Background. We examined the effect of cold ischemic interval on modern outcomes to determine whether advances in patient management have made an impact.Methods. Using the United Network of Organ Sharing database, we reviewed adult heart transplants between January 2000 and March 2016. We divided donor age into terciles: younger than 18 years, 18 to 33 years, and 34 years and older. Within each tercile, transplants were divided by cold ischemic interval of less than 4 hours, 4 to 6 hours, and more than 6 hours. Survival curves were compared between cold ischemic interval categories within each tercile. Covariate-adjusted and donor age-stratified Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate overall mortality and graft failure hazards ratios.Results. Of 29,192 transplants, no significant differences between cold ischemic interval groups in survival or graft failure were apparent in the group aged younger than 18. For donors older than 18, significant differences were found for survival and graft failure with cold
Neonatal heart transplantation was developed and established in the 1980's as a durable modality of therapy for complex-uncorrectable heart disease. Patients transplanted in the neonatal period have experienced unparalleled long-term survival, better than for any other form of solid-organ transplantation. However, the limited availability of neonatal and young infant donors has restricted the indications and applicability of heart transplantation among newborns in the current era. Indications for heart transplantation include congenital heart disease not amenable to other forms of surgical palliation, and cardiomyopathy, including some primary tumors. Use of ABO-incompatible transplants, and organs with prolonged cold ischemic time or marginal function have all been associated with good outcomes in infants. These extended strategies to increase the donor pool may also someday include donation after determination of circulatory death and the use of anencephalic donors. The operative techniques for donors and recipients of neonatal heart transplantation are unique and have been well-described. Immunosuppression protocols for neonates need not include induction and are largely steroid-free. Newborn and young infant transplant recipients have fewer episodes of rejection, less coronary allograft vasculopathy, less post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease and less renal dysfunction than their older counterparts. Long-term outcomes have been very encouraging in terms of graft survival, patient survival, and quality of life. Our review highlights the history, current indications, techniques and outcomes of heart transplantation in this immunologically-privileged subset of patients.
Background. Primary transplantation was developed in the 1980s as an alternative therapy to palliative reconstruction of uncorrectable congenital heart disease. Although transplantation achieved more favorable results, its utilization has been limited by the availability of donor organs. This review examines the long-term outcomes of heart transplantation in neonates at our institution.Methods. The institutional pediatric heart transplant database was queried for all neonatal heart transplants performed between 1985 and 2017. Follow-up was obtained from medical records and an annually administered questionnaire. Overall survival and time to development of complications were estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of survival.Results. Heart transplantation was performed in 104 neonates. Median age was 17 days. Hypoplastic left heart syndrome (classic or variant) was the primary diagnosis in 77.8% of patients. Survival at 10 years and 25 years was 73.9% and 55.8%, respectively. At 20 years, freedom from allograft vasculopathy and lymphoproliferative disease was 72.0% and 81.9%, respectively. Freedom from retransplantation was 81.4% at 20 years. Eight patients (7.6%) developed end-stage renal disease. By multivariate analysis, lower glomerular filtration rate and allograft vasculopathy were the only significant predictors of death.Conclusions. Neonatal heart transplantation remains a durable therapy with very acceptable long-term survival. Children transplanted in the newborn period have the potential to reach adulthood with minimal need for reintervention.
A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was, 'in adult patients who require a tube thoracostomy, is the trocar technique comparable to blunt dissection in terms of rate of tube malposition or complications?' Altogether more than 258 papers were found using the reported search, of which 7 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers were tabulated. The articles included two retrospective reviews, three prospective observational studies and two prospective randomized studies. Of these, four papers concluded that the trocar technique was associated with a significantly higher rate of tube malposition and complications. One retrospective review found that the rate of tube malposition was similar in both groups; however, the trocar technique was abandoned due to the occurrence of severe complications like lung and stomach injury. Another study found that blunt dissection into the pleural space followed by the use of a trocar to direct the chest tube was as safe as and even more effective than blunt dissection alone. A randomized prospective study in cadavers comparing blunt vs sharp tip trocars reported that the use of blunt tip trocars resulted in less complications. We conclude that the trocar technique for chest tube placement should be avoided in adult patients as it is associated with a higher incidence of malposition and complications. The blunt dissection technique with digital exploration of the pleural cavity prior to chest tube placement is the safest technique and should be considered standard practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.