Sun, Benjamin C

BACKGROUND: A preservation system, the Organ Care System (OCS; TransMedics) uses normothermic pulsatile perfusion during organ transport for heart transplantation. This system has demonstrated favorable outcomes in hearts recovered from extended-criteria donors after brain death (DBD) and donors after circulatory death (DCD). METHODS: The OCS Heart Perfusion Registry collects data on US heart transplantations using the OCS, static cold storage (SCS), or thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) and donor hearts recovered from DBD or DCD donors. We analyzed donor and recipient characteristics and posttransplantation outcomes in patients transplanted with OCS donor hearts (either DBD or DCD) compared with SCS hearts, and with OCS hearts from DCD donors compared with those recovered with NRP followed by SCS. Propensity score matching was used in survival analyses to adjust for differences among recipient characteristics. RESULTS: Between 2021 and 2023, 3225 consecutive heart transplantations enrolled from 56 centers were analyzed in the Heart Perfusion Registry. The OCS was used in 854 of 3225 heart transplantations (26.4%), among which 340 (39.8%) were DBD and 514 (60.2%) were DCD donors, whereas 2174 DBD donors were recovered with SCS and another 197 DCD donors with NRP techniques. The OCS-DBD group experienced a greater number of organ offer refusals before final acceptance (13 versus 6; Wilcoxon rank sum, P <0.001) and a longer transport distance (667 miles versus 232 miles; Wilcoxon rank sum, P <0.001) compared with SCS-DBD. Survival at 12 months was similar between the 2 groups (89.9% for OCS-DBD versus 90.6% for SCS-DBD; marginal Cox model, P =0.54). Among the OCS-DCD and SCS-DBD groups, survival at 12 months was also similar (91.0% versus 92.5%, respectively; marginal Cox model, P =0.32). The OCS-DCD and NRP-DCD groups demonstrated similar survival (91.0% versus 91.7%, respectively; log rank, P =0.63), although the transport distance was longer in OCS-DCD compared with DCD with NRP followed by SCS (400 miles versus 223 miles; Wilcoxon rank sum, P <0.001). By 2023, 90% of all OCS donor management and recovery was performed with dedicated organ recovery teams. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that real-world implementation of the OCS for DBD donors (using predominantly a dedicated recovery team) is associated with expanded donor criteria, longer transport distance, and excellent posttransplantation outcomes. In OCS-DCD donors, outcomes parallel those of donors recovered with NRP-DCD and compare favorably with DBD donor organs.

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.