Indications, complications, and outcomes of cardiac surgery after heart transplantation: results from the cash study

[Abstract] Background: Allograft pathologies, such as valvular, coronary artery, or aortic disease, may occur early and late after cardiac transplantation. Cardiac surgery after heart transplantation (CASH) may be an option to improve quality of life and allograft function and prolong survival. Experience with CASH, however, has been limited to single-center reports. Methods: We performed a retrospective, multicenter study of heart transplant recipients with CASH between January 1984 and December 2020. In this study, 60 high-volume cardiac transplant centers were invited to participate. Results: Data were available from 19 centers in North America (n = 7), South America (n = 1), and Europe (n = 11), with a total of 110 patients. A median of 3 (IQR 2-8.5) operations was reported by each center; five centers included ≥ 10 patients. Indications for CASH were valvular disease (n = 62), coronary artery disease (CAD) (n = 16), constrictive pericarditis (n = 17), aortic pathology (n = 13), and myxoma (n = 2). The median age at CASH was 57.7 (47.8-63.1) years, with a median time from transplant to CASH of 4.4 (1-9.6) years. Reoperation within the first year after transplantation was performed in 24.5%. In-hospital mortality was 9.1% (n = 10). 1-year survival was 86.2% and median follow-up was 8.2 (3.8-14.6) years. The most frequent perioperative complications were acute kidney injury and bleeding revision in 18 and 9.1%, respectively. Conclusion: Cardiac surgery after heart transplantation has low in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications in carefully selected patients. The incidence and type of CASH vary between international centers. Risk factors for the worse outcome are higher European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE II) and postoperative renal failure

Heart re-transplantation in Eurotransplant

Internationally 3% of the donor hearts are distributed to re-transplant patients. In Eurotransplant, only patients with a primary graft dysfunction (PGD) within 1 week after heart transplantation (HTX) are indicated for high urgency listing. The aim of this study is to provide evidence for the discussion on whether these patients should still be allocated with priority. All consecutive HTX performed in the period 1981-2015 were included. Multivariate Cox' model was built including: donor and recipient age and gender, ischaemia time, recipient diagnose, urgency status and era. The study population included 18 490 HTX, of these 463 (2.6%) were repeat transplants. The major indications for re-HTX were cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) (50%), PGD (26%) and acute rejection (21%). In a multivariate model, compared with first HTX hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval for repeat HTX were 2.27 (1.83-2.82) for PGD, 2.24 (1.76-2.85) for acute rejection and 1.22 (1.00-1.48) for CAV (P < 0.0001). Outcome after cardiac re-HTX strongly depends on the indication for re-HTX with acceptable outcomes for CAV. In contrast, just 47.5% of all hearts transplanted in patients who were re-transplanted for PGD still functioned at 1-month post-transplant. Alternative options like VA-ECMO should be first offered before opting for acute re-transplantation

Results of frozen elephant trunk from the international E-vita Open registry

Background Over the years, frozen elephant trunk (FET) has become the treatment of choice for multisegmental thoracic aortic disease. This multicenter study presents the evolution of FET results using the E-vita Open hybrid graft with respect to institutional experience and time. Methods The data of International E-vita Open registry were studied according to the institutional experience of the participating centers (high- versus low-volume centers) and according to the evolution of FET treatment during time (1$^{st}$ period, 2005-2011 versus 2$^{nd}$ period, 2012-2018). Overall, 1,165 patients were enrolled in the study with a wide variety of multisegmental thoracic aortic pathologies and aortic emergencies. Participating centers determined their own surgical protocol. Results The overall 30-day mortality was 12%. Short- and long-term survival were higher in high- versus low-volume centers (P=0.048 and P=0.013, respectively). In the 2$^{nd}$ time period, cerebral complications were reduced significantly (P=0.015). Incidence of permanent spinal cord-related symptoms was reduced to 3% in the 2$^{nd}$ time period, but did not reach statistical significance. Hypothermic circulatory arrest time (P<0.001) and incidence of postoperative temporary renal replacement therapy (P=0.008) were significantly reduced in the 2$^{nd}$ time period. Ten-year survival and freedom from aortic-related death rates were 46.6% and 85.7%, respectively, for the entire group. The freedom from distal aortic re-interventions for a new or progressive residual aortic disease was 76.0%. Conclusions Evolution of FET arch repair techniques with the E-vita Open graft and increasing institutional experience were associated with improved results. Progression of residual aortic disease makes close follow-up with aortic imaging mandatory in such patients

A multicentre, propensity score matched analysis comparing a valve-sparing approach to valve replacement in aortic root aneurysm: Insight from the AVIATOR database

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to evaluate the outcome of valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) and to compare the outcomes to those of patients having composite valve-graft conduit aortic root replacement (CVG-ARR) in a cohort of patients with aortic root aneurysm ± valve insufficiency, without valvular stenosis. Although valve-sparing procedures are preferable in young patients, there is a lack of comparative data in comparable patients. METHODS: The VSRR procedures were performed in 2005 patients, and 218 patients underwent a CVG-ARR procedure. Exclusion criteria included aortic dissection, endocarditis and valvular stenosis. Propensity score matching (3:1 ratio) was applied to compare VSRR (reimplantation 33% and remodelling 67%) and CVG-ARR. RESULTS: We matched 218 patients with CVG-ARR to 654 patients with VSRR (median age, 56.0; median follow-up was 4 years in both groups; interquartile range 1-5 years). Early mortality was 1.1% of those who had VSRR versus 2.3% in those who had CVG-ARR. Survival was 95.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 94-97%] at 5 years in patients who had VSRR versus 85.4% (95% CI 82-92%) in those who had CVG-ARR; P = 0.002. Freedom from reintervention at 5 years was 96.8% (95% CI 95-98%) with VSRR and 95.4% (95% CI 91-99%) with CVG-ARR (P = 0.98). Additionally, there were more thromboembolic, endocarditis and bleeding events in the patients who had CVG-ARR (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre study shows excellent results after valve-sparing root replacement in patients with an ascending aortic aneurysm with or without valve insufficiency. Compared to composite valve-graft aortic root replacement, survival is better and valve-related events are fewer. Consequently, valve-sparing procedures should be considered whenever a durable repair is feasible. We advocate a valve-sparing strategy even in more complex cases when performed in experienced centres

A multicenter, propensity-score matched analysis comparing valve-sparing approach to valve replacement in aortic root aneurysm: Insight from AVIATOR database

OBJECTIVES: The study objective is to evaluate outcome of valve-sparing root replacement(VSRR) and its comparison to composite valve-graft conduit aortic root replacement(CVG-ARR), in a cohort of patients with aortic root aneurysm +/- valve insufficiency, without valvular stenosis. Although valve-sparing procedures are preferable in young patients, there is a lack of comparative data in comparable patients. METHODS: The VSRR procedures were performed in 2005 patients and 218 patients underwent a CVG-ARR procedure. Exclusion criteria: aortic dissection, endocarditis and valvular-stenosis. Propensity score matching (3:1 ratio) was applied to compare VSRR (reimplantation 33% and remodelling 67%) and CVG-ARR. RESULTS: We matched 218 CVG-ARR patients to 654 VSRR patients (median age, 56.0; median follow-up was 4 years in both, IQR 1-5 years). Early mortality was 1.1% in VSRR versus 2.3% in CVG-ARR. Survival was 95.4% (95% CI 94-97%) at 5 years in VSRR versus 85.4% (95% CI 82-92%) in CVG-ARR, p = 0.002. Freedom from reintervention at 5 years was 96.8% (95% CI 95-98%) in VSRR and 95.4% (95% CI 91-99%) in CVG-ARR, p = 0.98. Additionally, there were more thromboembolism, endocarditis and bleeding events in CVG-ARR (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre study shows excellent results after valve-sparing root replacement in patients with ascending aortic aneurysm with or without valve insufficiency. Compared to composite valve-graft aortic root replacement, survival is better and valve-related event are fewer. Consequently, valve-sparing procedures should be considered whenever a durable repair is feasible. We advocate a valve-sparing strategy even in more complex cases when performed in experienced centers