Does the pretransplant UNOS status modify the short- and long-term cardiac transplant prognosis?

Cardiac transplantation in African Americans: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

In view of limited data on the subject of graft and patient survival differences between African American (AA) and non-AA heart transplant recipients, we reviewed our experience.

HYPOTHESIS

There is a higher mortality among AA recipients compared with non-AA recipients after cardiac transplantation.

METHODS

The study included all AA patients who have received a heart transplant in our center since 1983. Stepwise Cox regression was used for covariates affecting the survival. The χ(2) test was employed to identify the effects of a mechanical assist device and pretransplant creatinine (Cr) on the outcomes in AA and non-AA patients. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to examine survival.

RESULTS

The average survival among AA recipients was 5.4 years, compared with 12 years for the non-AA recipients, with 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 80%, 55%, and 25%, respectively. This was found to be statistically inferior to the survival probabilities of 92%, 78%, and 58% for the non-AA group (P < 0.005). Based on stepwise Cox regression, the variables such as ethnicity (P < 0.05), pretransplant Cr (P < 0.05), presence of a mechanical assist device (P < 0.005), and United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status at transplant (P < 0.05) independently predicted the outcomes. Kaplan-Meier analysis of pretransplant Cr level and survival showed that the AA group did significantly worse for all Cr classes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a statistically significant difference in outcomes between AA and non-AA patients after cardiac transplantation. African American patients have decreased survival over a period of time. Pretransplant Cr, ethnicity, presence of a mechanical assist device, and UNOS status at transplantation are independent predictors of outcomes.

Donor age is associated with chronic allograft vasculopathy after adult heart transplantation: implications for donor allocation

BACKGROUND

Chronic allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a major cause of long-term complications and mortality after heart transplantation. Although recipient factors have been implicated, little is known of the role of donor factors in CAV development. We sought to identify donor factors associated with development of CAV after heart transplantation.

METHODS

We reviewed the United Network for Organ Sharing heart transplant database from August 1987 to May 2008. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the association between donor variables and the onset of CAV for adult recipients. Donor age was matched to recipient age and analyzed with respect to development of CAV.

RESULTS

Of the 39,704 recipients, a total of 11,714 (29.5%) experienced CAV. Multivariate analysis demonstrated seven donor factors as independent predictors of CAV: age, ethnicity, sex, weight, history of diabetes, hypertension, and tobacco use. When matching young donors (0 to 19.9 years) and old donors (> or =50 years) to each recipient age group, older donors (> or =50 years) conferred a higher risk of developing CAV. Further modeling demonstrated that for each recipient group, older donor age (> or =50 years) conferred a higher risk of CAV development compared with younger donor age (0 to 19.9 years; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Donor factors including sex, hypertension, diabetes, and tobacco use are independently associated with recipient CAV. Older donor age confers a greater risk of CAV development regardless of the age of the recipient. A heightened awareness for the development of CAV is warranted when using older donors in adult cardiac transplantation, in particular with recipients 40 years of age or older.

CardioWest (Jarvik) total artificial heart: a single-center experience with 42 patients

BACKGROUND

When implanted in patients with biventricular failure, the CardioWest total artificial heart has asserted itself over time as a reliable bridge-to-transplant device that as yet is used by only a few international teams. The aim of this single-center retrospective study is to assess both the comorbidity and survival of patients awaiting heart transplants while receiving circulatory support with a CardioWest total artificial heart.

METHODS

From 1990 to December 2006, 42 patients received a CardioWest total artificial heart at our center. Mean age at the time of implantation was 45.7 +/- 9.5 years, and 40 patients (95%) were men. Idiopathic or dilated cardiomyopathy was diagnosed in 45.2% (n = 19) of the patients and ischemic cardiomyopathy in 42.8% (n = 18). Average body surface area was 1.9 +/- 0.22 m(2).

RESULTS

Duration of support was 1 to 292 days (mean, 101 +/- 86 days). Twelve patients died (28.5%) while receiving device support, and 30 patients (71.5%) underwent transplantation. Actuarial survival rates for the transplanted patients were 90% (n = 25), 81% (n = 14), and 76% (n = 10) at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Causes of death during device support included multiorgan failure in 6 (50%), sepsis in 2, acute respiratory distress syndrome in 2, alveolar hemorrhage in 1, and other cause in 1. There were no device malfunctions that led to patient death. Adverse events included stroke in 3 patients (7%) and infections in 35 patients (85%) during support.

CONCLUSIONS

The CardioWest total artificial heart is an excellent bridge-to-transplant device for patients with biventricular failure. Our study demonstrates excellent safety, reliability, and efficiency. Exceptional outcome after transplantation underlines its capacity to aid in end-organ recovery.

Ethnicity as a predictor of graft longevity and recipient mortality in heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

There is a dearth of data about the effect of donor and recipient ethnicity on survival and rejection rate after clinical heart transplantation, although the subject had been partly studied before. We compared the mortality and rejection rate among different ethnic groups at our institution.

METHODS

In retrospect, 525 consecutive donors provided cardiac allografts to adult and pediatric patients undergoing orthotropic heart transplantation at a single, urban US medical center between 2000 and 2005. Donors and recipients were categorized according to ethnicity: African American, Asian, Caucasian, Hispanic, and Others (Indian, Mediterranean/Arabic, Afghans). Donor and recipient ethnicity-as an independent factor and the interaction between them-were examined as a risk factor for mortality and rejection after heart transplantation. Mean follow-up period was 3.2+/-1.9 years (range, 0.1 to 6.6). All recipients received triple immunosuppression consisting of a calcineurin inhibitor, an antiproliferative agent, and steroids. No patients received induction immunotherapy. The end points of the study were early and late mortality, rejection rate, and rejection-free survival time.

RESULTS

The overall mortality was 17.3% (91 patients). Recipient mortality rate according to donor race was: African American, 23.1%; Asian, 11.1%; Caucasian, 18.7%; and Hispanic, 14.6%. No statistical significance was found, although the mortality differences presented. Recipient mortality with regard to recipients ethnicity was: African American, 22.2%; Asian, 6.3%; Caucasian, 18%; Hispanic, 18.9%; and others 40% (P=.048). Donor-recipient race match was not found as a risk factor influencing mortality as the matched group mortality was 17.5% comparing with the mismatched group mortality of 17.8% (P=.874). The overall rejection rate was 3.8% (20 rejection events). Rejection rate according donor race was: African American, 7.7%; Asian, 10.7%; Caucasian, 4%; and Hispanic, 1.3% (P=.027). Rejection rate with respect to recipients ethnicity was: African American, 0; Asian, 3.2%; Caucasian, 4.4%; Hispanic, 2.7%; and others, 20% with no statistical significance (P=.236). Donor recipient race match was not found as a risk factor influencing rejection rate (P=.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Recipients' ethnicity was found as a significant risk factor for mortality. Rejection rate were found higher among the African American donors and significantly lower in the Hispanic donors. Significantly lower mortality rate was found among Asian recipients. Donor-recipient race match did not influence the mortality or rejection rate.

Is an emergency heart transplantation justified?

INTRODUCTION

Emergency heart transplantation remains an important controversy due to the shortage of donors and the previously demonstrated results inferior to other patients. These recipients display a worse clinical status and their donors are more often considered suboptimal. Nevertheless, it is the only therapeutic option for patients with advanced cardiomyopathy and acute decompensation with no response to other therapies. We compared results among the emergency indication with those of elective transplants.

METHODS

We analyzed the 213 patients who underwent cardiac transplantation in our center up to December 2004 to compare emergency with elective heart transplantations for preoperative and surgical variables as well as outcomes.

RESULTS

A higher percentage of emergency patients were New York Heart Association class IV, displayed renal dysfunction, and were women. Regarding donors, a higher percentage were over 40 years of age. No differences were observed in the early and first-year mortality or morbidity rates, although we noted a greater 5-year mortality rate among emergency cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In our center emergency heart transplantation was associated with only slightly worse results compared with elective transplantations. Both donors and recipients should be carefully selected to improve results.

Sensitivity, ventricular assist devices, and the waiting game in heart transplantation: what's new?

Orthotopic heart transplantation became more successful with the introduction of cyclosporine in the late 1970s. Although congestive heart failure has become a significant public health issue and the proportion of patients with advanced heart failure has increased, the number of heart transplants performed has not increased substantially in the past decade. Transplant waiting times have been related to many different factors. Unfortunately, implantation of ventricular assist devices (VADS) may provoke antibody responses. These result in the sensitization of patients and increased waiting time prior to transplantation. The purpose of this article is to explore etiologies of waiting times for pre heart transplant and left ventricular assist device pre heart transplant candidates, explain new theories of sensitization, define current methods to detect sensitization, and discuss nursing care implications.