Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) has emerged as a powerful technique for optimizing organ procurement from donation after circulatory death donors. Despite its rapid adoption, standardized guidelines for TA-NRP implementation are lacking, prompting the need for consensus recommendations to ensure safe and effective utilization of this technique. METHODS:A working group composed of members from The American Society of Transplant Surgeons, The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and The American Association for Thoracic Surgery was convened to develop technical guidelines for TA-NRP. The group systematically reviewed existing literature, consensus statements, and expert opinions to identify key areas requiring standardization, including predonation evaluation, intraoperative management, postdonation procedures, and future research directions. RESULTS:The working group formulated recommendations encompassing donor evaluation and selection criteria, premortem testing and therapeutic interventions, communication protocols, and procedural guidelines for TA-NRP implementation. These recommendations aim to facilitate coordination among transplant teams, minimize variability in practice, and promote transparency and accountability throughout the TA-NRP process. CONCLUSIONS:The consensus guidelines presented herein serve as a comprehensive framework for the successful and ethical implementation of TA-NRP programs in organ procurement from donation after circulatory death donors. By providing standardized recommendations and addressing areas of uncertainty, these guidelines aim to enhance the quality, safety, and efficiency of TA-NRP procedures, ultimately contributing to improved outcomes for transplant recipients.

Since the development of the first heart allocation system in 1988 to the most recent heart allocation system in 2018, the road to heart transplantation has continued to evolve. Policies were shaped with advances in temporary and durable left ventricular assist devices as well as prioritization of patients based on degree of illness. Herein, we review the changes in the heart allocation system over the past several decades and the impact of practice patterns across the United States.

BACKGROUND:Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) has emerged as a powerful technique for optimizing organ procurement from donation after circulatory death donors. Despite its rapid adoption, standardized guidelines for TA-NRP implementation are lacking, prompting the need for consensus recommendations to ensure safe and effective utilization of this technique. METHODS:A working group composed of members from The American Society of Transplant Surgeons, The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and The American Association for Thoracic Surgery was convened to develop technical guidelines for TA-NRP. The group systematically reviewed existing literature, consensus statements, and expert opinions to identify key areas requiring standardization, including predonation evaluation, intraoperative management, postdonation procedures, and future research directions. RESULTS:The working group formulated recommendations encompassing donor evaluation and selection criteria, premortem testing and therapeutic interventions, communication protocols, and procedural guidelines for TA-NRP implementation. These recommendations aim to facilitate coordination among transplant teams, minimize variability in practice, and promote transparency and accountability throughout the TA-NRP process. CONCLUSIONS:The consensus guidelines presented herein serve as a comprehensive framework for the successful and ethical implementation of TA-NRP programs in organ procurement from donation after circulatory death donors. By providing standardized recommendations and addressing areas of uncertainty, these guidelines aim to enhance the quality, safety, and efficiency of TA-NRP procedures, ultimately contributing to improved outcomes for transplant recipients.

In a previous study, heart xenografts from 10-gene-edited pigs transplanted into two human decedents did not show evidence of acute-onset cellular- or antibody-mediated rejection. Here, to better understand the detailed molecular landscape following xenotransplantation, we carried out bulk and single-cell transcriptomics, lipidomics, proteomics and metabolomics on blood samples obtained from the transplanted decedents every 6 h, as well as histological and transcriptomic tissue profiling. We observed substantial early immune responses in peripheral blood mononuclear cells and xenograft tissue obtained from decedent 1 (male), associated with downstream T cell and natural killer cell activity. Longitudinal analyses indicated the presence of ischemia reperfusion injury, exacerbated by inadequate immunosuppression of T cells, consistent with previous findings of perioperative cardiac xenograft dysfunction in pig-to-nonhuman primate studies. Moreover, at 42 h after transplantation, substantial alterations in cellular metabolism and liver-damage pathways occurred, correlating with profound organ-wide physiological dysfunction. By contrast, relatively minor changes in RNA, protein, lipid and metabolism profiles were observed in decedent 2 (female) as compared to decedent 1. Overall, these multi-omics analyses delineate distinct responses to cardiac xenotransplantation in the two human decedents and reveal new insights into early molecular and immune responses after xenotransplantation. These findings may aid in the development of targeted therapeutic approaches to limit ischemia reperfusion injury-related phenotypes and improve outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Recent studies suggest the transplantation of Hepatitis C (HCV) hearts from viremic donors is associated with comparable 1 year survival to nonviremic donors. Though HCV viremia is a known risk factor for accelerated atherosclerosis, data on cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) outcomes are limited. We compared the incidence of CAV in heart transplant recipients from HCV viremic donors (nucleic acid amplification test positive; NAT+) compared to non-HCV infected donors (NAT-). METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed annual coronary angiograms with intravascular ultrasound from April 2017 to August 2020 at two large cardiac transplant centers. CAV was graded according to ISHLT guidelines. Maximal intimal thickness (MIT) ≥ 0.5 mm was considered significant for subclinical disease. RESULTS:Among 270 heart transplant recipients (mean age 54; 77% male), 62 patients were transplanted from NAT+ donors. CAV ≥ grade 1 was present in 8.8% of the NAT+ versus 16.8% of the NAT- group at 1 year, 20% versus 28.8% at 2 years, and 33.3% versus 41.5% at 3 years. After adjusting for donor age, donor smoking history, recipient BMI, recipient, hypertension, and recipient diabetes, NAT+ status did not confer increased risk of CAV (HR.80; 95% CI.45-1.40, p = 0.43) or subclinical IVUS disease (HR.87; 95% CI.58-1.30, p = 0.49). Additionally, there was no difference in the presence of rapidly progressive lesions on IVUS. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our data show that NAT+ donors conferred no increased risk for early CAV or subclinical IVUS disease following transplantation in a cohort of heart transplant patients who were treated for HCV, suggesting the short-term safety of this strategy to maximize the pool of available donor hearts.

INTRODUCTION:Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) following cardiac death is an emerging multivisceral organ procurement technique. Recent national studies on outcomes of presumptive TA-NRP-procured organs are limited by potential misclassification since TA-NRP is not differentiated from donation after cardiac death (DCD) in registry data. METHODS:We studied 22 donors whose designees consented to TA-NRP and organ procurement performed at our institution between January 20, 2020 and July 3, 2022. We identified these donors in SRTR to describe organ utilization and recipient outcomes and compared them to recipients of traditional DCD (tDCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) organs during the same timeframe. RESULTS:All 22 donors progressed to cardiac arrest and underwent TA-NRP followed by heart, lung, kidney, and/or liver procurement. Median donor age was 41 years, 55% had anoxic brain injury, 45% were hypertensive, 0% were diabetic, and median kidney donor profile index was 40%. TA-NRP utilization was high across all organ types (88%-100%), with a higher percentage of kidneys procured via TA-NRP compared to tDCD (88% vs. 72%, p = .02). Recipient and graft survival ranged from 89% to 100% and were comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients (p ≥ .2). Delayed graft function was lower for kidneys procured from TA-NRP compared to tDCD donors (27% vs. 44%, p = .045). CONCLUSION:Procurement from TA-NRP donors yielded high organ utilization, with outcomes comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients across organ types. Further large-scale study of TA-NRP donors, facilitated by its capture in the national registry, will be critical to fully understand its impact as an organ procurement technique.

BACKGROUND:Drug overdose (DO) deaths rose to unprecedented levels during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study examines the impact of COVID-19 on the availability of cardiac allografts from DO donors and the implications of DO donor use on recipient survival. METHODS:Heart transplants reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing from January 2017 to November 2019 ("pre-COVID") and from March 2020 to June 2021 ("COVID pandemic") were analyzed with respect to DO donor status. Outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression to identify predictors of survival. Characteristics of discarded cardiac allografts were also compared by DO donor status. RESULTS:During the COVID-19 pandemic, 27.2% of cardiac allografts were from DO donors vs 20.5% pre-COVID, a 32.7% increase (p < 0.001). During the pandemic, DO donors were younger (84.7% vs 76.3% <40 years, p < 0.001), had higher cigarette use (16.1% vs 10.8%, p < 0.001), higher cocaine use (47.4% vs 19.7%, p < 0.001), and higher incidence of hepatitis C antibodies (26.8% vs 6.1%, p < 0.001) and RNA positivity (16.2% vs 4.2%, p < 0.001). While DO donors were less likely to require inotropic support (30.8% vs 35.4%, p = 0.008), they were more likely to have received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (95.3% vs 43.2%, p < 0.001). Recipient survival was equivalent using Kaplan-Meier analysis (log-rank, p = 0.33) and survival probability at 36 months was 85.6% (n at risk = 398) for DO donors vs 83.5% (n at risk = 1,633) for all other donors. Cox regression demonstrated that DO donor status did not predict mortality (hazard ratio 1.05; 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.23, p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS:During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 32.7% increase in heart transplants utilizing DO donor hearts, and DO became the most common mechanism of death for donors. The use of DO donor hearts did not have an impact on short-term recipient survival.

BACKGROUND:Recently, several centers in the United States have begun performing donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplants (HTs) in adults. We sought to characterize the recent use of DCD HT, waitlist time, and outcomes compared to donation after brain death (DBD). METHODS:Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, 10,402 adult (aged >18 years) HT recipients from January 2019 to June 2022 were identified: 425 (4%) were DCD and 9,977 (96%) were DBD recipients. Posttransplant outcomes in matched and unmatched cohorts and waitlist times were compared between groups. RESULTS:DCD and DBD recipients had similar age (57 years for both, p = 0.791). DCD recipients were more likely White (67% vs 60%, p = 0.002), on left ventricular assist device (LVAD; 40% vs 32%, p < 0.001), and listed as status 4 to 6 (60% vs 24%, p < 0.001); however, less likely to require inotropes (22% vs 40%, p < 0.001) and preoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.9% vs 6%, p < 0.001). DCD donors were younger (29 vs 32 years, p < 0.001) and had less renal dysfunction (15% vs 39%, p < 0.001), diabetes (1.9% vs 3.8%, p = 0.050), or hypertension (9.9% vs 16%, p = 0.001). In matched and unmatched cohorts, early survival was similar (p = 0.22). Adjusted waitlist time was shorter in DCD group (21 vs 31 days, p < 0.001) compared to DBD cohort and 5-fold shorter (DCD: 22 days vs DBD: 115 days, p < 0.001) for candidates in status 4 to 6, which was 60% of DCD cohort. CONCLUSIONS:The community is using DCD mostly for those recipients who are expected to have extended waitlist times (e.g., durable LVADs, status >4). DCD recipients had similar posttransplant early survival and shorter adjusted waitlist time compared to DBD group. Given this early success, efforts should be made to expand the donor pool using DCD, especially for traditionally disadvantaged recipients on the waitlist.