Adequate immune response to vaccination remains a challenge in patients after solid organ transplantation. We report a case of a 61‐year‐old male patient who received a left ventricular assist device as a bridge to transplant therapy. Three months before transplantation, he suffered mild SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and was successfully discharged thereafter. Eight days before his successful heart transplantation, he received mRNA BNT 162b2 vaccination. Immediately after transplantation, we detected sufficient rise of nucleocapsid and spike antibodies despite immune suppression therapy. We suspect potential booster effects of the previous SARS‐CoV‐2 infection giving rise to adequate immune response following single vaccination.

Antibody-mediated graft rejection caused by donor-specific antibodies (DSA-MR) remains a serious problem after heart transplantation (HTx). IgM-enriched human intravenous immunoglobulin (IGM-IVIG) consists of 76% IgG, 12% IgM, and 12% IgA and provides a new multifactorial approach for DSA-MR. Between 2017 and 2020, four (P1-4) of 102 patients developed DSA-MR after HTx in our department and were repetitively treated with IGM-IVIG in combination with anti-thymocyte globulin. While in P1 and P4, DSA-MR occurred within the early post-operative interval, P2 and P3 developed DSA-MR approximately 1 year after transplantation. An impairment of ventricular function was observed in three of four patients. Furthermore, P1 and P4 suffered from malign ventricular arrhythmias. After the application of IGM-IVIG, the ventricular function recovered, and all patients could be discharged from the hospital. As part of a multifactorial therapeutic approach, treatment with IGM-IVIG seems to be a safe and effective strategy to address DSA-MR.

As society is ageing, an increasing prevalence of elderly heart failure patients will be expected. In order to increase the donor pool, acceptance of older donors might be a reasonable choice. All patients undergoing heart transplantation between 2010 and 2021 at a single department were retrospectively reviewed and divided into different study groups with regard to recipient (≤60 years (RY) or >60 years (RO)) and donor age (≤50 years (DY) or >50 years (DO). A total of n = 201 patients were included (DY/RY, n = 91; DO/RY, n = 38; DY/RO, n = 41; DO/RO, n = 31). Neither incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction (p = 0.64) nor adverse events, such as kidney failure (p = 0.27), neurological complications (p = 0.63), infections (p = 0.21) or acute graft rejection (p = 1.00), differed between the groups. However, one-year survival was impaired in the DO/RO group (56.0%) compared to the other groups (DY/RY: 86.1%, DY/RO: 78.8%, DO/RY: 74.2%, p = 0.02). Given the impaired one-year survival, acceptance of grafts from old donors for old recipients should be performed with caution and by experienced centres only. Nevertheless, because of the otherwise dismal prognosis of elderly heart failure patients, transplantation of patients may still improve the therapy outcome.

OBJECTIVES Heart transplantation after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains challenging. It is still unclear whether its support duration impacts the outcome after transplantation. METHODS All patients undergoing heart transplantation between 2010 and 2021 at a single department after previous left ventricular assistance were retrospectively reviewed and divided into 4 different study groups with regard to the duration of LVAD support to examine the impact on the postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS A total of n = 198 patients were included and assigned to the 4 study groups (group 1: <90 days, n = 14; group 2: 90 days to 1 year, n = 31; group 3: 1–2 years, n = 29; group 4: >2 years, n = 24). Although there were no differences between the 4 groups concerning relevant mismatch between the recipients and donors, the incidence of primary graft dysfunction was numerically increased in patients with the shortest support duration, and also those patients with >1 year of support (group 1: 35.7%, group 2: 25.8%, group 3: 41.4%, group 4: 37.5%, P = 0.63). The incidence of acute graft rejection was by trend increased in patients of group 1 (group 1: 28.6%, group 2: 3.3%, group 3: 7.1%, group 4: 12.5%, P = 0.06). Duration of LVAD support did not impact on perioperative adverse events (infections, P = 0.79; acute kidney injury, P = 0.85; neurological events, P = 0.74; thoracic bleeding, P = 0.61), neither on postoperative survival (1-year survival: group 1: 78.6%, group 2: 66.7%, group 3: 80.0%, group 4: 72.7%, P = 0.74). CONCLUSION We cannot identify a significant impact of the duration of pretransplant LVAD support on postoperative outcome; therefore, we cannot recommend a certain timeframe for transplantation of LVAD patients.