Abstract 4370155: Comparison of baseline EKG parameters between the first and second Heart xenotransplant

U Ubaid Khan (University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States) J Justin Brilliant (Revivicor, Inc, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States) B Bartley Griffith (Univ of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States) M Mahdokht Parsirad (Revivicor, Inc, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States) O Oneib Khan (Revivicor, Inc, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States) A Andrew Tully (Univ of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States) J Javier Galindo (University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltomire, Maryland, United States) D David Ayares M Manjula Ananthram S Susie Hong-Zohlman (Univ of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States) E Erika Feller (Medstar, Baltimore, Maryland, United States) A Alison Grazioli (University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States) R Richard Amara (University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States) S Stephen Shorofsky (Revivicor, Inc, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States) A Avneesh Singh (Revivicor, Inc, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States) M Muhammad Mohiuddin (University of Maryland School of Me, Baltimore, Maryland, United States) T Timm Dickfeld (Univ of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States)

Abstract

Background: The 1 st and 2 nd genetically modified porcine-to-human cardiac xenotransplantations were performed at the University of Maryland in January 2022 and September 2023, respectively. The recipients survived for 60 and 41 days, respectively. Methods: Daily 12-lead EKGs were obtained during the postoperative days (POD). Standard baseline parameters were analyzed from non-paced EKGs. Results: The average heart rate (HR) was similar between the 1 st and 2 nd xenotransplant with a HR difference of 1.9±3.0 (75.0±10.0bpm vs 73.1±16.7bpm, P=0.13) with no significant differences in HR over POD 1-20 (79.0±12.0bpm vs 78.15±8.5bpm, P=0.33) or POD 21-40 (70.0±7.0bpm vs 69.9±19.8bpm, P=0.34; Figure 1A). The average PR interval was significantly longer in the 1 st xenotransplant compared to the 2 nd, with a difference of 55.2±6.2ms (212.0±20.0ms vs 156.8±32.5ms, P<0.001). This was consistent during POD 1-20 (200.0±15.0ms vs 145.0±28.4.0ms, P<0.001) and POD 21-40 (228.0±18.0ms vs 171.7±32.0ms, P<0.001; Figure 1B). QRS width (ventricular depolarization) was significantly longer in the 1 st xenotransplant compared to the 2 nd, with a difference of 64.6±3.6ms (145.0±16.0ms vs 80.4±17.7ms, P<0.001). This was seen during POD 1-20 (154.0±19.0ms vs 82.5±15.5ms, P<0.001) as well as POD 21-40 (151.0±14.0ms vs 78.6±20.4, P<0.001; Figure 1C). Similarly, the QT interval (ventricular repolarization) was significantly longer in the 1 st xenotransplant compared to the 2 nd, with a difference of 132.1±9.7 (509.0±51.0ms vs 376.9±42.4ms, P<0.001). The longer QT interval was seen during POD 1-20 (504.0±57.0ms vs 377.75±43.0ms, P<0.001) and POD 21-40 (502.0±56.0ms vs 373.1±42.8ms, P<0.001; Figure 1D). Accordingly, the QTc interval was longer in the 1 st xenotransplant with a difference of 158.2 ± 11.7ms (568.0±55.0ms vs 409.8±55.6ms, P<0.001), which was consistent during POD 1- 20 (591.0±52.0ms vs 429.8±53.0ms, P<0.001) and POD 21-40 (141.5±16.2 (535.0±51.0ms vs 393.4±45.9ms, P<0.001; Figure 1E). Conclusion: Significant differences in AV nodal conduction, ventricular depolarization and repolarization timings were seen between the 1 st and 2 nd xenotransplanted patient with the latter more closely approximating the average ECG intervals seen in porcine hearts. Further studies are needed to better characterize those disparities and elucidate the role of denervation, immunosuppressive regimens, and inter-species molecule/receptor interactions.

Article Details

Journal Circulation
Volume / Issue Vol. 152, Issue Suppl_3
Published November 04, 2025
ISSN 0009-7322
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Circulation

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0009-7322 Health Sciences

Authors (17)

U

Ubaid Khan

University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States

J

Justin Brilliant

Revivicor, Inc, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States

B

Bartley Griffith

Univ of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States

M

Mahdokht Parsirad

Revivicor, Inc, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States

O

Oneib Khan

Revivicor, Inc, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States

A

Andrew Tully

Univ of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States

J

Javier Galindo

University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltomire, Maryland, United States

D

David Ayares

M

Manjula Ananthram

S

Susie Hong-Zohlman

Univ of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States

E

Erika Feller

Medstar, Baltimore, Maryland, United States

A

Alison Grazioli

University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States

R

Richard Amara

University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States

S

Stephen Shorofsky

Revivicor, Inc, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States

A

Avneesh Singh

Revivicor, Inc, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States

M

Muhammad Mohiuddin

University of Maryland School of Me, Baltimore, Maryland, United States

T

Timm Dickfeld

Univ of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States