Faculty Bibliography

Background Cardiogenic shock from most causes has unfavorable prognosis. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) can uncommonly present with apical ballooning and shock in association with sudden development of severe and unrelenting left ventricular (LV) outflow obstruction. Typical HCM phenotypic features of mild septal thickening, outflow gradients, and distinctive mitral abnormalities differentiate these patients from others with Takotsubo syndrome, who have normal mitral valves and no outflow obstruction. Methods and Results We analyzed 8 patients from our 4 HCM centers with obstructive HCM and abrupt presentation of cardiogenic shock with LV ballooning, and 6 cases reported in literature. Of 14 patients, 10 (71%) were women, aged 66±9 years, presenting with acute symptoms: LV ballooning; depressed ejection fraction (25±5%); refractory systemic hypotension; marked LV outflow tract obstruction (peak gradient, 94±28 mm Hg); and elevated troponin, but absence of atherosclerotic coronary disease. Shock was managed with intravenous administration of phenylephrine (n=6), norepinephrine (n=6), β-blocker (n=7), and vasopressin (n=1). Mechanical circulatory support was required in 8, including intra-aortic balloon pump (n=4), venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n=3), and Impella and Tandem Heart in 1 each. In refractory shock, urgent relief of obstruction by myectomy was performed in 5, and alcohol ablation in 1. All patients survived their critical illness, with full recovery of systolic function. Conclusions When cardiogenic shock and LV ballooning occur in obstructive HCM, they are marked by distinctive anatomic and physiologic features. Relief of obstruction with targeted pharmacotherapy, mechanical circulatory support, and myectomy, when necessary for refractory shock, may lead to survival and normalization of systolic function.

Transplanting hepatitis C viremic donor organs into hepatitis C virus (HCV)-negative recipients is becoming increasingly common; however, practices for posttransplant direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment vary widely. Protracted insurance authorization processes for DAA therapy often lead to treatment delays.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:There is a lack of robust data evaluating outcomes of enoxaparin "bridge" therapy in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We performed a retrospective study of HeartMate II (HM II) and HeartWare HVAD recipients that received therapeutic enoxaparin as "bridge" therapy to describe bleeding and thrombotic events and compare outcomes between devices. The primary endpoint was the incidence of bleeding within 30 days of "bridge" episode. Major bleeding was defined by INTERMACS criteria. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:= .02). We observed 3 (1%) thromboembolic events in 2 (4%) patients with an HVAD device. On multivariate analysis, the presence of a HM II device was associated with a 4-fold increased risk of bleeding. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:We found the use of enoxaparin "bridge" therapy to be associated with a higher incidence of bleeding in patients with a HM II device compared with an HVAD device. Assessment of device- and patient-specific factors should be evaluated to minimize bleeding events.

Purpose: During the COVID 19- pandemic, there is no consensus on management strategies for treating infected heart transplant patients. The outcomes of these patients vary by institution. We report our center experience and management strategies to date.
Method(s): All patients who received heart transplantation, from January 4th 2018 to September 25th 2020 and were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 were included and full chart review was performed.
Result(s): There were 113 heart transplants at our institution by September 2020. A total of 13 (12%) patients were infected with SARS-CoV-2: 9 (69%) isolated heart, 3 heart -kidney (23%) and 1 heat- lung (8%). The median (IQR) time from transplant to diagnosis was 10 (5-16) months. The mean age was 57 years and 50% were male; 50% were of Hispanic ethnicity. The main presenting symptoms were fever (43%), cough (86%) and SOB (43%). Chest x-ray was abnormal in all patients. We evaluated all patients and 79% were hospitalized and 21% were closely monitored as outpatients. None of our patients were hospitalized at outside institutions. Two (14%) required intubation and none required V-V ECMO support. The immunotherapy was modified in all patients: MMF and prednisone were discontinued, tacrolimus dose was reduced. COVID19 treatment was: 71% received hydroxychloroquine, 50% azithromycin, 15% remdesevir, 7% convalescent plasma. All hospitalized patients received anticoagulation. One patient had 2R/3A rejection within 30 days prior to diagnosis. Graft function was maintained in all patients with median LVEF% 65 (59-65%) except one patient who had received thymoglobulin 2 weeks prior to COVID 19 infection (LVEF 30%). The patient had a prolonged intubation but ultimately recovered and was discharged from the hospital. The one death (7.1%) was a heart - kidney recipient who concomitantly presented with pseudomonas sepsis and severe neutropenia. The remaining patients have all been discharged home.
Conclusion(s): We present our single center experience in managing COVID 19 infected heart transplant patients. We implemented uniform management strategies by incorporating aggressive reduction of immunosuppression, frequent scheduled contacts with infected outpatients and making sure all infected patients requiring hospitalization were treated at a transplant center.
Copyright

Pump thrombosis remains a feared complication for patients implanted with durable left ventricular assist devices. Optimal treatment is unknown, but consists of either pharmacologic fibrinolysis or surgical pump exchange. Fibrinolysis is less invasive, but carries a significant risk of intracerebral hemorrhage. We present four cases of LVAD pump thrombosis successfully treated with a novel protocol that consists of low-dose four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate to reverse baseline INR elevation prior to alteplase administration to minimize the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND:The Impella (Abiomed) ventricular support system is a family of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices used to treat patients with cardiogenic shock, acute cardiogenic decompensation, and for high-risk percutaneous or surgical revascularization. These devices include the percutaneously implanted 2.5/cardiac power (CP) and the surgically implanted 5.0/left direct (LD). Despite the beneficial effects and increased usage of these devices, data to assess adverse outcomes and guide clinician decision-making between the Impella CP and 5.0/LD are limited. METHODS:This is a retrospective analysis of 91 consecutive patients who required at least 24 h of Impella support, from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. Groups were stratified based on either initial Impella CP or 5.0/LD placement. Clinical outcomes and in-hospital complications were compared. RESULTS:Impella CP was implanted in 66 patients (mean age: 61 ± 15 years, male 71.2%) and Impella 5.0/LD was implanted in 25 patients (mean age: 62 ± 9 years, male 84.0%). There was greater stability of device position (p = .033), less incidence of hemolysis (p < .001), and less frequent need for additional MCS (p = .001) in patients implanted with the Impella 5.0/LD compared with Impella CP in this study cohort. Patients with Impella 5.0/LD were more likely to survive from Impella and survive to discharge. CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that for patients who require temporary MCS for more than 24 h, the Impella 5.0/LD may have a more favorable device-specific adverse profile compared with the Impella CP.

BACKGROUND:Despite innovations in left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) technology, stroke remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in this population. Major clinical trials of LVAD have used various definitions and approaches to measuring stroke outcomes which may limit comparison of stroke risk between different devices. METHODS:Data from the five major LVAD randomized, controlled, trials was abstracted to compare definitions of stroke (composite, ischemic, hemorrhagic and disabling) and stroke event rates across trials. Methodological limitations and suggestions to improve research and clinical practices for stroke and LVAD were identified. RESULTS:Comparison of stroke events across LVAD clinical trials is confounded by methodological variability including heterogeneity in stroke definitions, non-standardized evaluation of stroke etiology, oversimplification of stroke severity classification, and inconsistent event rate reporting due to data censoring at the time of death or transplant. Variability in the study of stroke in LVAD patients limits the ability to compare devices and design prevention strategies to mitigate stroke risk. CONCLUSIONS:Based on this review, we propose that future clinical trials: 1) utilize standardized stroke definitions and define stroke subtypes, 2) ensure that neurologists are integrated in study design and event adjudication, 3) include more thorough evaluations of stroke etiology using multimodality techniques, and 4) adopt the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale to define stroke severity.

BACKGROUND:Increased utilization of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive donors has increased transplantation rates. However, high levels of viremia have been documented in recipients of viremic donors. There is a knowledge gap in how transient viremia may impact acute cellular rejections (ACRs). METHODS:In this study, 50 subjects received hearts from either viremic or non-viremic donors. The recipients of viremic donors were classified as nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT)+ group, and the remaining were classified as NAT-. All patients were monitored for viremia levels. Endomyocardial biopsies were performed through 180 days, evaluating the incidence of ACRs. RESULTS:A total of 50 HCV-naive recipients received hearts between 2018 and 2019. A total of 22 patients (44%) who received transplants from viremic donors developed viremia at a mean period of 7.2 ± 0.2 days. At that time, glecaprevir/pibrentasvir was initiated. In the viremia period (<56 days), 14 of 22 NAT+ recipients (64%) had ACR vs 5 of 28 NAT- group (18%) (p = 0.001). Through 180 days, 17 of 22 NAT+ recipients (77%) had a repeat rejection biopsy vs 12 of 28 NAT- recipients (43%) (p = 0.02). NAT+ biopsies demonstrated disparity of ACR distribution: negative, low-grade, and high-grade ACR in 84%, 12%, and 4%, respectively, vs 96%, 3%, and 1%, respectively, in the NAT- group (p = 0.03). The median time to first event was 26 (interquartile range [IQR]: 8-45) in the NAT+ group vs 65 (IQR: 44-84) days in the NAT-. Time to first event risk model revealed that NAT+ recipients had a significantly higher rate of ACR occurrences, adjusting for demographics (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS:Transient levels of viremia contributed to higher rates and severity of ACRs. Further investigation into the mechanisms of early immune activation in NAT+ recipients is required.

We conducted a retrospective review of thoracic transplant recipients (22 heart and 16 lung transplant recipients) prospectively enrolled in a single-center observational study of HCV NAT+ organ transplantation in HCV NAT- recipients. All recipients were treated with 8 weeks of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir (GP) for HCV viremia in addition to standard triple immunosuppression post-transplant. Thoracic transplant recipients of HCV NAT- organs were used as a control (24 heart and 22 lung transplant recipients). Our primary outcome was to assess the effect of GP on tacrolimus dose requirements. Secondary objectives included assessing drug interactions with common post-transplant medications, adverse effects, and the need to hold or discontinue GP therapy. The median tacrolimus concentration-to-dose (CDR) in the cohort was 184 (99-260) during GP therapy and 154 (78-304) over the first month after GP (p=0.79). Trends in median tacrolimus CDR were similar on a per-week basis and per-patient basis. In three instances, concomitant posaconazole and GP led to hyperbilirubinemia and interruption of posaconazole. GP therapy was held in one heart transplant recipient, and discontinued in another, due to unresolving hyperbilirubinemia. Utilization of GP to treat HCV viremia post-thoracic transplant is feasible and safe, but requires modifications to post-transplant pharmacotherapy and careful monitoring for adverse effects.