BACKGROUND-The heart transplant (HT) guidelines recommendation to match recipient and donors within 30% of body weight lacks a strong evidence base and is not well established in patients bridged to transplant with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). In light of the scarcity of donor hearts, we investigated the effect of size mismatch on hemodynamics, one-year survival and length of stay (LOS) following HT. METHODS-Single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive HT patients from April 2007 to September 2017. Recipients were divided into 3 cohorts based on donor-to-recipient weight ratio (DRWR): (1) undersized (<0.7), (2) size-matched, (0.7-1.3); (3) oversized (>1.3). RESULTS-288 consecutive patients were identified (mean age 53 ± 11 years; 76% male), 46 were undersized (0.61 ± 0.05), 210 size-matched (0.94 ± 0.16), and 32 oversized (1.65 ± 0.38). There was no significant difference in donor left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) between the 3 groups (p = 0.11). The donor/recipient (D/R) predicted heart mass (PHM) was lowest in the undersized group (0.92 ± 0.13). There were no significant differences in 1-year survival in the overall and LVAD cohort (p = 0.65 and 0.59, respectively). Neither donor LVEDD nor D/R PHM differed among survivors or non-survivors. LOS was longer in the undersized group than the size-matched cohort (p = 0.004). The undersized group had hearts with the highest filling pressures and lowest cardiac index at 1 week among the remaining groups (p = 0.009, 0.017, and p = 0.05, respectively). There were no clinically significant differences in hemodynamics at 1 or 6 months.

Intra-aortic balloon pumps have traditionally been inserted via the femoral artery, limiting patients' activity and exposing patients to complications of immobility. For patients awaiting cardiac transplant, these complications may threaten a successful outcome, or at the least, complicate recuperation after transplant. A novel approach to insertion of balloon pumps via the subclavian artery is presented here, including routine nursing care, complications and related nursing actions, and experience with and advantages of this method. A team approach to care of these patients, including rehabilitation and exercise protocols, is recommended.

Delineation of roles and guidelines for education, certification, licensure and staffing levels of transplant nurses are needed to support all nurses working at the fullest extent of their education and licensure. This consensus document provides such recommendations and draws attention to areas for future research.

BACKGROUND: Neutropenia is a significant adverse event after heart transplantation (HT) and increases infection risk. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is commonly used in patients with neutropenia. In this work, we assessed the adverse effects of G-CSF treatment in the setting of a university hospital. METHODS: Data on HT patients from January 2008 to July 2016 were reviewed. Patients who received G-CSF were identified and compared with patients without a history of therapy. Baseline characteristics, rejection episodes, and outcomes were collected. Data were analyzed by incidence rates, time to rejection and survival were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves, and odds ratios were generated using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two HT patients were studied and 40 (18%) received G-CSF for a total of 85 total neutropenic events (0.79 event/patient year). There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. In the 3 months after G-CSF, the incidence rate of rejection was 0.067 event/month. In all other time periods considered free of G-CSF effect, the incidence rate was 0.011 event/month. This rate was similar to the overall incidence rate in the non-GCSF group, which was 0.010 event/month. There was a significant difference between the incidence rates in the G-CSF group at 0 to 3 months after G-CSF administration and the non-GCSF group (p = 0.04), but not for the other time periods (p = 0.5). Freedom from rejection in the 3 months after G-CSF administration was 87.5% compared with 97.5% in the non-GCSF group (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF administration was found to be associated with significant short-term risk of rejection. This suggests the need for increased surveillance during this time period.

No abstract