Yip, Daniel

Background Medication nonadherence has been associated with poor outcomes in transplant recipients yet identifying these behaviors pre-transplant remains challenging. The simplified medication adherence questionnaire (SMAQ) is a brief, reliable instrument to assess medication adherence. The aim of this study was to perform SMAQ testing on thoracic organ candidates and examine correlations between these scores and individual patient factors predicting medication nonadherence. Methods Consenting waitlisted lung, heart, and heart-lung transplant candidates from six thoracic transplant centers were mailed a survey that included demographic information and the Simplified Medication Adherence Questionnaire (SMAQ). Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess association between pre-transplant medication adherence and demographic characteristics, psychosocial factors, and mortality. Results Among 298 participants, 60.7% were medication nonadherent. Nonadherence was associated with some college education (OR: 1.73; CI: 1.06, 2.81), lower positive affect (OR: 0.95; CI: 0.92, 0.99), and higher uncertainty (OR: 1.02; CI: 1.01, 1.04). Higher positivity ratio predicted adherence. Conclusion Identifiable patient-specific characteristics associated with medication nonadherence can be screened for during thoracic transplant evaluation. Interventions aimed at improving these factors during the pre-transplant period may improve clinical post-transplant outcomes, however, larger studies are needed to validate these findings.

Background. Acute cellular rejection (ACR) remains a major cause of morbidity after heart transplantation despite advances in immunosuppression. Whole genome transcriptomic profiling offers a systems-based, unbiased approach to elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying ACR. However, noninvasive, longitudinal biomarker assessments capable of capturing the temporal dynamics of rejection biology remain scarce. Methods. RNA sequencing of peripheral blood from heart transplant recipients before, during, and after ACR was compared with nonrejection controls. Pathway analysis was conducted using differentially expressed genes (DEGs), and a machine learning approach was applied to assess gene-based prediction of ACR. Results. A total of 235 rejection-specific significant DEGs and 863 postrejection DEGs (false discovery rate < 0.05) were identified. During ACR, DEGs were enriched for T-cell activation/differentiation, apoptosis, and B-cell receptor signaling pathways. By combining the 2 sets of DEGs, a panel of 71 common genes was identified that reflected the significant, longitudinal transcriptomic dynamics of ACR. In an elastic net machine learning–based classifier, DYNLL1 and SERF2 were identified as ACR predictive genes, and achieved a cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.63. Conclusions. Peripheral blood transcriptomics identify dynamic temporal responses in ACR including T- and B-cell pathways with potential ACR predictive genes that warrant further investigation.

Background: Impella 5.5 is a temporary MCS device FDA-approved for use up to 14 days. Limited data suggest it may be safe beyond this. We aim assess outcomes based on the duration of Impella 5.5 support in heart failure cardiogenic shock (HFCS) patients at our institution. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all HFCS patients supported with Impella 5.5 at our institution between 2020-2024. Patients supported for >14 days were compared with those supported for ≤14 days. Categorical variables were analyzed with chi-square tests, continuous variables with t-tests or Mann-Whitney U. Logistic regression identified factors linked to clinical outcomes. Results: 154 patients were included: 38 (25%) with support ≤14 days, 116 (75%) with >14 days. Median support duration was 10 (6–12) vs 31 (22–45) days, respectively. Median support duration was 10 (6-12) days for the ≤14 cohort and 31 days (22-45) days for the >14 cohort. Baseline characteristics, comorbidities, LVEF 18% (15-23) and hemodynamics show no statistical differences. Patients supported for >14 days were more likely to undergo heart transplant compared to those supported ≤14 days (91% vs 74%, p=0.009). In contrast, myocardial recovery was more likely in the ≤14 day cohort (8% vs 1%, p=0.018). One patient suffered stroke post-transplant in the ≤14 day group and two had brachial plexus injuries in the >14 days group. Mortality during the impella-supported period was slightly higher in the ≤14 day group (8% vs 5%, p=0.535) but comparable overall, 13% in both groups, p=0.971. Support >14 days was associated with transplant outcome (OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.32–8.84, p=0.012), and remained significant after adjusting for age, gender, GFR, and EF (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.31–12.54, p=0.015). Support duration <14 days was associated with recovery or LVAD outcomes (OR 5.01, 95% CI 1.49–16.89, p=0.009), and remained significant after adjustment (OR 5.43, 95% CI 1.11–26.45, p=0.036). No association was observed between duration of support and LVAD/mortality outcomes or with EcPella use. Conclusion: Shorter Impella support duration was independently associated with early myocardial recovery or LVAD candidacy, likely reflecting rapid clinical decision-making. Prolonged Impella support was associated with increased likelihood of transitioning to heart transplantation, likely reflecting clinical stabilization over time. Our multidisciplinary, single-center data suggests Impella 5.5 can be used beyond FDA-approved 14 days in HFCS patients.

Background: Progressive heart failure cardiogenic shock (HFCS) often requires escalation to temporary or durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to transplant (BTT). Following the 2018 UNOS allocation changes, our center revised its BTT strategy to optimize support and shorten wait times. At our institution, the Impella 5.5 with SmartAssist via the axillary approach was selectively used for patients who remained refractory to guideline-directed medical therapy, failed single-inotrope therapy, and were not considered suitable durable LVAD candidates by our multidisciplinary heart team. We compared transplant-related outcomes of BTT patients supported with Impella 5.5 versus durable LVAD. Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all heart and heart/kidney transplant candidates at Mayo Clinic Florida from October 2018 to February 2021. INTERMACS profile, baseline characteristics, and perioperative data were collected at the time of device implantation and throughout the transplant hospitalization. Results: A total of 87 heart and 4 heart–kidney transplants were completed. Forty-five patients (49%) required MCS as BTT: 27 (60%) with a durable LVAD and 18 (40%) with an Impella 5.5. All eighteen patients with Impella 5.5 as BTT (100%) were transplanted compared to nineteen patients with durable LVAD (70%), p = 0.001. The median time from listing to transplant was substantially shorter with Impella (32 vs. 696 days, p < 0.001), and this difference persisted across INTERMACS profiles. UNOS status at transplant was more urgent for Impella than LVAD (p < 0.001). Transplant surgery following Impella support required shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (181 vs. 219 min, p < 0.001) and resulted in lower postoperative vasoactive-inotropic requirements (7.9 vs. 13, p = 0.003). No patients in the Impella group died or were delisted while awaiting transplant, whereas 5 LVAD patients (26%) died or were removed due to LVAD complications (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our data demonstrates that the use of the Impella 5.5 as BTT was associated with significantly shorter waitlist time, higher transplantation rates, reduced perioperative morbidity, and lower postoperative vasoactive support compared with durable LVAD as BTT. These benefits were achieved despite a higher severity of illness at transplantation in the Impella cohort.

Abstract Background Patients with end-stage heart failure and chronic kidney disease requiring dual-organ transplantation (DOT) face significant challenges in utilizing durable mechanical circulatory support due to the risks associated with renal replacement therapies (RRTs) and multi-organ failure. Given the limited options available for long-term support in this patient population, there remains a critical need for alternative strategies to optimize end-organ function and bridge patients safely to transplant. With prolonged waitlist times for DOT, we present our experience with the Impella 5.5 as temporary mechanical circulatory support, demonstrating its potential to provide hemodynamic stability and support as a bridge to transplantation (BTT) in this complex cohort. Methods A single-centre retrospective review was completed of all patients listed for single-organ transplantation or DOT between December 2019 and November 2022 at Mayo Clinic in Florida, supported by the Impella 5.5 intended as BTT. The focus of this analysis was patients requiring RRT or listed for heart/kidney transplantation. Data were extracted from the electronic health record at baseline and during their transplant episode of care after institutional review board approval as exempt status for retrospective data collection. Results A total of 41 patients were supported with Impella 5.5, intended as BTT. All patients underwent successful transplantation. We focus on the 10 patients with Impella support who underwent DOT. In the DOT group, the median age at transplantation was 63 years (59–66), with nine males and one female. The baseline median ejection fraction was 19% (15–22), with 50% Caucasian and 50% African American and an even split between ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiology. Median body mass index was 30 kg/m2 (26–31), and 60% were in blood group O. The median time on the waitlist for DOT patients was 53 days (29–75). Perioperative management of DOT Impella patients demonstrated baseline haemodynamics of RA 11 mmHg (7–16), mean PA 36 mmHg (32–47), PCWP 29 mmHg (21–35), mixed venous saturation (SVO2%) 51 (46–61) and Fick CI 2.03 L/min/m2 (1.66–2.5). Post-Impella placement haemodynamics demonstrated significant improvements in RA pressure to 5 mmHg (4–8), P = 0.02, SVO2 to 70% (65–72), P = 0.002, and Fick CI to 5.5 (5.2–8), P = 0.03. The average duration of support was 44 days (range 10–94). The median glomerular filtration rate at baseline was 27 mmol/L (16–29). Twenty-four hour urine protein averaged 168 mg/24 h (range 87–328), with the 24 h creatinine clearance of 29 mg/24 h (range 24–35). Eight of the 10 patients required continuous or intermittent RRT before DOT. The median total duration of RRT (including Impella support) was 36 days (9–72). DOT recipients had a 1 year survival of 90%, with an average follow-up of 432 days. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that prolonged use of the Impella 5.5 provides safe and effective haemodynamic support for patients with end-stage heart and kidney failure awaiting dual-organ transplantation. With a 1 year survival rate of 90%, our data suggest that Impella 5.5 can be a viable alternative to traditional support strategies, particularly in patients who are otherwise limited by RRTs. As dual-organ transplantation becomes more prevalent, the Impella 5.5 offers a promising bridge to transplant, improving both short-term and long-term outcomes in this complex patient population.

Background: Right atrial thrombus (RAT), though rare, carries a high risk of pulmonary or systemic embolism and a 25–44% mortality rate. In LVAD candidates, coexisting RAT significantly complicates perioperative management due to their critical condition and high risk of decompensation during surgery. Percutaneous thrombectomy offers a less invasive, lower-risk alternative to open surgery, enabling faster recovery. Case Presentation: We present a case of a 76-year-old male with ischemic cardiomyopathy and heart failure secondary to Adriamycin chemotherapy with an ejection fraction (EF) of 26%, diabetes mellitus, and stage 3 chronic kidney disease, scheduled for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Preoperative echocardiography revealed a large, multilobulated, mobile thrombus in the right atrium. Given the high surgical risk and thrombus mobility, percutaneous thrombectomy using the AngioVac system (Angiodynamics, Latham, NY, USA) was performed. The thrombus was successfully removed, and the patient was discharged on apixaban for long-term anticoagulation. Advanced medical therapy and transplant/durable LVAD evaluation were delayed by 35 days to allow for the stabilization of any postoperative effects. Conclusions: This case underscores the efficacy of percutaneous thrombectomy as a bridge to LVAD in high-risk patients, reducing thromboembolic complications and supporting safe LVAD implantation.

AbstractBackgroundThe prognosis in patients with advanced cardiac amyloidosis (CA) remains poor.ObjectivesWe sought to describe survival post heart transplantation (HT) in amyloid compared with non‐amyloid recipients, highlight waitlist times within the new allocation system across three Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) regions, and describe multiorgan transplantation (MOT) in hereditary amyloidosis.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of end‐stage CA patients who underwent HT at Mayo Clinic from January 2007 to December 2020. Wait time was compared in the new versus old OPTN allocation era starting December 18, 2018 by Wilcoxon rank sum test. All‐cause mortality for those with and without CA was compared using Kaplan–Meier estimates with log rank analysis, censoring December 16, 2022.ResultsFifty‐five patients with CA underwent HT between 2007 and 2020, 8 light chain amyloidosis (AL) (14.5%), 28 hereditary transthyretin (ATTRv) (50.9%), 17 wildtype transthyretin (ATTRwt) (30.9%), and 2 hereditary apolipoprotein A1 (AApoA1) amyloidosis patients (3.6%). No significant difference in overall survival post‐transplant was seen in amyloid compared with non‐amyloid (p = 0.816). Median time to HT was shorter in the new system, 45 days (IQR 24, 78) versus 174 days (IQR 76.5, 483.5), p = 0.006. There was a decline in MOT in hereditary amyloidosis over time with the concomitant rise in disease‐targeted therapies.ConclusionsHT survival in CA patients was similar to non‐amyloid patients. The new allocation system benefits this cohort with shorter wait times. There is less MOT in hereditary amyloidosis with increased utilization of disease‐targeted therapy.