The impact of the distance between patient residency and heart transplant center on outcomes after heart transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Heart transplant (HTx) recipients require continuous monitoring and care in order to prevent and treat possible complications related to the graft function or to the immunosuppressive treatment promptly. Since heart transplantation centers (HTC) are more experienced in managing HTx recipients than other healthcare facilities, the distance between patient residency and HTC could negatively affect the outcomes. METHODS: Data of patients discharged after receiving HTx between 2000 and 2021, collected into our institutional database, were retrospectively analyzed. The population was divided into three groups: A (n = 180), B (n = 157), and C (n = 134), according to the distance tertiles between patient residency and HTC. The primary end-point was survival, secondary end-points were incidences of complications. RESULTS: Recipient and donor characteristics did not differ between the three groups. Survival at 10 years was 66 ± 4%, 66 ± 4%, and 65 ± 5%, respectively, for groups A, B, and C (p = .34). Immunosuppressive regimen and rate of complications did not differ between groups. However, the rates of outpatient visits and of hospitalization performed at HTC were higher in group A than others. CONCLUSION: Distance from the HTC does not represent a barrier to a successful outcome for HTx recipients, as long as regular and continuous follow-up is provided.

Recipient age impact on outcome after cardiac transplantation: should it still be considered in organ allocation?

OBJECTIVES: Improvement of clinical results in heart transplantation (HTx) has favoured the expansion of indication criteria towards aged population. The impact of increasing recipient age is controversial and, owing to donor shortage, the debate still remains whether HTx is justified for older patients. We analysed age as a prognostic factor at long-term after HTx and if it should be a determinant in organ allocation. METHODS: Data of 364 consecutive patients who underwent cardiac transplantation between 1999 and 2014 at the University Hospital of Udine were analysed. Patients were divided into three groups according to age (Group 1: 18-40, Group 2: 41-59, Group 3: ≥ 60 years) and survival and major complications were evaluated at long-term (mean follow-up 6.7 ± 4.5 years, range 1-15.7 years). RESULTS: Preoperatively, renal failure (2.9, 16.1, 39.5%, P < 0.01) and cardiovascular factors such as diabetes (1.2, 17.1, 36.4%, P < 0.01), systemic hypertension (5.9, 31.5, 40.8%, P < 0.01) and dyslipidaemia (5.9, 40.3, 42.9%, P < 0.01) were more common in older patients (Group 3), as well as ischaemic cardiopathy (0, 42.6, 49.7%, P < 0.01). Donor age was lower in younger recipients (Group 1) (33 ± 15, 39 ± 14, 45 ± 14 years, P < 0.01). Older patients showed a worse long-term survival (hazard ratio 1.7; 1.1-2.5), also after adjusting for major cardiovascular risk factors, renal failure and donor age. In fact, 15-year survival was 100% in Group 1, while at 1, 5, 10 and 15 years survival was 88, 78, 69 and 56% in Group 2, and 87, 68, 49 and 43% in Group 3, respectively. Even major long-term complications were less frequent in younger patients in terms of neoplasms (P < 0.01), rehospitalizations (P < 0.01) and a tendency to higher freedom from other complications such as cytomegalovirus infections, renal failure and dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed a significantly different outcome according to recipient age, even when adjusted for major risk factors. Notably, patients younger than 40 years showed 100% long-term survival, and apparent lower rate of complications due to immunosuppression. Since 15-year survival in patients ≤40 years is twice that of patients ≥60 years, recipient age should be taken into account in organ allocation.

Does psychosocial compliance have an impact on long-term outcome after heart transplantation?†.

OBJECTIVES: Since patient compliance following organ transplantation is considered a limiting factor for long-term outcome, psychosocial assessment is commonly employed to evaluate suitability for organ transplantation. We analysed the impact of psychosocial characteristics on long-term outcome after heart transplantation in our institution. METHODS: The outcomes of 345 patients (82% male, mean age: 56 ± 11 years) who had undergone a heart transplant since 1999 were evaluated taking into consideration major clinical and psychosocial findings. The impact on survival of the psychological habitus, substance abuse, economic status, education level, presence of caregivers and distance from the hospital (Area 1: <100 km, Area 2: ≥100 and <500 km, Area 3: ≥500 km) were considered in an univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed that only retired patients had an increased risk of mortality. In fact, survival at 1, 5 and 10 years in unemployed versus retired versus employed people was 94 ± 3% vs 91 ± 2% vs 88 ± 3%; 86 ± 5% vs 75 ± 3% vs 80 ± 5%; 72 ± 8% vs 57 ± 5% vs 76 ± 5%, respectively (P = 0.05). Unemployed and employed patients were younger than retired patients. In multivariate analysis, after correction of clinical data, no psychosocial characteristics were found to be risk factors for long-term mortality: psychological problems [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87; 0.56-1.33]; smoking (HR = 0.96; 0.61-1.54); alcohol abuse (HR = 1.62; 0.73-3.61); absence of caregivers (HR = 0.9; 0.44-1.83); critical economical condition (HR = 1.12; 0.65-1.93); lower school degree (HR = 0.95; 0.60-1.51); unemployment (HR = 1.00; 0.58-1.73) and distance from hospital (HR = 1.12; 0.76-1.98). At the same time, no psychosocial factors were identified as risk factors for coronary allograft vasculopathy, acute rejection and infection. CONCLUSIONS: The psychosocial factors analysed in our study seem to have no impact on patient outcome, and should not preclude candidates from listing for heart transplantation; on the other hand psychosocial assessment should be utilized to identify patients requiring more specific surveillance to obtain the best outcome.

Clinical results of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: endoaortic clamp versus external aortic clamp techniques.

OBJECTIVE: : This study was carried out with the aim of presenting our experience with minimally invasive mitral surgery and compare the endoaortic clamp with the external aortic clamp (EAC) techniques. METHODS: : Between December 2002 and May 2009, 139 patients (75 men, aged 63 ± 11 years) underwent video-assisted mitral valve surgery through right thoracotomy. Twelve (9%) patients were operated without clamping the aorta, 32 (23%) patients (group A) were operated on by using the endoaortic clamp, and 95 (68%) patients were operated on by using the EAC (group B). There was no significant difference between groups A and B regarding preoperative variables. RESULTS: : Intraoperative procedure-associated problems were experienced in three group A patients (9.3%, two aortic dissections with conversion to sternotomy; one conversion due to bad exposure) and in two group B patients (2%, one conversion to sternotomy for bleeding and one for ascending aorta hematoma). At a mean follow-up of 32 months, 121 patients (97%) were in New York Heart Association class I-II, with satisfactory echocardiographic results. There was one in-hospital and six late deaths (three noncardiac, two cardiac, and one valve related). Five-year actuarial survival was 88% ± 8%. There were three reoperations, one early (<30 days) after complex mitral valve repair, with a 5-year freedom from reoperation of 97% ± 2%. Postoperative levels of myocardial cytonecrosis enzymes as well as the extracorporeal circulation time were significantly lower in group B patients (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: : Intraoperative procedure-associated complications with endoclamping combined with an apparently better myocardial protection forced us to change our practice to the more simple and economic EAC technique.