Yip, Daniel S

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.

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.

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.