Michael Petty

The 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for mechanical circulatory support: Executive summary

Institutional Affiliations Co-chairs Feldman D: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Georgia Institute of Technology and Morehouse School of Medicine; Pamboukian SV: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; Teuteberg JJ: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Task force chairs Birks E: University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky; Lietz K: Loyola University, Chicago, Maywood, Illinois; Moore SA: Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Morgan JA: Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan Contributing writers Arabia F: Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Bauman ME: University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada; Buchholz HW: University of Alberta, Stollery Children’s Hospital and Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Deng M: University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Dickstein ML: Columbia University, New York, New York; El-Banayosy A: Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania; Elliot T: Inova Fairfax, Falls Church, Virginia; Goldstein DJ: Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York; Grady KL: Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Jones K: Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Hryniewicz K: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota; John R: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Kaan A: St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Kusne S: Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Loebe M: Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas; Massicotte P: University of Alberta, Stollery Children’s Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Moazami N: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Mohacsi P: University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland; Mooney M: Sentara Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Nelson T: Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Pagani F: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Perry W: Integris Baptist Health Care, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Potapov EV: Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Rame JE: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Russell SD: Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland; Sorensen EN: University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Sun B: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Strueber M: Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany Independent reviewers Mangi AA: Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Petty MG: University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Rogers J: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

Recommendations for the Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support: Device Strategies and Patient Selection A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

The era of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) began in 1953 with the development of cardiopulmonary bypass to facilitate open heart surgery.1 In 1964, the National Heart Institute (now the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute) funded the Artificial Heart Program and became actively involved in MCS development. This led to requests for Proposals issued in 1977 and 1980, which laid the foundation for the development of implantable MCS for long-term use, including devices capable of hospital discharge, in the 1990s. Although heart transplantation is now commonplace at many hospitals, the inadequate supply of donor hearts and patient contraindications to transplantation continue to severely restrict its application. As the demand for long-term replacement of diseased hearts increases, there is a clear need for innovative, safe, and durable MCS to treat the growing population of patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Many exciting changes in the field of MCS have occurred in the past few years, including the development of smaller portable pumps and the concept of destination therapy (DT), or permanent pump placement as an alternative to heart transplantation. Currently, there are no published guidelines for the use of MCS. Thus, it is our intent that this statement will provide the contemporary cardiologist and other HF providers with an understanding of general considerations when determining the appropriateness of MCS. There is little hope that complete consensus will ever be reached on the definition of advanced HF, but most physicians caring for such patients on a regular basis readily identify the characteristics of these patients. Advanced HF patients are those with clinically significant circulatory compromise who require special care, including consideration for heart transplantation, continuous intravenous inotropic therapy, MCS, or hospice.2,3 Typically, such patients have symptoms at rest or with minimal exertion and cannot perform many activities of …

Liberalization of donor criteria in lung and heart-lung transplantation

Since March 1986, we have performed 26 heart-lung transplantations, 42 single-lung transplantations, 9 bilateral single-lung transplantations, and 1 double-lung transplantation. The original lung donor requirements were as follows: age less than 40 years, no smoking history; no gram-negative rods or fungus on sputum Gram stain; arterial oxygen tension greater than 140 mm Hg on an inspired oxygen fraction of 0.40; no infiltrate or pneumothorax on the chest radiograph; and donor height within 15 cm (6 inches) of recipient height. As the number of potential recipients increased, so did the waiting time. To counter this delay, during the past year we have liberalized our donor criteria. We now accept lung donors up to age 60 years. Any kind of smoking history is acceptable unless there is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis on the chest radiograph. Sputum must be free from fungus, but gram-negative rods are treated with appropriate antibiotics. The arterial oxygen tension on an inspired oxygen fraction of 0.40 should be greater than 100 mm Hg, and a small pulmonary infiltrate is not worrisome. This liberalization of the donor pool for lung and heart-lung transplantation has not adversely affected early outcome.

Recommendations for the Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support: Ambulatory and Community Patient Care: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) offers a surgical option for advanced heart failure when optimal medical therapy is inadequate. MCS therapy improves prognosis, functional status, and quality of life.1,2 The INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) tracks patient selection and outcomes for all implanted US Food and Drug Administration–approved MCS devices. From June 2006 until December 2014, >15 000 patients received MCS, and >2000 implantations are performed annually. One-year survival with current continuous-flow devices is reported to be 80%, and 2-year survival, 70%.3 In patients awaiting heart transplantation, MCS provides a bridge to transplantation, and for others who are ineligible for heart transplantation, MCS provides permanent support or destination therapy. Indications and absolute and relative contraindications to durable MCS are listed in Table 1. View this table: Table 1. Indications and Contraindications to Durable Mechanical Support As of July 2014, 158 centers in the United States offer long-term MCS.3 Patients often live a substantial distance from the implanting center, necessitating active involvement of local first responders (emergency medical technicians, police, and fire department personnel), emergency department staff, primary care, and referring cardiologists. Because patients with MCS are becoming increasingly mobile, basic knowledge of equipment is necessary for personnel in public areas such as schools, public transportation, and airplanes/airports. Ambulatory patients with MCS can span the entire age spectrum from pediatrics to geriatrics. The aim of this document is to provide guidance for nonexperts in MCS and to facilitate the informed assessment, stabilization, and transport of the patient with MCS back to the MCS center for definitive therapy. In addition, the principles herein provide a foundation for emergency management and a framework to address the management of known MCS-associated complications and expected comorbid medical problems. Currently in the United States, the most frequently used durable devices are continuous-flow devices with …

Antibody-Mediated Rejection in Solid Organ Transplant

ABSTRACT Within a little more than a decade, the transplant of human organs for end‐stage organ disease became a reality. The early barriers to successful long‐term graft and patient survival were related to the inability to effectively control the immune system such that it would not attack the donor tissue but would still recognize and destroy invading organisms and cells. As immunosuppressive therapy has been refined and proper matching of donors and recipients has been improved, hyperacute rejection has become a rare occurrence and acute rejection has been markedly controlled. However, antibody‐mediated rejection remains an important impediment to increased survival of transplanted organs. This article provides readers with a broad overview of the immune system, discusses mechanisms of transplant rejection, and details prevention, detection, and treatment of antibody‐mediated rejection in solid organ transplant.