Citations

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.

Introduction: Surgically implanted epicardial left ventricular (eLV) lead has been used as an alternative approach when implantation of transvenous LV (tLV) lead in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has failed. Recent literatures noted similarities in clinical response between tLV and eLV-CRT patients. However, comparison between CRT patients with ischemic (ICM) and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is currently lacking in eLV-CRT patients. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that DCM patients respond better to eLV-CRT than ICM patients. Methods: Of 1038 patients who underwent tLV-CRT implantation at UCSD and Mayo Clinics between 2002 and 2013, 44 (Age 63±15, 28M) had failed tLV lead placement and received eLV-CRT. Electronic Medical Records of these patients were reviewed. NYHA class and echocardiograph were assessed before and after successful CRT implantation. Results: Following eLV-CRT implantation, improvements were noted in LVEF (26% vs. 31%, p < 0.01), NYHA class (2.9 vs. 2.3, p < 0.01) and LVESD (57mm vs. 52mm, p = 0.03) in the study cohort. In patients with DCM (n=19), the NYHA class (3.0 vs. 2.3, p = 0.01), LVEF (24% vs. 30%, p = 0.02) and LVESD (57mm vs. 52mm, p = 0.04) had significantly improved following CRT implantation compared to baseline (figures). No statistically significant changes in NYHA class, LVEF and LVESD were observed in patients with ICM (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: In this two-center study, eLV-CRT patients with DCM benefited significantly after CRT, as compared to ICM patients. Although larger scaled studies are needed, eLV-CRT may be considered a viable alternative to tLV-CRT, especially in patients with DCM.

Introduction: Surgically implanted epicardial left ventricular (eLV) lead is an alternative approach when transvenous LV (tLV) lead implantation in CRT patients has failed. With advancement in surgical technique and free from limitations of cardiac venous anatomy, operators have the freedom to choose the most optimal LV pacing site. Recent literatures noted differential clinical response in tLV-CRT patients with different LV lead locations. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no such analysis has been published for eLV-CRT patients. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that optimal LV lead location in eLV-CRT is similar to tLV-CRT and similar clinical response is expected. Methods: After unsuccessful attempt(s) of tLV-CRT implantation, 44 (Age 63±15, 28M) patients received eLV-CRT from UCSD and Mayo Clinics between 2002 and 2013. Two-view (PA, lateral) chest radiographs were used to determine lead location by blinded independent observers. 9 patients were partially excluded from lead location analysis due to congenital cardiac anomaly or unavailable lateral chest radiograph. eLV lead locations were classified as basal, mid, or apical on the PA view; and anterior, anterolateral, lateral, posterolateral, or posterior on the lateral view. Survival data were collected from the national death and location database. Results: During an average follow up of 65 months, 15 patients have died following eLV-CRT implant. No death was attributed to acute surgical complication to eLV-CRT implantation. Kaplan-Meyer survival estimate showed anterior and apical eLV lead positions had lower survival rate as compared to non-anterior (p<0.01, figure A) and non-apical location (p=0.07, figure B). Conclusion: In this two-center study, apical and anterior eLV lead locations were associated with significantly lower survival rate. The study implies apical and/or anterior locations should be avoided, if possible, during eLV-CRT implantation.

AbstractInflammatory pseudotumor (IPT), also known as plasma cell granuloma, is a rare lesion of unknown etiology that occurs in many organs, especially in the lung. Here we report five cases of IPT arising in pulmonary artery mimicking chronic thromboembolic disease, not previously documented in the literature. Those cases were identified at our institute among over 2500 pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) specimens acquired from 2000 to 2017. The cohort included three men and two women with a median age of 41 years (range: 23–54). All patients presented with dyspnea and radiologic findings of pulmonary artery thromboembolism, some concerning for intimal sarcoma. The duration between disease onset and PEA ranged from 6 months to approximately 3 years. Histologically, all cases showed proliferation of spindle cells with marked inflammatory infiltrates composed predominantly of plasma cells, histiocytes, and small lymphocytes. Ancillary studies were performed in each case and ruled out other possibilities, such as sarcoma, lymphoma, plasmacytoma, IgG4‐related disease, and infection. IPT arising in pulmonary artery presenting clinically as acute or chronic thromboembolic disease is very unusual, in which clinical data, radiographic findings, and histopathologic features have to be integrated for reaching the proper diagnosis.

AbstractIntroductionThe outcomes of repeated cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) lead extraction have not been well studied. We sought to determine the indications, outcomes, and safety of repeated lead extraction procedures.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted using data from two medical centers, including 38 patients who had undergone two or more lead extraction procedures compared to 439 patients who had a single procedure. The electronic medical records and procedural databases were reviewed to determine the indications, procedural characteristics, and outcomes. The outcomes of the first procedure were compared to the outcomes of subsequent procedures.ResultsThe 5‐year cumulative probability of a repeated extraction procedure was 11% (95% confidence interval, 7%–15%). In 439 patients who underwent single lead extractions, 72% had device and lead related infections as the procedure indication compared to 39% for 38 patients who underwent repeated extraction (P < 0.001). The mean duration from device reimplant to repeated extraction procedures was 63 ± 48 months. Ninety‐eight percent of the leads were removed completely in repeated procedures, similar to the 95% success rate of the first procedure (P = 0.51). There was no significant difference in major complication rate in the first or repeated extractions (2.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.79).ConclusionsRepeated transvenous lead extraction is not uncommon. It had a high success rate comparable to that of the initial procedure and was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse events.

BackgroundLeft ventricular (LV) pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can be achieved via a transvenous or epicardial route. A surgically implanted epicardial LV (eLV) lead is used after a standard transvenous LV (tLV) lead implantation has failed. However, studies of clinical outcomes in patients with eLV leads and comparisons of outcome between tLV and eLV‐CRT are sparse. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare clinical response between tLV‐CRT and eLV‐CRT, as well as to understand the differences within the eLV‐CRT population.MethodsForty‐four patients received eLV‐CRT following unsuccessful attempts of tLV‐CRT implantation between 2002 and 2013 at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and Mayo Clinics. These patients were matched for age, gender, and etiology of cardiomyopathy in a 1:2 ratio with a cohort of patients who received tLV‐CRT during the same time period.ResultsDuring a mean follow‐up of 57 months, similar clinical outcomes and survival rate were noted between tLV and eLV‐CRT patients (all P > 0.05). Within the eLV‐CRT group, dilated cardiomyopathy patients had significant improvement in New York Heart Association class and ejection fraction (both P < 0.05), while ischemic cardiomyopathy patients did not (both P > 0.05). eLV‐CRT patients with nonanterior lead location had significantly improved survival (P < 0.001). There was also a trend for improved survival in those with nonapical lead location (P = 0.09).ConclusionIn this case‐matched two‐centered study, comparable improvements were noted in patients with tLV‐CRT and eLV‐CRT. Operators should target nonanterior and nonapical locations during eLV‐CRT implantation. Use of eLV‐CRT should be considered a viable alternative for CRT candidates.