Guariento, Alvise

Background: Despite its use in patients awaiting heart transplant (HT), the impact of continuous inotropic support on short-term complications and long-term transplant outcomes remains unclear. This study evaluated inotrope use at the time of HT on perioperative complications and post-transplant survival, comparing outcomes at 30 days, 1 year, and 10 years with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) strategies including ECMO, IABP, and VADs. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the United Network for Organ sharing (UNOS) registry was performed, stratifying patients based on bridge strategy at the time of transplant: inotropes, ECMO, IABP, or VADs. Baseline characteristics, perioperative complications, and 30-day, 1-year, and 10-year post-transplant survival outcomes were analyzed across groups. Survival was assessed using Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Among the 11,801 heart transplant patients included, 9330 were on inotropes, 372 were on ECMO, 1072 received an IABP, and 1027 had VADs. Inotrope-bridged patients had significantly lower 30-day and 1-year mortality rates compared to the ECMO, IABP, and VAD groups. They also experienced reduced incidences of post-transplant dialysis and stroke. At 10 years, the inotrope group demonstrated superior long-term survival, with significantly lower mortality risk compared to ECMO (HR: 1.81; CI: 1.49–2.20, p < 0.001), IABP (HR: 1.19; CI: 1.06–1.32, p = 0.005), and VAD (HR: 1.18; CI: 1.10–1.27, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Continuous use of inotropes after waitlisting is associated with lower short, intermediate, and long-term mortality and does not lead to worse outcomes compared to ECMO, IABP, and VAD support. When mechanical support is not an option, inotropic therapy remains a viable and effective strategy.

AbstractBackgroundUnited Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation criteria changed in 2018 to accommodate the increased prevalence of patients on a ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplant and prioritize sicker people in anticipation of a heart graft. We aimed to assess the impact of patient age in the new allocation policy on mortality following heart transplantation. Secondary outcomes included the effect of age ≥70 on post‐transplant events, including stroke, dialysis, pacemaker, and rejection requiring treatment.MethodsThe UNOS Registry was queried to identify patients who underwent heart transplants alone in the US between 2000 and 2021. Patients were divided into groups according to their age (over 70 and under 70 years old).ResultsPatients aged over 70 were more likely to require dialysis during follow‐up, but less likely to experience rejection requiring treatment, compared with patients aged <70. Age ≥70 in the new allocation system was a significant predictor of 1‐year mortality (adjusted HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.05–1.91; p = .024), but its effect on 5‐year mortality was not significant after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted HR: 1.27; 95% CI:.97–1.66; p = .077). Undergoing transplantation under the new allocation policy vs the old allocation policy was not a significant predictor of mortality in patients over 70 years old.ConclusionsAge ≥70 is a significant predictor of 1‐year mortality following heart transplantation, but not at 5 and 10 years; however, the new allocation does not seem to have changed the outcomes for this group of patients.

(1) Background: Heart failure is an extremely impactful health issue from both a social and quality-of-life point of view and the rate of patients with this condition is destined to rise in the next few years. Transplantation remains the mainstay of treatment for end-stage heart failure, but a shortage of organs represents a significant problem that prolongs time spent on the waiting list. In view of this, the selection of donor and recipient must be extremely meticulous, considering all factors that could predispose to organ failure. One of the main considerations regarding heart transplants is the risk of graft rejection and the need for immunosuppression therapy to mitigate that risk. In this study, we aimed to assess the characteristics of patients who need immunosuppression treatment for rejection within one year of heart transplantation and its impact on mid-term and long-term mortality. (2) Methods: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Registry was queried to identify patients who solely underwent a heart transplant in the US between 2000 and 2021. Patients were divided into two groups according to the need for anti-rejection treatment within one year of heart transplantation. Patients’ characteristics in the two groups were assessed, and 1 year and 10 year mortality rates were compared. (3) Results: A total of 43,763 patients underwent isolated heart transplantation in the study period, and 9946 (22.7%) needed anti-rejection treatment in the first year. Patients who required treatment for rejection within one year after transplant were more frequently younger (49 ± 14 vs. 52 ± 14 years, p < 0.001), women (31% vs. 23%, p < 0.001), and had a higher CPRA value (14 ± 26 vs. 11 ± 23, p < 0.001). Also, the rate of prior cardiac surgery was more than double in this group (27% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), while prior LVAD (12% vs. 11%, p < 0.001) and IABP (10% vs. 9%, p < 0.01) were more frequent in patients who did not receive anti-rejection treatment in the first year. Finally, pre-transplantation creatinine was significantly higher in patients who did not need treatment for rejection in the first year (1.4 vs. 1.3, p < 0.01). Most patients who did not require anti-rejection treatment underwent heart transplantation during the new allocation era, while less than half of the patients who required treatment underwent transplantation after the new allocation policy implementation (65% vs. 49%, p < 0.001). Patients who needed rejection treatment in the first year had a higher risk of unadjusted 1 year (HR: 2.25; 95% CI: 1.88–2.70; p < 0.001), 5 year (HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.60–1.79; p < 0.001), and 10 year (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.41–1.54, p < 0.001) mortality, and this was confirmed at the adjusted analysis at all three time-points. (4) Conclusions: Medical treatment of acute rejection was associated with significantly increased 1 year mortality compared to patients who did not require anti-rejection therapy. The higher risk of mortality was confirmed at a 10 year follow-up. Further studies and newer follow-up data are required to investigate the role of anti-rejection therapy in the heart transplant population.