Bicaval vs biatrial anastomosis techniques in orthotopic heart transplantation: An updated analysis of the UNOS database

Impact of the operative technique on mid- and long-term results following paediatric heart transplantation

AIMS

The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the impact of the bicaval technique versus the biatrial technique (by Lower and Shumway) in paediatric heart transplant patients. Only a few studies investigate this matter regarding the long-term outcome after paediatric heart transplantation. We compared the two surgical methods regarding survival, the necessity of pacemaker implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All 134 patients (aged <18 years) - (group-1) biatrial (n = 84), versus (group-2) bicaval (n = 50), who underwent heart transplantation between October 1988 and December 2021, were analysed. Freedom from events were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Potential differences were analysed using the log rank test and Cox proportional hazard models. Mean ± standard deviation: Bypass time (per minutes) was higher in the group 1 as compared with group 2 (P = 0.050). Survival was not significantly different (P = 0.604) in either groups. Eighteen patients required permanent pacemaker implantation in the group 1 and only one patient required it in the group 2 (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Paediatric heart transplantation using bicaval technique results similar long-term survival compared with the biatrial technique. The incidence of atrial rhythm disorders was significantly higher in the biatrial group, requiring a higher frequency of pacemaker implantation in this group. As a results, the bicaval technique has replaced the biatrial technique in our centre.

Heart Transplantation

Heart transplantation (HTx) remains the last therapeutic resort for patients with advanced heart failure. The present work is a clinically focused review discussing current issues in heart transplantation. Several factors have been associated with the outcome of HTx, such as ABO and HLA compatibility, graft size, ischemic time, age, infections, and the cause of death, as well as imaging and laboratory tests. In 2018, UNOS changed the organ allocation policy for HTx. The aim of this change was to prioritize patients with a more severe clinical condition resulting in a reduction in mortality of people on the waiting list. Advanced heart failure and resistant angina are among the main indications of HTx, whereas active infection, peripheral vascular disease, malignancies, and increased body mass index (BMI) are important contraindications. The main complications of HTx include graft rejection, graft angiopathy, primary graft failure, infection, neoplasms, and retransplantation. Recent advances in the field of HTx include the first two porcine-to-human xenotransplantations, the inclusion of hepatitis C donors, donation after circulatory death, novel monitoring for acute cellular rejection and antibody-mediated rejection, and advances in donor heart preservation and transportation. Lastly, novel immunosuppression therapies such as daratumumab, belatacept, IL 6 directed therapy, and IgG endopeptidase have shown promising results.

Optimizing Anastomoses Technique in Orthotopic Heart Transplantation: Comparison of Biatrial, Bicaval and Modified Bicaval Technique

Implantation techniques for orthotopic heart transplantation (HTx) have evolved over the centuries. Recently new approaches of modified bicaval techniques to minimize warm ischemia are gaining popularity in the literature. Between 2010 and 2022 n = 238 patients underwent HTx in our department. The recipients were retrospectively reviewed and divided regarding their anastomoses’ technique. Anastomoses were sutured either in biatrial (n = 37), bicaval (n = 191) or in a modified bicaval (n = 10) manner with suturing of the superior cava vein and A. pulmonalis anastomosis after removing the aortic cross-clamp during the reperfusion. Warm ischemia was 62 ± 11 min for biatrial, 66 ± 15 min for bicaval, but only 48 ± 10 min for modified bicaval technique (p < 0.001). The incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) was comparable between biatrial (27.0%) and bicaval (28.8%) anastomoses. In contrast, in patients with modified bicaval technique PGD occurred only in a single patient (10.0%). The incidence of postoperative pacemaker implantation was 18.2% for biatrial compared to 3.0% for bicaval and 0.0% for modified bicaval technique (p = 0.01). The modified bicaval technique enables to decrease the crucial warm ischemia during HTx compared to both biatrial and regular bicaval techniques. Therefore, we strongly recommend bicaval anastomoses, ideally in a modified manner.

Effect of novel bicaval anastomosis technique for transplantation with and without prior cardiac surgery history

Background

To evaluate the graft outcomes after orthotopic heart transplantation (HTx) with a novel bicaval anastomosis technique between recipients with and without a history of prior cardiac surgery.

Methods

Of 70 patients who underwent HTx with a novel four-corners traction bicaval anastomosis technique from August 2017 to November 2019, 60 recipients underwent the HTx procedure as their first cardiac surgery (group A), while 10 recipients underwent HTx after prior cardiac surgery (group B). Patients in the two groups were compared in terms of their preoperative baseline variables such as etiological categories, history of blood transfusion and panel reactive antibody (PRA), intraoperative operation time and blood infusion volume, postoperative treatment time, and complications such as acute rejection and 30-day mortality as well as survival rates.

Results

Preoperative variables were comparable in group A and group B except for the history of blood transfusion (0% vs. 90.0%, P<0.001, respectively); the level of PRA was 7.5%±5.8% and 9.5%±10.9% for group A and B, respectively (P=0.583), but the time of the operation was nearly 1 hour longer for group B than group A (all P<0.05). No cases of left atrial thrombosis and donor heart distortion were observed in either group. Reoperation (1.7% vs. 10.0%, P=0.267), infection (0% vs. 10.0%, P=0.142), other postoperative complications as well as the 30-day mortality (1.7% vs. 10.0%, P=0.267), and postoperative survival rates (91.5% vs. 90.0%, P=0.805) were comparable between the two groups (all P>0.05).

Conclusions

Four-corner traction bicaval anastomosis combined with a continuous everting suture technique may result in approximately comparable prognoses for heart recipients with a history of cardiac surgery when compared with those without a history of cardiac surgery and this technique may reduce the incidence of left atrial thrombosis and distortion. Further follow-up of the long-term outcomes will be required to validate these results.