Hsu, Daphne T.

ImportanceStudies suggest that everolimus may reduce the risk of rejection, cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and cytomegalovirus (CMV) after heart transplant. Everolimus use is controversial because of data demonstrating higher infection deaths when everolimus is introduced de novo after transplant. It is unclear whether everolimus is safe and effective when initiated at 6 months posttransplant in children, a population in which median graft survival is limited to 15 years and randomized clinical trials are lacking.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of everolimus combined with low-dose tacrolimus to prevent major adverse transplant events (MATEs) in children after heart transplant.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsMulticenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial enrolling 211 patients who were alive 6 months after pediatric heart transplant at 25 US sites from February 2018 to August 2020. The last date of follow-up was April 17, 2023.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus (n = 107) or standard-dose tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (n = 104) for 30 months.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy end point was the MATE-3 score at 30 months, a validated composite ordinal end point including acute cellular rejection, CAV, and CKD. The primary safety end point was the MATE-6 score, encompassing the MATE-3 score plus antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder.ResultsAmong 211 children randomized, the mean age was 8.2 (SD, 6.3) years, 97 (46%) underwent transplant for congenital heart disease, and 49 (23%) were treated for rejection before 6 months. At 30 months, the mean MATE-3 score did not differ between the 2 treatment groups (mean difference, −0.32; 95% CI, −0.90 to 0.20; P = .16). The mean MATE-6 score was no higher in the everolimus group than in the mycophenolate group (baseline-adjusted mean difference, −0.40; 95% CI, −1.81 to 0.93), meeting the success criterion for safety (noninferiority margin <3). There were no differences in graft survival, MATE-free survival, or freedom from any individual MATE. Everolimus was associated with greater improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate at 12 months (mean difference, 10.5 mL/min/1.73 m2; 95% CI, 1.09-19.91 mL/min/1.73 m2) and a lower incidence of CMV infection (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.93).Conclusions and RelevanceAmong 6-month pediatric heart transplant survivors, everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus did not differ from tacrolimus and mycophenolate in preventing the composite of cellular rejection, CAV, and CKD at 30 months. However, everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus appear to be safe based on the total burden of 6 MATEs and may be associated with improved kidney function and less CMV infection.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03386539

While clinical status at the time of ventricular assist device (VAD) implant can negatively affect outcomes, it is unclear if early improvement after implant can have a positive effect. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to describe the clinical status of pediatric patients supported with a VAD and determine the impact of clinical status on the 1-month follow-up form on survival and ability to discharge. This was a retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively by the Pediatric Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support Registry (Pedimacs) Registry. The Pedimacs database was queried for patients implanted between September 19, 2012, and September 30, 2019, who were alive on VAD support at 1-month postimplant on either a paracorporeal pulsatile or intracorporeal continuous device. Four factors on the 1-month follow-up were the focus of this study: mechanical ventilation, supplemental nutritional support, inotropic support, and ambulatory status. These factors were regarded as present if detected between 1-week and 1-month postimplant and were analyzed to determine their impact on survival following 1 month of VAD support and on successful discharge from hospital in patients with implantable continuous-flow devices. The eligible study cohort consisted of 414 patients with a mean age of 9.6 ± 6.2 years, weight of 40.8 ± 32.3 kg with the majority being male (56.7%) and having cardiomyopathy (68%). An isolated left ventricular assist device (LVAD) was the most common implant (85.5%). At implant, 40% were ventilated, 57% required nutritional support, 93% were on inotropes, and 58% were nonambulating. On the 1-month postimplant form, there were significant improvements in all four categories (14% ventilator support, 46% nutritional support, 53% on inotropes, and 25% nonambulating). However, there was no significant early change in the percentage of patients requiring supplemental nutrition in the paracorporeal pulsatile devices (88% vs. 82%; p = 0.2). Presence of these clinical parameters in early follow-up postimplant had a significant negative impact on survival and on the ability of patients with continuous-flow devices to be discharged. Presence of four specific clinical parameters early after VAD placement is associated with worse overall survival and an inability to discharge patients on VAD support. Ongoing work is needed for optimization of patients before implant and aggressive rehabilitation after implant to help improve long-term outcomes.

Background During the severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 pandemic, there has been an increase in hyperinflammatory presentation in previously healthy children with a variety of cardiac manifestations. Our objective is to describe the cardiac manifestations found in an international cohort of 55 pediatric cases with multi‐system inflammatory syndrome during the severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 pandemic. Methods and Results We reviewed data on previously healthy pediatric patients (≤18 years) with structurally normal hearts who presented at hospitals in the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, and Pakistan with multi‐system inflammatory syndrome in children and had consultation with a pediatric cardiologist. Data collected included demographics, clinical presentation, laboratory values, electrocardiographic abnormalities, echocardiographic findings, and initial therapies. A total of 55 patients presented with multi‐system inflammatory syndrome in children. Thirty‐five patients (64%) had evidence of decreased left ventricular function, 17 (31%) had valvulitis, 12 (22%) with pericardial effusion, and 11 (20%) with coronary abnormalities. Twenty‐seven (49%) required intensive care unit admission and 24 (44%) had evidence of shock. Eleven patients (20%) fulfilled complete Kawasaki disease criteria and had lower NT‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide), D‐dimer, and ferritin levels compared with those who did not fulfill criteria. Electrophysiologic abnormalities occurred in 6 patients and included complete atrioventricular block, transient atrioventricular block, and ventricular tachycardia. Conclusions To our knowledge, we describe the first international cohort of pediatric patients with multi‐system inflammatory syndrome in children during the severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 pandemic with a range of cardiac manifestations. This article brings awareness and alertness to the global medical community to recognize these children during the pandemic and understand the need for early cardiology evaluation and follow‐up.