Faculty Bibliography

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.

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: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.

The physiologic impact of pulsatile flow (PF) on end-organ perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is controversial. Using an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) to maintain PF during CPB for patients undergoing heart transplantation (HT) may impact end-organ perfusion, with implications for postoperative outcomes. A single-center retrospective study of 76 patients bridged to HT with IABP was conducted between January 2018 and December 2022. Beginning in May 2022, patients received IABP-generated PF during CPB at an internal rate of 80 beats/minute. Fifty-eight patients underwent HT with the IABP turned off (IABP-Off), whereas 18 patients underwent HT with IABP-generated PF (IABP-On). The unmatched IABP-On group experienced shorter organ ischemia times (180 vs. 203 minutes, p = 0.015) and CPB times (104 vs. 116 minutes, p = 0.022). The cohort was propensity matched according to age, organ ischemia time, and CPB time. Elevations in postoperative lactates in the immediate (2.8 vs. 1.5, p = 0.062) and 24 hour (4.7 vs. 2.4, p = 0.084) postoperative periods trended toward significance in the matched IABP-Off group. There was no difference in postoperative vasoactive inotropic score (VIS), postoperative creatinine, or length of stay. This limited preliminary data suggest that maintaining counterpulsation to generate PF during CPB may improve end-organ perfusion in this patient population as suggested by lower postoperative lactate levels.

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.

Approximately 65 million adults globally have heart failure, and the prevalence is expected to increase substantially with ageing populations. Despite advances in pharmacological and device therapy of heart failure, long-term morbidity and mortality remain high. Many patients progress to advanced heart failure and develop persistently severe symptoms. Heart transplantation remains the gold-standard therapy to improve the quality of life, functional status and survival of these patients. However, there is a large imbalance between the supply of organs and the demand for heart transplants. Therefore, expanding the donor pool is essential to reduce mortality while on the waiting list and improve clinical outcomes in this patient population. A shift has occurred to consider the use of organs from donors with hepatitis C virus, HIV or SARS-CoV-2 infection. Other advances in this field have also expanded the donor pool, including opt-out donation policies, organ donation after circulatory death and xenotransplantation. We provide a comprehensive overview of these various novel strategies, provide objective data on their safety and efficacy, and discuss some of the unresolved issues and controversies of each approach.