Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Medication reconciliation is the process of comparing a patient's hospital medication orders to all of the medications that the patient has been taking prior to admission. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation in reducing ED visit rates. The secondary aim of this study was to evaluate if a clinical pharmacist reduces medication errors in an ED observation unit (OBS). METHODS:This was a retrospective, IRB approved, chart review conducted at New York University Langone Health-Tisch Hospital. The study defines the year before a clinical pharmacist was present on the unit (July 5, 2016 through July 4, 2017) as the control group and the first year a clinical pharmacist was present on the unit (July 5, 2017 through July 4, 2018) as the intervention group. The primary endpoint was 30-day ED re-visits. The secondary endpoints were 60-and 90-day ED re-visits, number, type and severity of medication history and reconciliation discrepancies. RESULTS:The primary endpoint of 30-day ED visits occurred in 153 patients in the no pharmacist group and 88 patients in the OBS clinical pharmacist group (19.1% vs 9.9%, P < .00001). The secondary endpoint of 60- day ED visits occurred in 53 patients in the no pharmacist group and 39 patients in the OBS clinical pharmacist group (8.2% vs 4.9%, P = .01). The secondary endpoint of 90- day ED visits occurred in 31 patients in the no pharmacist group and 26 patients in the OBS clinical pharmacist group (5.2% vs 3.4%, P = .01). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The benefits of having a clinical pharmacist perform medication reconciliation are highlighted by the reduction in ED visits, cost savings, and the prolific amount of errors corrected.

Purpose: In the U.S., heart transplantation from donation after circulatory death (DCD) is increasing. We present our institutional experience of DCD transplantation by using a thoracoabdominal-normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) protocol and compare the results to a cohort concomitantly transplanted, from standard brain death (

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

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.

BACKGROUND:The use of direct acting antivirals (DAA) has expanded transplantation from hepatitis C viremic donors (HCV-VIR). Our team has conducted an open-label, prospective trial to assess outcomes transplanting HCV-viremic hearts. Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) was our sole DAA. METHODS:Serial quantitative hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA PCR was obtained to assess HCV viral titers. Between January 2018 to June 2019, a total of 50 recipients were transplanted. Of these, 22/50 (44%) were from HCV-VIR, the remaining 28 from non-viremic (HCV NON-VIR) donors. An 8 week course of GLE/PIB was initiated at 1 week post-transplant. RESULTS:There was no difference in demographic or clinical parameters between groups. All 22 recipients of HCV-VIR transplants became viremic. GLE/PIB was effective in decreasing viremia to undetectable levels by 6 weeks post-transplant in all patients. The median time to first undetectable HCV quantitative PCR was (4.3 weeks, IQR: 4-5.7 weeks). All patients demonstrated sustained undetectable viral load through 1 year follow up. There was no difference in survival at one year between HCV NON-VIR 28/28: (100%) vs. HCV-VIR 21/22 (95%) recipients. CONCLUSIONS:Our center reports excellent outcomes in transplanting utilizing hearts from HCV-VIR donors. No effect on survival or co-morbidity was found. An 8 week GLE/PIB course was safe and effective when initiated approximately 1 week post-transplant.

PURPOSE: Heart transplantation from Hepatitis C (HCV) viremic donors is becoming increasingly used due to advent of direct acting antiviral drugs with almost 100% cure. There are limited data about its impact on cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV). We report the incidence of CAV in heart transplant recipients from HCV viremic donors (nucleic amplification test positive; NAT+) compared to non-HCV infected donors (NAT-).
METHOD(S): We retrospectively reviewed coronary angiograms with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) of heart transplant recipients at our institution from January 5, 2018 to September 17, 2019. The presence of CAV was graded according to ISHLT guidelines. IVUS was performed as per our lab protocol on the left main and left anterior descending arteries. Maximal intimal thickness (MIT) was measured with advanced quantification software as per protocol. MIT >= 5mm was considered significant for future adverse outcomes.
RESULT(S): LHC and IVUS was performed on 24 heart transplant recipients (mean age 56; 70% male) at 1- year post transplant. Eleven of these patients were transplanted from NAT+ donors. Thirteen patients received a NAT- donor heart. Two recipients (18.7%) of NAT+ donors had CAV grade >= 1 compared to 2 (16.7%) from NAT- donors (p=1). MIT >= 5mm was seen in 88.9% of NAT+ vs 50% of NAT- recipients (p=0.14) (Figure). The mean MIT was 76mm and 65mm for NAT+ and NAT- group, respectively. Both NAT+ and NAT- donor recipients exhibit mostly eccentric (84.2%) and few (15.7%) demonstrated concentric plaques. There was no heterogeneity in the data after adjusting for risk factors for CAD and donor LHC.
CONCLUSION(S): Our data show no difference in the presence of (CAV >= grade 1) or subclinical atherosclerosis at 1 year among NAT+ donor recipients. HCV viremia is a known risk factor for accelerated atherosclerosis and the consequence of prolonged donor viremia on the recipient is not known. A larger cohort and further longitudinal follow-up is needed to assess the validity of this trend and its prognostic implications.
Copyright