the importance of considering this factor as a dynamic not fixed entity.
The shortage of donors in cardiac transplantation may be alleviated by the use of allografts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors. We have previously shown that hearts exposed to 30 min warm ischemic time and then flushed with Celsior supplemented with agents that activate ischemic postconditioning pathways, show complete recovery on a blood-perfused ex vivo working heart apparatus. In this study, these findings were assessed in a porcine orthotopic heart transplant model. DCD hearts were preserved with either normothermic ex vivo perfusion (NEVP) using a clinically approved device, or with standard cold storage (CS) for 4 h. Orthotopic transplantation into recipient animals was subsequently undertaken. Five of six hearts preserved with NEVP demonstrated favorable lactate profiles during NEVP and all five could be weaned off cardiopulmonary bypass posttransplant, compared with 0 of 3 hearts preserved with CS (p < 0.05, Fisher's exact test). In conclusion, DCD hearts flushed with supplemented Celsior solution and preserved with NEVP display viability before and after transplantation. Viability studies of human DCD hearts using NEVP are warranted.
A decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment (WLST) is derived by a conclusion that further treatment will not enable a patient to survive or will not produce a functional outcome with acceptable quality of life that the patient and the treating team regard as beneficial. Although many hospitalized patients die under such circumstances, controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death (cDCDD) programs have been developed only in a reduced number of countries. This International Collaborative Statement aims at expanding cDCDD in the world to help countries progress towards self-sufficiency in transplantation and offer more patients the opportunity of organ donation. The Statement addresses three fundamental aspects of the cDCDD pathway. First, it describes the process of determining a prognosis that justifies the WLST, a decision that should be prior to and independent of any consideration of organ donation and in which transplant professionals must not participate. Second, the Statement establishes the permanent cessation of circulation to the brain as the standard to determine death by circulatory criteria. Death may be declared after an elapsed observation period of 5 min without circulation to the brain, which confirms that the absence of circulation to the brain is permanent. Finally, the Statement highlights the value of perfusion repair for increasing the success of cDCDD organ transplantation. cDCDD protocols may utilize either in situ or ex situ perfusion consistent with the practice of each country. Methods to accomplish the in situ normothermic reperfusion of organs must preclude the restoration of brain perfusion to not invalidate the determination of death.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.