Although primary graft dysfunction (PGD) is fairly common early after cardiac transplant, standardized schemes for diagnosis and treatment remain contentious. Most major cardiac transplant centers ...use different definitions and parameters of cardiac function. Thus, there is difficulty comparing published reports and no agreed protocol for management. A consensus conference was organized to better define, diagnose, and manage PGD. There were 71 participants (transplant cardiologists, surgeons, immunologists and pathologists), with vast clinical and published experience in PGD, representing 42 heart transplant centers worldwide. State-of-the-art PGD presentations occurred with subsequent breakout sessions planned in an attempt to reach consensus on various issues. Graft dysfunction will be classified into primary graft dysfunction (PGD) or secondary graft dysfunction where there is a discernible cause such as hyperacute rejection, pulmonary hypertension, or surgical complications. PGD must be diagnosed within 24 hours of completion of surgery. PGD is divided into PGD-left ventricle and PGD-right ventricle. PGD-left ventricle is categorized into mild, moderate, or severe grades depending on the level of cardiac function and the extent of inotrope and mechanical support required. Agreed risk factors for PGD include donor, recipient, and surgical procedural factors. Recommended management involves minimization of risk factors, gradual increase of inotropes, and use of mechanical circulatory support as needed. Retransplantation may be indicated if risk factors are minimal. With a standardized definition of PGD, there will be more consistent recognition of this phenomenon and treatment modalities will be more comparable. This should lead to better understanding of PGD and prevention/minimization of its adverse outcomes.
The field of mechanical circulatory support has been impacted by the approval of new continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and changes to the United States heart allocation system.
...Primary isolated continuous-flow LVAD implants in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs registry from January 2014 through September 2019 were evaluated. Survival and freedom from major adverse events were compared between axial-flow, centrifugal-flow with hybrid levitation (CF-HL), and centrifugal-flow with full magnetic levitation (CF-FML) devices.
Of 2603 devices implanted in 2014, 1824 (70.1%) were axial flow and 1213 (46.6%) were destination therapy (DT); through September 2019, 1752 devices were implanted, but only 37 (2.1%) were axial flow and 1230 (70.2%) were DT. Implants were performed in 13,016 patients between 2014 and 2018. Patients receiving implants in 2017-2018 compared with 2014-2016 were more likely to be at Intermacs profile 1 (17.1% vs 14.3%, P < .001) and to have preimplant temporary mechanical circulatory support (34.8% vs 29.3%, P < .001). Overall survival and freedom from major adverse events were higher with CF-FML devices. In multivariable analysis of survival between CF-HL and CF-FML, device type was not a significant early hazard, but the use of CF-HL devices had a late hazard ratio for death of 3.01 (P < .001).
Over the past 5 years, centrifugal-flow LVADs have become the dominant technology and DT the most common implant strategy. While outcomes with CF-FML devices are promising, comparisons with other devices from nonrandomized registry studies should be made with caution.
PDF
