Ann B. Nguyen

Background.: Organ allocation in the United States to non-US citizen, non-US residents who travel for transplant (NC/NRTx) is controversial. Current policies may not be informed by stakeholder opinions, as limited data exist assessing the knowledge or opinions of providers or patients on this issue. Methods.: A cross-sectional, hospital-based pilot survey was distributed to providers and patients from December 2019 to June 2020 at a single large urban transplant institute. Providers were members of the departments of surgery and medicine and included both transplant and nontransplant providers. Surveys included 10 questions on eligibility, prioritization, and limitations for deceased donor transplantation and 12 demographic questions. Results.: A total of 209 providers responded (61% women, median age 40) and 119 patients responded (62% women, median age 54). Awareness of eligibility for transplantation of US citizens, non-US citizens residing in the United States (NC/R), and NC/NRTx was high in both groups, though providers and patients lacked awareness of the eligibility of nonlegal NC/R (those who live in the United States who are not citizens and are not legal residents) to donate and receive organs. Overall, 79.3% of patients stated that NC/NRTx should be eligible for transplant in the United States compared with only 60.7% of providers (P = 0.001). Providers were more likely than patients to prioritize transplant to legal NC/NR over NC/NRTx (58.2% versus 35.1%, P < 000.1) and reported that families should be able to limit donations to NC/NRTx (34.9% versus 23.2%, P = 0.03). Conclusions.: Surveyed patients and providers generally support transplant in non-US citizens; however, the strength of support varied considerably based on the legal status of the patient and the occupation of those surveyed. Larger studies are necessary to develop data-informed policy.

Tolvaptan is an effective therapy for heart failure patients with symptomatic congestion and hyponatremia. The efficacy of its use in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of tolvaptan in LVAD patients. We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients who underwent LVAD implantation between January 2014 and August 2018. Among 217 consecutive LVAD patients, tolvaptan was used in 20 patients. Mean age was 46 ± 14 years old and 14 patients were males. The duration of tolvaptan therapy was 4 (interquartile range 1–8) days. Urine volume significantly increased from 2,623 ± 1,109 ml/day before tolvaptan to 4,308 ± 1,432 ml/day during tolvaptan therapy (p < 0.001). Serum sodium increased from 127 ± 3 to 133 ± 3 mEq/L at the end of tolvaptan therapy (p < 0.001). No patients developed hypernatremia (serum sodium >150 mEq/L). The 90-day overall survival following tolvaptan therapy was 89% in both the tolvaptan group and a propensity score-matched non-tolvaptan group (p = 0.918). Survival free of heart failure readmissions was also comparable between the groups (p = 0.751). In conclusion, short-term use of tolvaptan following LVAD implantation is a safe and effective therapy to augment diuresis and improve hyponatremia.