Pham, Si

Abstract Backgound Infections of the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) driveline are a dreaded complication that results in high mortality and morbidity. Method We retrospectively reviewed five consecutive patients with severe continuous‐flow LVAD (HVAD, Heartmate 2, and Heartmate 3) driveline infection. These infections, which developed on an average of 960.4 ± 843.9 days after LVAD placement, were refractory to systemic antibiotics and local wound care. All were treated with extensive surgical debridement, local installation of absorbable antibiotic‐loaded calcium sulfate beads (vancomycin and tobramycin), primary wound closure, and 6 weeks of systemic antibiotics after surgery. Results Four patients had resolution of DLI, and one had a recurrent infection at another part of the driveline 7 months after the complete resolution of the previous site. This patient was successfully treated with debridement and bead placements. Three patients still have their LVADs, while two received orthotopic heart transplants. At the time of the transplant, there was no evidence of gross infection of the LVAD drivelines or pumps. At the average follow‐up time of 425.8 ± 151 days, no patients have an active infection. Conclusion Treatment of LVAD driveline infection with absorbable antibiotic beads with primary wound closure is a viable option and merits further investigation.

AbstractIntroductionThe present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of heart transplant patients whose donor hearts were preserved with the SherpaPak controlled cold organ system versus the conventional ice storage technique.MethodsAll patients undergoing heart transplantation at our center between January 2019 and April 2021 were divided into two groups according to the technique used during donor heart preservation and transport. The first group consisted of 34 SherpaPak controlled temperature preservation patients, and the second group consisted of 47 patients where the conventional three bags and ice technique was utilized during organ transportation. The two groups were compared based on demographics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes.ResultsThere were no significant differences between the groups regarding Vasoactive Inotropic Score (VIS), Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD), and the need for a transient pacer. However, the VIS, PGD, and pacing trends were lower in the SherpaPak patients even though the total ischemic and cardiopulmonary bypass times were significantly longer. Furthermore, SherpaPak patients exhibited a shorter stay in the ICU with no severe PGD and mortality.ConclusionThe SherpaPak donor heart preservation provides safe outcomes in heart transplant patients. Further research is needed to utilize this method for longer durations of ischemic time and expand travel distances for organ transportation.