Combined heart-liver transplantation in the MELD era: do waitlisted patients require exception status?

Combined heart-liver transplant (HLT) is a viable therapy for patients with concomitant end-stage heart and liver failure. Using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we examined the cumulative incidences of transplant and mortality in waitlisted candidates for HLT, isolated heart transplant (HRT) and isolated liver transplant (LIV) in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease era. The incidence of waitlist mortality was higher in HLT candidates than in HRT candidates (p = 0.001, 26% vs. 12% at 1 year) or LIV candidates (p = 0.005, 26% vs. 14% at 1 year). These differences persisted after stratifying by disease severity. Posttransplant survival was not significantly different between HLT and HRT recipients or between HLT and LIV recipients. In a multivariable model, undergoing HLT was associated with enhanced survival for HLT candidates (hazard ratio, 0.41; confidence interval, 0.21-0.79; p = 0.008), but undergoing HRT alone was not. Interestingly, 90% of HLT recipients were allocated an organ locally, compared to 60% of HRT candidates and 73% of LIV candidates (both p < 0.001). These data suggest that the current cardiac and liver allocation systems may underestimate the risk of death for patients with concomitant end-stage heart and liver failure on the HLT waitlist.

Heart and combined heart-kidney transplantation in patients with concomitant renal insufficiency and end-stage heart failure.

In patients with end-stage heart failure (ESHF) who are candidates for isolated heart transplant (HRT), dialysis dependence (DD) is considered an indication for combined heart-kidney transplantation (HKT). HKT remains controversial in ESHF transplant candidates with nondialysis-dependent renal insufficiency (NDDRI). Using United Network for Organ Sharing data, we examined the cumulative incidences of transplant and mortality in patients with DD and NDDRI waitlisted for HKT or HRT. In all groups, 3-month waitlist mortality was dismal: 31% and 21% for HRT- and HKT-listed patients with DD and 12% and 7% for HRT- and HKT-listed patients with NDDRI. Five-year posttransplant survival was improved in HKT recipients compared with HRT recipients for both patients with DD (73% vs. 51%, p<0.001) and NDDRI (80% vs. 69%, p<0.001). Likewise, multivariable analysis associated HKT with better outcomes than HRT in HKT-listed patients, although both improved survival. These data argue strongly for HKT in ESHF transplant candidates with DD. However, in patients with NDDRI, HKT must be weighed against the possibility of renal recovery with isolated HRT. Whether HRT (followed by a staged kidney transplant in patients who do not recover renal function after HRT), as opposed to HKT, maximizes organ benefit for patients with NDDRI and ESHF requires assessment. Nevertheless, given their dismal waitlist outcomes and excellent posttransplant results, we suggest that patients with DD and NDDRI with ESHF be considered for early listing and transplant.

No evidence of HTLV-I proviral integration in lymphoproliferative disorders associated with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Several recent studies have reported detection of HTLV-I genetic sequences in patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) including mycosis fungoides and Sezary syndrome. The purpose of this study was to determine whether HTLV-I was detectable in lesional tissues of patients suffering from diseases known to be associated with CTCL. Thirty-five cases were obtained from diverse geographical locations including Ohio, California, Switzerland, and Japan. Six of them had concurrent CTCL. Cases were analyzed using a combination of genomic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)/ Southern blot, dot blot, and Southern blot analyses. All assays were specific for HTLV-I provirus. Sensitivity ranged from approximately 10(-6) for PCR-based studies to 10(-2) for unamplified genomic blotting. Lesional DNA from patients with lymphomatoid papulosis (fourteen cases), Hodgkin's disease (twelve cases), and CD30+ large-cell lymphoma (nine cases) was tested for the HTLV-I proviral pX region using a genomic PCR assay followed by confirmatory Southern blot analysis with a nested oligonucleotide pX probe. All cases were uniformly negative. All of the Hodgkin's disease cases, eight of the large-cell lymphoma cases, and six of the lymphomatoid papulosis cases were then subjected to dot blot analysis of genomic DNA using a full-length HTLV-I proviral DNA probe that spans all regions of the HTLV-I genome. Again, all cases were negative. Finally, eleven of the Hodgkin's disease cases were also subjected to Southern blot analysis of EcoRI-digested genomic DNA using the same full-length HTLV-I probe. Once again, all cases were negative. These findings indicated that, despite utilization of a variety of sensitive and specific molecular biological methods, HTLV-I genetic sequences were not detectable in patients with CTCL-associated lymphoproliferative disorders. These results strongly suggest that the HTLV-I retrovirus is not involved in the pathogenesis of these diseases.