Use of the model for end-stage liver disease score for guiding clinical decision-making in the selection of patients for emergency cardiac transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes of emergency cardiac transplantation remain controversial, but recipient selection is essential for success. With a shortage of organs, it is essential to determine an objective method, such as a risk score, for choosing patients who are at too great a risk to undergo cardiac transplantation. In this study, we analysed the model for end-stage liver disease in terms of predicting operative mortality after emergency cardiac transplantation. METHODS: We analysed the Nancy University database of heart transplantation and selected all patients who underwent emergency heart transplantation between January 2005 and January 2012. The calibration and discriminatory power were evaluated to determine the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. Preoperative and peri-operative variables regarding the prediction of operative mortality were analysed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Forty-three patients underwent emergency cardiac transplantation. The operative mortality was 20.9% (n = 9). The Hosmer-Lemeshow test demonstrated a calibrated model for predicting operative mortality (P = 0.15), and the MELD score presented an excellent discrimination between survivors and non-survivors (AUC: 0.89 ± 0.05; 95% CI: 0.79-0.99). In the univariate analysis, an MELD score of ≥ 16 and bilirubin concentration were predictive markers of operative mortality. Multivariate logistic regression tested the contribution of the univariate risk predictors (P < 0.15) and confirmed that an MELD score of ≥ 16 was predictive of operative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The MELD score appears to be adequate for predicting operative mortality among patients who undergo heart transplantation. The MELD score could therefore be used to guide clinical decision-making for emergency transplantation.

Impact of the early reduction of cyclosporine on renal function in heart transplant patients: a French randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Using reduced doses of Cyclosporine A immediately after heart transplantation in clinical trials may suggest benefits for renal function by reducing serum creatinine levels without a significant change in clinical endpoints. However, these trials were not sufficiently powered to prove clinical outcomes. METHODS: In a prospective, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group controlled trial, 95 patients aged 18 to 65 years old, undergoing de novo heart transplantation were centrally randomised to receive either a low (130 < trough CsA concentrations <200 µg/L, n = 47) or a standard dose of Cyclosporine A (200 < trough CsA concentrations <300 µg/L, n = 48) for the three first post-transplant months along with mycophenolate mofetil and corticosteroids. Participants had a stable haemodynamic status, a serum creatinine level <250 µmol/L and the donors' cold ischemia time was under six hours; multiorgan transplants were excluded. The change in serum creatinine level over 12 months was used as the main criterion for renal function. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed on the 95 randomised patients and a mixed generalised linear model of covariance was applied. RESULTS: At 12 months, the mean (± SD) creatinine value was 120.7 µmol/L (± 35.8) in the low-dose group and 132.3 µmol/L (± 49.1) in the standard-dose group (P = 0.162). Post hoc analyses suggested that patients with higher creatinine levels at baseline benefited significantly from the lower Cyclosporine A target. The number of patients with at least one rejection episode was not significantly different but one patient in the low-dose group and six in the standard-dose group required dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with de novo cardiac transplantation, early Cyclosporine A dose reduction was not associated with renal benefit at 12 months. However, the strategy may benefit patients with high creatinine levels before transplantation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00159159.

Failure of Marfan anatomic criteria to predict risk of aortic dissection in Turner syndrome: necessity of specific adjusted risk thresholds.

Patients with Turner syndrome are prompt to develop spontaneous acute aortic dissection following insidious aortic dilatation, with abnormal cardiovascular anatomy and consequently require specific guidelines for regular surveillance since they represent a subset of high-risk young patients. We report a rare and uncommon case of spontaneous acute aortic dissection in a 48-year old female patient with Turner syndrome who was not apparently eligible for a prophylactic surgery. A CT scan showed a Stanford type A aortic dissection and was urgently referred for surgical management. We operated on the patient under deep hypothermia (18°C) and circulatory arrest with a retrograde cerebroplegia as the primary entry tear was located in the arch. The postoperative course was uneventful and the patient was discharged at the eighth postoperative day. Following description of this case, special attention was paid to determine predisposing risk factors for aortic dissection to be specifically adjusted to TS patients.

Lower risk of infectious deaths in cardiac transplant patients receiving basiliximab versus anti-thymocyte globulin as induction therapy.

BACKGROUND: Conventional antibody induction therapy is currently used in heart transplantation despite safety concerns. This 6-month, prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label study examined whether basiliximab offers a tolerability benefit compared with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) while maintaining similar efficacy in de novo heart transplant recipients. METHODS: Adult heart transplant recipients were randomized to receive basiliximab (20 mg on Day 0 and Day 4) or ATG (2.5 mg/kg/day for 3 to 5 days) with cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil and steroids. The primary safety end-point was a composite of serum sickness, fever, cutaneous rash, anaphylaxis, infection, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia and post-transplant proliferative disease. Efficacy was assessed by a composite end-point of death, graft loss, acute rejection Grade > 1B, acute rejection associated with hemodynamic compromise or treated with antibody therapy, or loss to follow-up, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomized and analyzed. By Month 6, the incidence of the composite safety end-point was significantly lower with basiliximab than with ATG (50.0% vs 78.6%, p = 0.01), and infectious death was less frequent in the basiliximab group (0 of 38 vs 6 of 42, p = 0.027). The composite efficacy end-point occurred in 24 patients (63.2%) in the basiliximab arm vs 28 patients (66.7%, p = not significant [NS]) receiving ATG. Acute rejection episodes of Grade > or = 1B were reported with similar frequency (50% with basiliximab vs 45.2% with ATG, p = NS); 7 patients (18.4%) in the basiliximab group and 3 (7.1%) in the ATG group had rejection Grade > or = 3A. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that basiliximab offers improved tolerability with similar efficacy compared with current polyclonal antibody induction therapy in de novo heart transplant patients.

Comparison of low and high initial tacrolimus dosing in primary heart transplant recipients: a prospective European multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, open-label, phase II, multicenter study was to optimize the initial oral dose of tacrolimus. METHODS: A total of 113 patients were randomly assigned to initial low-dose (0.075 mg/kg/day, n=55) or high-dose (0.15 mg/kg/day, n=58) oral tacrolimus and followed for 3 months. Target whole-blood trough levels were 10 to 20 ng/mL. Prophylactic use of corticosteroids and azathioprine was identical in both groups, and antibody induction was mandatory. The primary endpoint was the time to and incidence of the initial oral tacrolimus dose adjustment because of toxicity or rejection, or withdrawal before initial dose change. Efficacy was assessed by the occurrence of biopsy-proven rejection (International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation grade > or =1B). RESULTS: In the primary endpoint, no significant difference was observed between the low- and high-dose groups. After 3 months, there was no difference in freedom from initial oral tacrolimus dose change because of rejection, toxicity, or withdrawal (89.0% vs. 87.6%; not significant [NS]). In both groups, dose adjustments were mainly required to achieve and maintain target blood levels (80.0% vs. 82.8%; NS). Patient survival was 92.7% and 98.3% (NS). There was no significant difference between groups regarding freedom from biopsy-proven acute rejection (57.1% vs. 66.3%; NS). The overall safety profiles indicated a tendency toward better tolerability in the low-dose group. CONCLUSIONS: Although low-dose and high-dose tacrolimus had similar efficacy, low-dose tacrolimus was associated with a more favorable safety profile. Therefore we recommend starting tacrolimus therapy after antibody induction at 0.075 mg/kg and adjust dose according to whole-blood trough levels.