Faculty Bibliography

Thoracic organs from Hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive donors are not commonly used for transplantation. The development of direct-acting antivirals (DAA) for HCV treatment has led to renewed interest in using HCV-positive organs. We evaluated HCV transmission rates, viremia clearance, and short-term outcomes in HCV-negative patients who received HCV-positive thoracic organs at our institution. From January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2019, 38 patients underwent HCV-positive thoracic organ transplantation (16 lungs and 22 hearts). Heart recipients were started on glecaprevir/pibrentasvir, a pangenotypic DAA, when they developed HCV viremia. Lung recipients were empirically started on glecaprevir/pibrentasvir within the first three post-transplant days. The primary outcome was cure of HCV defined as sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12). All heart recipients developed HCV viremia with median initial viral load of 64,565 IU/mL (interquartile range: 1660 to 473,151). The median time from DAA initiation to viremia clearance was 19 days (confidence interval: 15-27 days). 11 out of 16 (68.8%) lung recipients developed HCV viremia with median initial viral load of 26 IU/mL (interquartile range: 15 to 143). The median time from DAA initiation to viremia clearance was 10 days (confidence interval: 6-17 days). 5 out of 16 (31.3%) lung recipients never became viremic. All patients demonstrated SVR12. Thoracic organ transplantation from HCV viremic donors is safe with excellent short-term survival. Early initiation of HCV treatment results in rapid viremia clearance and SVR12. Long-term outcomes and optimal timing of DAA initiation remains to be determined.

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:Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) remains a worldwide pandemic with a high mortality rate among patients requiring mechanical ventilation. The limited data that exists regarding the utility of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in these critically ill patients shows poor overall outcomes. This paper describes our institutional practice regarding the application and management of ECMO support for patients with Covid-19 and reports promising early outcomes. METHODS:>60 mmHg with no life-limiting comorbidities. Patients were cannulated at bedside and were managed with protective lung ventilation, early tracheostomy, bronchoscopies and proning as clinically indicated. RESULTS:Of 321 patients intubated for Covid-19, 77 (24%) patients were evaluated for ECMO support with 27 (8.4%) patients placed on ECMO. All patients were placed on veno-venous ECMO. Current survival is 96.3%, with only one mortality to date in over 350 days of total ECMO support. Thirteen patients (48.1%) remain on ECMO support, while 13 patients (48.1%) have been successfully decannulated. Seven patients (25.9%) have been discharged from the hospital. Six patients (22.2%) remain in the hospital of which four are on room-air. No healthcare workers that participated in ECMO cannulation developed symptoms of or tested positive for Covid-19. CONCLUSIONS:The early outcomes presented here suggest that the judicious use of ECMO support in severe Covid-19 may be clinically beneficial.

BACKGROUND:The Lung Allocation Score (LAS) significantly improved outcomes and waitlist mortality in lung transplantation. However, mortality remains high for the sickest waitlist candidates despite additional changes to allocation distance. Regulatory considerations of overhauling the current lung allocation system has met significant resistance, and would require years to implement. This study evaluates if a modest change to the current system by prioritization of only high-LAS lung transplant candidates would result in lowered waitlist mortality. METHODS:The Thoracic Simulated Allocation Model was used to evaluate all lung transplant candidates and donor lungs recovered between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2011. Current lung allocation rules (initial offer within 250 nautical-mile radius for ABO-identical then compatible offers) were run. Allocation was then changed for only patients with an LAS≥50 (high-LAS) to be prioritized within a 500 nautical-mile radius with no stratification between ABO-identical and compatible offers. Ten iterations of each model were run. Primary endpoints were waitlist mortality and post-transplant 1-year survival. RESULTS:6,538 waitlist candidates and transplant recipients were evaluated per iteration, for a total of 130,760 simulated patients. Compared with current allocation, the adjusted model had a 23.3% decrease in waitlist mortality. Post-transplant 1-year survival was minimally affected. CONCLUSIONS:Without overhauling the entire system, simple prioritization changes to the allocation system for high-LAS candidates may lead to decreased waitlist mortality and increased organ utilization. Importantly, these changes do not appear to lead to clinically significant changes in post-transplant 1-year survival.