Cargando…

Results of heart transplantation in the urgent recipient - who should be transplanted?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate immediate and long-term results of cardiac transplantation at two different levels of urgency. METHODS: From November 2003 to December 2012, 228 patients underwent cardiac transplantation. Children and patients in cardiogenic shock were excluded from the study. From the final...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prieto, David, Correia, Pedro, Antunes, Pedro, Batista, Manuel, Antunes, Manuel J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25372913
http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1678-9741.20140072
_version_ 1782368645466292224
author Prieto, David
Correia, Pedro
Antunes, Pedro
Batista, Manuel
Antunes, Manuel J.
author_facet Prieto, David
Correia, Pedro
Antunes, Pedro
Batista, Manuel
Antunes, Manuel J.
author_sort Prieto, David
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate immediate and long-term results of cardiac transplantation at two different levels of urgency. METHODS: From November 2003 to December 2012, 228 patients underwent cardiac transplantation. Children and patients in cardiogenic shock were excluded from the study. From the final group (n=212), 58 patients (27%) were hospitalized under inotropic support (Group A), while 154 (73%) were awaiting transplantation at home (Group B). Patients in Group A were younger (52.0±11.3 vs. 55.2±10.4 years, P=0.050) and had shorter waiting times (29.4±43.8 vs. 48.8±45.2 days; P=0.006). No difference was found for sex or other comorbidities. Haemoglobin was lower and creatinine higher in Group A. The characteristics of the donors were similar. Follow-up was 4.5±2.7 years. RESULTS: No differences were found in time of ischemia (89.1±37.0 vs. 91.5±34.5 min, P=0.660) or inotropic support (13.8% vs. 11.0%, P=0.579), neither in the incidence of cellular or humoral rejection and of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. De novo diabetes de novo in the first year was slightly higher in Group A (15.5% vs. 11.7%, P=0.456), and these patients were at increased risk of serious infection (22.4% vs. 12.3%, P=0.068). Hospital mortality was similar (3.4% vs. 4.5%, P=0.724), as well as long-term survival (7.8±0.5 vs. 7.4±0.3 years). CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained in patients hospitalized under inotropic support were similar to those of patients awaiting transplantation at home. Allocation of donors to the first group does not seem to compromise the benefit of transplantation. These results may not be extensible to more critical patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4412329
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44123292015-04-30 Results of heart transplantation in the urgent recipient - who should be transplanted? Prieto, David Correia, Pedro Antunes, Pedro Batista, Manuel Antunes, Manuel J. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc Review Articles OBJECTIVE: To evaluate immediate and long-term results of cardiac transplantation at two different levels of urgency. METHODS: From November 2003 to December 2012, 228 patients underwent cardiac transplantation. Children and patients in cardiogenic shock were excluded from the study. From the final group (n=212), 58 patients (27%) were hospitalized under inotropic support (Group A), while 154 (73%) were awaiting transplantation at home (Group B). Patients in Group A were younger (52.0±11.3 vs. 55.2±10.4 years, P=0.050) and had shorter waiting times (29.4±43.8 vs. 48.8±45.2 days; P=0.006). No difference was found for sex or other comorbidities. Haemoglobin was lower and creatinine higher in Group A. The characteristics of the donors were similar. Follow-up was 4.5±2.7 years. RESULTS: No differences were found in time of ischemia (89.1±37.0 vs. 91.5±34.5 min, P=0.660) or inotropic support (13.8% vs. 11.0%, P=0.579), neither in the incidence of cellular or humoral rejection and of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. De novo diabetes de novo in the first year was slightly higher in Group A (15.5% vs. 11.7%, P=0.456), and these patients were at increased risk of serious infection (22.4% vs. 12.3%, P=0.068). Hospital mortality was similar (3.4% vs. 4.5%, P=0.724), as well as long-term survival (7.8±0.5 vs. 7.4±0.3 years). CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained in patients hospitalized under inotropic support were similar to those of patients awaiting transplantation at home. Allocation of donors to the first group does not seem to compromise the benefit of transplantation. These results may not be extensible to more critical patients. Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4412329/ /pubmed/25372913 http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1678-9741.20140072 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Articles
Prieto, David
Correia, Pedro
Antunes, Pedro
Batista, Manuel
Antunes, Manuel J.
Results of heart transplantation in the urgent recipient - who should be transplanted?
title Results of heart transplantation in the urgent recipient - who should be transplanted?
title_full Results of heart transplantation in the urgent recipient - who should be transplanted?
title_fullStr Results of heart transplantation in the urgent recipient - who should be transplanted?
title_full_unstemmed Results of heart transplantation in the urgent recipient - who should be transplanted?
title_short Results of heart transplantation in the urgent recipient - who should be transplanted?
title_sort results of heart transplantation in the urgent recipient - who should be transplanted?
topic Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25372913
http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1678-9741.20140072
work_keys_str_mv AT prietodavid resultsofhearttransplantationintheurgentrecipientwhoshouldbetransplanted
AT correiapedro resultsofhearttransplantationintheurgentrecipientwhoshouldbetransplanted
AT antunespedro resultsofhearttransplantationintheurgentrecipientwhoshouldbetransplanted
AT batistamanuel resultsofhearttransplantationintheurgentrecipientwhoshouldbetransplanted
AT antunesmanuelj resultsofhearttransplantationintheurgentrecipientwhoshouldbetransplanted