Cardiothoracic Advanced Surgical Materials Laboratory

Abstract

Combined heart-liver transplantation (CHLT) is a definitive therapy reserved for patients with concomitant heart failure and advanced liver disease. A limited number of centers perform CHLT, and even fewer use the en bloc implantation technique. This study 1) reviews clinical outcomes and immunoprotective effects following CHLT, and 2) describes our institution's experience of over two decades using the en bloc technique.All patients who underwent CHLT at our institution between January 2003 and July 2023 were identified. Recipient and donor characteristics, operative details, and clinical outcomes were assessed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to evaluate survival following CHLT.A total of 20 patients underwent CHLT using the en bloc technique at our institution between January 2003 and July 2023. At a median follow-up of 3.8 years for patients who survived the perioperative period (n=18), estimated survival at 1- and 5-years was 94% and 75%, respectively. There was 100% freedom from acute moderate rejection, acute severe rejection, and chronic rejection in all patients. No patients required re-transplantation due to rejection.CHLT is a definitive therapy reserved for patients with multi-organ dysfunction. At our institution, the en bloc technique is the preferred operative approach, as it minimizes cardiac insult, requires fewer anastomoses, minimizes cold ischemia time, and allows for rapid correction of coagulopathy. Overall survival for this cohort is excellent. Episodes of acute rejection were rarely observed, providing further support that the liver may serve an immunoprotective role in multi-organ transplantation.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2024.08.031

View details for PubMedID 39187122

Abstract

Ex-vivo normothermic perfusion of cardiac allografts has expanded the donor pool. Utilizing a beating heart implantation method avoids the second cardioplegic arrest and subsequent ischemia reperfusion injury typically associated with ex-vivo heart perfusion. We sought to describe our institutional experience with beating heart transplantation.This was a single-institution retrospective study of adult patients who underwent heart transplantation utilizing ex-vivo heart perfusion (EVHP) and a beating heart implantation technique between October 2022 and March 2024. Primary outcomes of interest included survival, initiation of mechanical circulatory support, and rejection. A sub-analysis of our institutional series of non-beating DCD heart transplantation was also performed.Twenty-four patients underwent isolated heart transplantation with the use of ex-vivo heart perfusion and beating heart implantation between October 2022 and March 2024; 21 (87.5%) received hearts from DCD donors, and 3 (12.5%) patients received hearts from DBD donors. Median follow-up was 192 days (interquartile range of 124-253.5 days), and 23 out of 24 patients (95.8%) were alive at last follow up. No patients required initiation of mechanical circulatory support. The majority of patients had pathological grade 0 rejection at the time of biopsy (n=16, 66.7%), and the median cell-free DNA percent was 0.04% (interquartile range 0.04-0.09). The rate of mechanical circulatory support initiation in the 22-patient non-beating DCD heart transplant cohort was significantly higher at 36.4% (p<0.005).A beating heart implantation technique can be used on DCD and DBD hearts on EVHP and is associated with excellent survival and low levels of rejection.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2024.07.058

View details for PubMedID 39111693

Abstract

Heart transplantation utilizing deceased after circulatory death (DCD) donors has expanded the donor pool through the use of ex vivo normothermic perfusion. Compared with brain death donation, the conventional method of performing DCD heart transplantation includes an additional period of warm and cold ischemia. We have developed a beating heart implantation technique that obliviates the need for a second cardioplegic arrest and the associated reperfusion injury. We hypothesize this reproducible method may improve short-term and long-term outcomes to mirror results seen in brain death donors and provide details on how to perform beating heart transplantation.

View details for DOI 10.1177/15569845231220678

View details for PubMedID 38258625

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.xjtc.2023.06.011

View details for PubMedID 37854833

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC10580035

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.07.035

View details for PubMedID 37558518

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.healun.2023.07.005

View details for PubMedID 37479048

Abstract

A complex 15-year treatment history of a 75-year-old man with New York Heart Association class III symptoms is presented via images and video. His treatment history was noteworthy of bicuspid aortic valve (AV) and a ventricular septal defect (VSD), for which he had an AV replacement and VSD closure in 2005. In 2015, he underwent redo AV replacement and root reconstruction. Echocardiography demonstrated severe bioprosthetic AV stenosis and moderate AV regurgitation. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a Sentinel cerebral protection device was recommended. Pre-operative computed tomography scan showed dilated aortic root and descending aorta with evidence of pseudocoarcta- tion. This case highlights the need for multidisciplinary team approach and the in-depth knowledge of various devices and techniques available.

View details for PubMedID 36884365

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.shj.2022.100099

View details for PubMedID 37275589

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC10236863

Abstract

To evaluate the effect of perioperative allogeneic packed red blood cell (RBC) transfusion during aortic root replacement.We reviewed patients undergoing aortic root replacement at our institution between March 2014 and April 2020. In total, 760 patients underwent aortic root replacement, of whom 442 (58%) received a perioperative RBC transfusion. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline and operative differences resulting in 159 matched pairs. All-cause mortality was assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Data were obtained from our institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database and chart review.After propensity score matching, the RBC-transfused and -nontransfused groups were similar for all preoperative characteristics. Cardiopulmonary bypass time, crossclamp time, and lowest operative temperature were similar between the transfused and nontransfused groups (standardized mean difference <0.05). RBC transfusion was associated with more frequent postoperative ventilation greater than 24 hours (36/159 [23%] vs 19/159 [12%]; P = .01), postoperative hemodialysis (9/159 [5.7%] vs 0/159 [0%]; P = .003), reoperation for mediastinal hemorrhage (9/159 [5.7%] vs 0/159 [0%]; P = .003), and longer intensive care unit and hospital length of stay (3 vs 2 days and 8 vs 6 days respectively; P < .001). Thirty-day operative mortality after propensity score matching was similar between the cohorts (1.9%; 3/159 vs 0%; P = .2), and 5-year survival was reduced in the RBC transfusion cohort (90.2% [95% confidence interval, 84.1%-96.7%] vs 97.1% [95% confidence interval, 92.3%-100%] P = .035).Aortic root replacement frequently requires RBC transfusion during and after the operation, but even after matching for observed preoperative and operative characteristics, RBC transfusion is associated with more frequent postoperative complications and reduced midterm survival.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.xjon.2023.01.006

View details for PubMedID 37063152

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC10091283

Abstract

Contemporary series of aortic arch replacement at the time of aortic root surgery are limited in number of patients and mostly address hemiarch replacement. We describe outcomes after aortic root and concomitant arch replacement, including total arch replacement.This single-institution retrospective review studied 1196 consecutive patients from May 2004 to September 2020 who underwent first-time aortic root replacement. Patients undergoing surgery for endocarditis were excluded (n = 68, 5.7%). Patients undergoing concomitant root and arch replacement were propensity matched with patients undergoing isolated root surgery based on indication, clinical and operative characteristics, demographics, medical history including connective tissue disorders, and urgency. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression modeling were used to assess the primary outcome of all-cause mortality and the secondary outcomes of prolonged ventilator use, postoperative blood transfusion, and debilitating stroke, adjusted for patient and operative characteristics.Among the 1128 patients who underwent aortic root intervention during the study period, 471 (41.8%) underwent concomitant aortic arch replacement. Most underwent hemiarch replacement (n = 411, 87.4%); 59 patients (12.6%) underwent total arch replacement (with elephant trunk: n = 23, 4.9%; without elephant trunk: n = 36, 7.7%). The mean follow-up time was 4.6 years postprocedure. Operative mortality was 2.2%, and total mortality over the entire study period was 9.2%. Propensity matching generated 348 matches (295 concomitant hemiarch, 53 concomitant total arch). Concomitant hemiarch (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.86, P = .99) and total arch replacement (hazard ratio, 1.60, 95% confidence interval, 0.72-3.57, P = .24) were not significantly associated with increased mortality. Rates of stroke were not significantly different among each group: isolated root (n = 11/348, 3.7%), root + hemiarch (n = 17/295, 5.8%), and root + total arch (n = 3/53, 5.7%) replacement (P = .50), nor was the adjusted risk of stroke. Both concomitant arch interventions were associated with prolonged ventilator use and use of postoperative blood transfusions.Hemiarch and total arch replacement are safe to perform at the time of aortic root intervention, with no significant differences in survival or stroke rates, but increased ventilator and blood product use.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.xjon.2022.12.014

View details for PubMedID 37063158

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC10091289