Heart transplantation in patients aged 70 years and older: a two-decade experience.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced age has been viewed as a contraindication to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). We analyzed the outcome of OHT in patients who were aged 70 years or older and compared the results with those in younger patients during a two-decade period. METHODS: A total of 519 patients underwent first-time single-organ OHT at our institution from 1988 to 2009. Patients were divided into three groups by age: ≥70-years old (group 1, n=37), 60 to 69-years old (group 2, n=206), and ≤60-years old (group 3, n=276). Primary endpoints were 30-days, and 1-, 5-, and 10-years survival. Secondary outcomes included re-operation for bleeding, postoperative need for dialysis, and length of postoperative intubation. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in survival between the greater than or equal to 70-year-old group and the two younger age groups for the first 10 years after OHT. Survival rates at 30 days, and 1-, 5-, and 10-years, and median survival in group 1 recipients were 100%, 94.6%, 83.2%, 51.7%, and 10.9 years (CI 7.1-11.0), respectively; in group 2 those numbers were 97.6%, 92.7%, 73.8%, 47.7%, and 9.1 years (CI 6.7-10.9), respectively; and in group 3 those numbers were 96.4%, 92.0%, 74.7%, 57.1%, and 12.2 years (CI 10.7-15.4; P=NS), respectively. There was no significant difference in secondary outcomes of re-operation for bleeding, postoperative need for dialysis, and prolonged intubation among the three age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who are aged 70 years and older can undergo heart transplantation with similar morbidity and mortality when compared with younger recipients. Advanced heart failure patients who are aged 70 years and older should not be excluded from transplant consideration based solely on an age criterion. Stringent patient selection, however, is necessary.

Exercise performance comparison of bicaval and biatrial orthotopic heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: The standard biatrial technique for orthotopic heart transplantation uses a large atrial anastomosis to connect the donor and recipient atria. A modified technique involves bicaval and pulmonary venous anastomoses and is believed to preserve the anatomic configuration and physiological function of the atria. Bicaval heart transplantation reduces postoperative valvular regurgitation and is associated with a lower incidence of pacemaker insertion. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare postoperative functional capacity and exercise performance in patients with bicaval and biatrial orthotopic heart transplantation. METHODS: Patients were selected for the study if they did not have any of the following: obstructive coronary artery disease (>50% stenosis), severe mitral or tricuspid regurgitation, signs of rejection (grade≥1B-1R) on endomyocardial biopsy during the prior year, respiratory impairment, a permanent pacemaker, orthopedic or muscular impediments, or lived more than 150 miles from the medical center. A total of 27 patients qualified. In 15 patients who received a biatrial heart transplant and 12 patients with a bicaval heart transplant, a stationary bicycle exercise test was performed. Ventilatory gas exchange and maximum oxygen consumption measurements were measured. RESULTS: Recipient and donor characteristics, including body surface area, donor/recipient weight mismatch, immunosuppressive regimen, and self-reported weekly exercise activity, did not differ between the biatrial and bicaval groups (P=not significant [NS]). At peak exercise, similar heart rate, workload, oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production, ventilation, functional capacity, and exercise duration were found between the 2 groups (P=NS). Patients in the biatrial group were studied later than patients in the bicaval group (6.54±0.71 vs 4.68±0.28 years; P<.001). CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the exercise capacity between patients with biatrial versus bicaval techniques for orthotopic heart transplantation. Factors other than the atrial connection (such as cardiac denervation, immunosuppressive drug effect, or physical deconditioning) may be more important determinants of subnormal exercise capacity after heart transplantation. Nevertheless, the reduction in morbidity and postoperative complications and the simplicity in the bicaval technique suggest that bicaval heart transplantation offers advantages when compared with the standard biatrial technique.

Prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus disease in mismatched patients after heart transplantation using combined antiviral and immunoglobulin therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a common cause of infection and morbidity after heart transplantation. Seronegative recipients (R-) of seropositive donor hearts (D+) are at high risk for CMV disease. We compared three different CMV prophylaxis regimens using combined antiviral and immunoglobulin therapy. METHODS: In 99 patients who survived more than 30 days after heart transplant, all received induction with antilymphocytic therapy and triple-drug therapy. In group A, D+R- patients received one dose of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) followed by one dose of CMV-specific immunoglobulin (CMV-IVIG), and intravenous ganciclovir (GCV) for 4 weeks followed by 11 months of oral acyclovir (ACV). In group B, D+R- patients received one dose IVIG followed by five doses of CMV-IVIG and intravenous GCV for 14 weeks followed by 9 months of oral ACV. In group C, D+R- patients were treated with the same regimen as for group B, except oral ACV was replaced with oral GCV. RESULTS: The actuarial freedom from CMV disease for D+R- patients at 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years after transplantation in group A was 100%, 25% ± 15%, and 25% ± 15%, respectively; group B was 100%, 67% ± 27%, and 67% ± 27%; group C was 100%, 83% ± 15%, and 83% ± 15% (P < .01, groups B and C vs group A). By comparison, the actuarial freedom from CMV disease for seropositive recipients (D-R+ or D+R+) at 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years in group A was 100%, 87% ± 7%, and 82% ± 8%, respectively; group B was 100%, 88% ± 8%, and 75% ± 11%; group C was 100%, 72% ± 9%, and 72% ± 9% (P = NS among groups). Rejection rates did not differ among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: A longer course of intravenous GCV with multiple doses of CMV-IVIG was a more effective prophylaxis regimen against CMV disease for the high-risk group of seronegative recipients of seropositive donor hearts.