Ex-Vivo Preservation with the Organ Care System in High Risk Heart Transplantation

• Published in: Life (Basel, Switzerland) Switzerland), 2022-02, Vol.12 (2), p.247
• Main Authors: Rojas, Sebastian V, Avsar, Murat, Ius, Fabio, Schibilsky, David, Kaufeld, Tim, Benk, Christoph, Maeding, Ilona, Berchtold-Herz, Michael, Bara, Christoph, Beyersdorf, Friedhelm, Haverich, Axel, Warnecke, Gregor, Siepe, Matthias
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Allocations; cardiac transplantation; Cardiovascular disease; Complexity; Coronary vessels; Criteria; Dialysis; Donors; ex vivo organ perfusion; Graft rejection; Heart failure; Heart surgery; Heart transplantation; Hypertension; Hypertrophy; Ischemia; OCS heart; organ care system; Patients; Perfusion; Preservation; Pulmonary arteries; Statistical analysis; Survival; Transplantation; Vein & artery diseases; Ventilation
• ISSN: 2075-1729; 2075-1729
• DOI: 10.3390/life12020247

Ex vivo organ perfusion is an advanced preservation technique that allows graft assessment and extended ex situ intervals. We hypothesized that its properties might be especially beneficial for high-risk recipients and/or donors with extended criteria. We reviewed the outcomes of 119 consecutive heart transplant patients, which were divided into two groups: A (OCS) vs. B (conventional). Ex vivo organ perfusion was performed using the Organ Care System (OCS). Indications for OCS-usage were expected ischemic time of >4 h or >2 h plus given extended donor criteria. Both groups included mostly redo cases (A: 89.7% vs. B: 78.4%; = 0.121). Incidences of donors with previous cardiac arrest (%) (A: 32.4 vs. B: 22.2; < 0.05) or LV-hypertrophy (%) (A: 19.1 vs. B: 8.3; = 0.119) were also increased in Group A. Ex situ time (min) was significantly longer in Group A (A: 381 (74) vs. B: 228 (43); < 0.05). Ventilation time (days) (A: 10.0 (19.9) vs. B: 24.3 (43.2); = 0.057), postoperative need for ECLS (%) (A: 25.0 vs. B: 39.2; = 0.112) and postoperative dialysis (chronic) (%) (A: 4.4 vs. B: 27.5; < 0.001) were numerically better in the OCS group, without any difference in the occurrence of early graft rejection. The 30-d-survival (A: 92.4% vs. B: 90.2%; = 0.745) and mid-term survival were statistically not different between both groups. OCS heart allowed safe transplantation of surgically complex recipients with excellent one-year outcomes, despite long preservation times and unfavourable donor characteristics. Furthermore, we observed trends towards decreased ventilation times and fewer ECLS treatments. In times of reduced organ availability and increasing recipient complexity, OCS heart is a valuable instrument that enables otherwise infeasible allocations and contributes to increase surgical safety.