Effects of donor cause of death, ischemia time, inotrope exposure, troponin values, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic data on recipient outcomes: A review of the literature

BackgroundHeart transplantation has become standard of care for pediatric patients with either end‐stage heart failure or inoperable congenital heart defects. Despite increasing surgical complexity and overall volume, however, annual transplant rates remain largely unchanged. Data demonstrating pediatric donor heart refusal rates of 50% suggest optimizing donor utilization is critical. This review evaluated the impact of donor characteristics surrounding the time of death on pediatric heart transplant recipient outcomes.MethodsAn extensive literature review was performed to identify articles focused on donor characteristics surrounding the time of death and their impact on pediatric heart transplant recipient outcomes.ResultsPotential pediatric heart transplant recipient institutions commonly receive data from seven different donor death‐related categories with which to determine organ acceptance: cause of death, need for CPR, serum troponin, inotrope exposure, projected donor ischemia time, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic results. Although DITs up to 8 hours have been reported with comparable recipient outcomes, most data support minimizing this period to <4 hours. CVA as a cause of death may be associated with decreased recipient survival but is rare in the pediatric population. Otherwise, however, in the setting of an acceptable donor heart with a normal echocardiogram, none of the other data categories surrounding donor death negatively impact pediatric heart transplant recipient survival.ConclusionsEchocardiographic evaluation is the most important donor clinical information following declaration of brain death provided to potential recipient institutions. Considering its relative importance, every effort should be made to allow direct image visualization.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154939/1/petr13676.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154939/2/petr13676_am.pd

Malignancy following heart transplantation: differences in incidence and prognosis between sexes – a multicenter cohort study

[Abstract] Male patients are at increased risk for developing malignancy postheart transplantation (HT); however, real incidence and prognosis in both genders remain unknown. The aim of this study was to assess differences in incidence and mortality related to malignancy between genders in a large cohort of HT patients. Incidence and mortality rates were calculated for all tumors, skin cancers (SCs), lymphoma, and nonskin solid cancers (NSSCs) as well as survival since first diagnosis of neoplasia. 5865 patients (81.6% male) were included. Total incidence rates for all tumors, SCs, and NSSCs were lower in females [all tumors: 25.7 vs. 44.8 per 1000 person‐years; rate ratio (RR) 0.68, (0.60–0.78), P < 0.001]. Mortality rates were also lower in females for all tumors [94.0 (77.3–114.3) vs. 129.6 (120.9–138.9) per 1000 person‐years; RR 0.76, (0.62–0.94), P = 0.01] and for NSSCs [125.0 (95.2–164.0) vs 234.7 (214.0–257.5) per 1000 person‐years; RR 0.60 (0.44–0.80), P = 0.001], albeit not for SCs or lymphoma. Female sex was associated with a better survival after diagnosis of malignancy [log‐rank p test = 0.0037; HR 0.74 (0.60–0.91), P = 0.004]. In conclusion, incidence of malignancies post‐HT is higher in males than in females, especially for SCs and NSSCs. Prognosis after cancer diagnosis is also worse in males

Assessment for learning of paediatric cardiology trainees in 41 centres from 19 European countries

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on how trainees in paediatric cardiology are assessed among countries affiliated with the Association of European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology. METHODS: A structured and approved questionnaire was circulated to educationalists/trainers in 95 Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology training centres. RESULTS: Trainers from 46 centres responded with complete data in 41 centres. Instructional design included bedside teaching (41/41), didactic teaching (38/41), problem-based learning (28/41), cardiac catheterisation calculations (34/41), journal club (31/41), fellows presenting in the multidisciplinary meeting (41/41), fellows reporting on echocardiograms (34/41), clinical simulation (17/41), echocardiography simulation (10/41), and catheterisation simulation (3/41). Assessment included case-based discussion (n = 27), mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) (n = 12), directly observed procedures (n = 12), oral examination (n = 16), long cases (n = 11), written essay questions (n = 6), multiple choice questions (n = 5), and objective structured clinical examination (n = 2). Entrustable professional activities were utilised in 10 (24%) centres. Feedback was summative only in 17/41 (41%) centres, formative only in 12/41 (29%) centres and a combination of formative and summative feedback in 10/41 (24%) centres. Written feedback was provided in 10/41 (24%) centres. Verbal feedback was most common in 37/41 (90 %) centres. CONCLUSION: There is a marked variation in instructional design and assessment across European paediatric cardiac centres. A wide mix of assessment tools are used. Feedback is provided by the majority of centres, mostly verbal summative feedback. Adopting a programmatic assessment focusing on competency/capability using multiple assessment tools with regular formative multisource feedback may promote assessment for learning of paediatric cardiology trainees

Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology recommendations for basic training in paediatric and congenital cardiology 2020

The recommendations of the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology for basic training in paediatric and congenital cardiology required to be recognised as a paediatric cardiologist by the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology are described below. Those wishing to achieve more advanced training in particular areas of paediatric cardiology should consult the training recommendations of the different Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology Working Groups available on the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology website (www.aepc.org) and the respective publications 1-6. The development of training requirements is the responsibility of the Educational Committee and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology Council in collaboration with the Working Groups of the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology. Trainees should be exposed to all aspects of general paediatric and congenital cardiology from fetal life to adolescence and adulthood. Centres performing generalised and specialised work in paediatric and congenital cardiology should be committed to deliver postgraduate training. At each training institute, trainers should be appointed to supervise and act as mentors to the trainees. Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology will provide basic teaching courses to supplement the training process