Enrico Perna

Single-center outbreak of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in heart transplant recipients

Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) outbreaks are described in solid organ transplant recipients. Few reports suggest interhuman transmission with important infection control implications. We described a large PJP outbreak in heart transplant (HTx) recipients.

End-stage heart failure: Two surgical approaches with different rehabilitative outcomes

Background A rising number of patients are surgically treated for heart failure at the more advanced stage, thanks to the increasing use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as a reliable alternative to heart transplantation (HTx). However, it is still unknown whether differences exist between the two surgical approaches in the efficacy of rehabilitation programmes. Therefore, aim of this study was to evaluate whether functional capacity and rehabilitative outcomes differ between HTx and implantation of LVAD. Methods and results We enrolled 51 patients with HTx and 46 with LVAD upon admission to our rehabilitation-unit. We evaluated six-minute walking test (6MWT), resting oxygen saturation (SaO2) and nutritional assessment before and after a standardised cardiovascular rehabilitation programme. HTx and LVAD groups differed in age, anthropometric variables, gender distribution. Upon enrolment, 6MWT distance was similar in the two groups, whereas malnutrition was less frequent and the waist circumference/height ratio (WHtR) was greater in LVAD patients. SaO2 was greater in HTx patients. Rehabilitation improved SaO2, 6MWT distance and nutritional status. The difference in malnutrition disappeared, but WHtR remained higher in the LVAD and SaO2 higher in the HTx patients; the 6MWT distance improved more in the HTx patients. Multivariate linear regression analysis confirmed that the type of intervention was independent predictor of 6MWT distance after rehabilitation. Conclusions HTx patients improve more rapidly and perform better after rehabilitation, suggesting the need for more tailored rehabilitation training for LVAD patients.

Dose-dependent efficacy of β-blocker in patients with chronic heart failure and atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND The usefulness of β-blockers in heart failure (HF) patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) has been questioned. METHODS AND RESULTS We analyzed data from HF patients (958 patients (801 males, 84%, age 67 ± 11 years)) with AF enrolled in the MECKI score database. We evaluated prognosis (composite of cardiovascular death, urgent heart transplant, or left ventricular assist device) of patients receiving β-blockers (n = 777, 81%) vs. those not treated with β-blockers (n = 181, 19%). We also analyzed the role β1-selectivity and the role of daily β-blocker dose. To account for different HF severity, Kaplan-Meier survival curves were normalized for relevant confounding factors and for treatment strategies. Dose was available in 629 patients. Median follow-up was 1312 (577-2304) days in the entire population, 1203 (614-2420) and 1325 (569-2300) days in patients not receiving and receiving β-blockers. 224 (23%, 54/1000 events/year), 163 (21%, 79/1000 events/year), and 61 (34%, 49/1000 events/year) events were recorded, respectively. At 10-year patients treated with β-blockers had a better outcome (HR 0.447, p < 0.01) with no effects as regards β1selective drugs (53%) vs. β1-β2 blockers (47%). Survival improved in parallel with β-blocker dose increase (HR 0.296, 0.496, 0.490 for the high, medium, and low dose vs. no β-blockers, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION HF patients with AF taking a β-blocker have a better outcome (with a survival improvement in parallel with daily dose but no differences as regards β1 selectivity) but this does not mean that β-blockers improve outcomes in these patients as we cannot control for all the potential confounders associated with β-blocker use.

Scheduled intermittent inotropes for Ambulatory Advanced Heart Failure. The RELEVANT-HF multicentre collaboration

BACKGROUND Ambulatory Advanced Heart Failure (AAHF) is characterized by recurrent HF hospitalizations, escalating diuretic requirements, intolerance to neurohormonal antagonists, end-organ dysfunction, short-term reduced life expectancy despite optimal medical management (OMM). The role of intermittent inotropes in AAHF is unclear. The RELEVANT-HF registry was designed to obtain insight on the effectiveness and safety of compassionate scheduled repetitive 24-hour levosimendan infusions (LEVO) in AAHF patients. METHODS 185 AAHF NYHA class III-IV patients, with ≥2 HF hospitalizations/emergency visits in the previous 6 months and systolic dysfunction, were treated with LEVO at tailored doses (0.05-0.2 μg/kg/min) without prior bolus every 3-4 weeks. We compared data on HF hospitalizations (percent days spent in hospital, DIH) in the 6 months before and after treatment start. RESULTS Infusion-related adverse events occurred in 23 (12.4%) patients the commonest being ventricular arrhythmias (16, 8.6%). During follow-up, 37 patients (20%) required for clinical instability treatment adjustments (decreases in infusion dose, rate of infusion or interval). From the 6 months before to the 6 months after treatment start we found lower DIH (9.4 (8.2) % vs 2.8 (6.6) %, p < 0.0001), cumulative number (1.3 (0.6) vs 1.8 (0.8), p = 0.0001) and length of HF admissions (17.4 (15.6) vs 21.6 (13.4) days, p = 0.0001). One-year survival was 86% overall and 78% free from death/LVAD/urgent transplant. CONCLUSIONS In AAHF patients, who remain symptomatic despite OMM, LEVO is well tolerated and associated with lower overall length of hospital stay during six months. This multicentre clinical experience underscores the need for a randomized controlled trial of LEVO impact on outcomes in AAHF patients.

Antithrombotic therapy in ventricular assist device (VAD) management: From ancient beliefs to updated evidence. A narrative review

Platelets play a key role in the pathogenesis of ventricular assist device (VAD) thrombosis; therefore, antiplatelet drugs are essential, both in the acute phase and in the long-term follow-up in VAD management. Aspirin is the most used agent and still remains the first-choice drug for lifelong administration after VAD implantation. Anticoagulant drugs are usually recommended, but with a wide range of efficacy targets. Dual antiplatelet therapy, targeting more than one pathway of platelet activation, has been used for patients developing a thrombotic event, despite an increased risk of bleeding complications. Although different strategies have been attempted, bleeding and thrombotic events remain frequent and there are no uniform strategies adopted for pharmacological management in the short and mid- or long-term follow up. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the evidence from randomized clinical trials and observational studies with a focus on the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying bleeding and thrombosis in VAD patients and the best antithrombotic regimens available.