Abstract 4147352: Donation After Circulatory Death Is Associated with Increased Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Transplant Patients Supported by Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

Background: In recent years, both mechanical circulatory support devices (MCSD) and grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) are increasingly utilized for patients undergoing heart transplant. Multiple studies have demonstrated no difference in outcomes for DCD recipients compared to donation after brain death (DBD). To date, no study has examined whether outcomes remain similar among patients supported with MCSD pre-transplant. Methods: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, adult patients who underwent single-organ heart transplant from 12/1/2019 to 12/31/2023 were identified. MCSD included extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, and durable ventricular assist devices (VAD). Results: Among 12131 patients as defined above, 1059 (8.7%) received DCD and 11072 (91.3%) received DBD grafts. Of these, 557 (52.6%) DCD recipients and 7315 (66.1%) DBD recipients were supported with at least one MCSD pre-transplant. Recipients on ECMO or IABP were more likely to receive DBD grafts, whereas those with durable VADs were more likely to receive DCD grafts (Figure 1). There was no significant difference in DCD vs. DBD selection for patients supported by Impella (4.06% vs. 4.85%, p=0.087). In the MCSD population, DCD recipients had a 30% increased risk of mortality compared to DBD recipients (95% confidence interval: 1% to 69%; Figure 2). Compared to DBD recipients, DCD recipients had higher rates of new dialysis post-transplant (17.4% vs. 14.0%, p=0.031) and higher rates of re-transplant (1.3% vs. 0.4%, p=0.016). Mean graft left ventricular ejection fraction at 1 year did not differ significantly between DCD vs. DBD recipients (59% vs. 60%, p=0.308). Conclusions: For patients supported by MCSD pre-transplant, receiving a DCD graft is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Clinicians should proceed with caution in selecting DCD donors for this population.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2024-11-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.4147352
Primary Topic
Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4147352: Donation After Circulatory Death Is Associated with Increased Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Transplant Patients Supported by Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

Liviu Klein, Jason W. Smith, Melinda Song, Amy G. Fiedler et al.
Circulation
Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
article

Abstract 4147352: Donation After Circulatory Death Is Associated with Increased Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Transplant Patients Supported by Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

Liviu Klein, Jason W. Smith, Melinda Song, Amy G. Fiedler, Mandar A. Aras
article en

Abstract

Background: In recent years, both mechanical circulatory support devices (MCSD) and grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) are increasingly utilized for patients undergoing heart transplant. Multiple studies have demonstrated no difference in outcomes for DCD recipients compared to donation after brain death (DBD). To date, no study has examined whether outcomes remain similar among patients supported with MCSD pre-transplant. Methods: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, adult patients who underwent single-organ heart transplant from 12/1/2019 to 12/31/2023 were identified. MCSD included extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, and durable ventricular assist devices (VAD). Results: Among 12131 patients as defined above, 1059 (8.7%) received DCD and 11072 (91.3%) received DBD grafts. Of these, 557 (52.6%) DCD recipients and 7315 (66.1%) DBD recipients were supported with at least one MCSD pre-transplant. Recipients on ECMO or IABP were more likely to receive DBD grafts, whereas those with durable VADs were more likely to receive DCD grafts (Figure 1). There was no significant difference in DCD vs. DBD selection for patients supported by Impella (4.06% vs. 4.85%, p=0.087). In the MCSD population, DCD recipients had a 30% increased risk of mortality compared to DBD recipients (95% confidence interval: 1% to 69%; Figure 2). Compared to DBD recipients, DCD recipients had higher rates of new dialysis post-transplant (17.4% vs. 14.0%, p=0.031) and higher rates of re-transplant (1.3% vs. 0.4%, p=0.016). Mean graft left ventricular ejection fraction at 1 year did not differ significantly between DCD vs. DBD recipients (59% vs. 60%, p=0.308). Conclusions: For patients supported by MCSD pre-transplant, receiving a DCD graft is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Clinicians should proceed with caution in selecting DCD donors for this population.

CirculationVol. 150(Suppl_1)
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.