Abstract
We performed a retrospective review comparing outcomes between traditional ice storage (ICE) with short ischemic times (<3 hours) to SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System (SCTS) with long ischemic times (>4 hours) using data from the GUARDIAN registry, a retrospective observational trial. To minimize baseline differences, propensity-matched (PSM) cohorts for site and era were performed. SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System travel distance was almost 10-fold greater than ICE (82 miles ICE vs . 765 miles SCTS). There was no significant difference in primary graft dysfunction (PGD) (20.8% vs. 18.2%, p = 0.58), length of stay (LOS) (24.7 vs. 24.8, p = 0.98), posttransplant mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (25.1% vs. 20.3%, p = 0.34), and 30 day survival (100% vs. 98.6%, p = 0.20). SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System showed statistically significant reduction in 24 hour inotrope scores (17.6 vs. 13.6, p = 0.007) and right ventricular (RV) dysfunction (31.1% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.002). Propensity-matched cohorts showed statistically similar rates of MCS utilization and PGD, but SCTS trended toward less RV dysfunction (26.0% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.11) and lower inotrope scores (16.5 vs. 12.9, p = 0.06) despite almost double the ischemic time. In conclusion, donor heart preservation with SCTS continues to be effective in prolonged ischemic times without sacrificing postheart transplantation clinical outcomes. This may aid in expanding donor organ geography.