Blume, Elizabeth D.

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

Background: Guidelines recommend involvement of palliative care (PC) for patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease and their families. Little is known about the current integration of PC and CV services. Research Objectives: Our national survey aimed to describe current practices and to identify benefits, challenges, and barriers with collaboration. Methods: Qualitative content analysis of open-response questions in an investigator-developed electronic survey study of CV and PC providers (MDs, NPs, PAs, and other allied health) using email listservs, social media, and crowdsourcing. Frequencies were tabulated using SAS statistical software. Results: Of 134 respondents, most were physicians (n=56, 57%) or advanced practice RNs or PAs (n=37, 28%), from 52 U.S. institutions, representing 33 states. The most common care for which PC was integrated were mechanical circulatory support, advanced heart failure, and heart transplantation; the least common care for which PC was integrated were TAVR, ECMO, and pulmonary hypertension. Integrated practice (n=80, 61%), PC identification of goals of care (n=20, 15%) and PC aid in patient/family communication (n=15, 11%) were the most commonly identified as positives in current practice. PC provider workforce (n=22, 16%), underutilization of PC referrals (n=20, 15%), late disease PC referral (n=19, 14%), and fundamental knowledge deficit of specialty scope (n=18, 14%) were most frequently identified as challenges. Other barriers specifically noted were underdeveloped health infrastructure and limited allocated resources (n=23,17%) and mis-/negative perception of services (n=15, 11%). Conclusion: PC and CV collaboration occurs for a high proportion of CV patients and is viewed as overwhelming positive, despite the challenges of limited PC specialists availability, underdeveloped healthcare infrastructure, limited understanding of specialty practice, and late referrals. Priorities includes increasing PC provider availability, expanding knowledge of PC services, educating providers on models of collaboration, and improving institutional support.