Four decades of progress in heart-lung transplantation: Two hundred seventy-one cases at a single institution.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate survival for combined heart-lung transplant (HLTx) recipients across 4 decades at a single institution. We aim to summarize our contemporary practice based on more than 271 HLTx procedures over 40 years. METHODS: Data were collected from a departmental database and the United Network for Organ Sharing. Recipients younger than age 18 years, those undergoing redo HLTx, or triple-organ system transplantation were excluded, leaving 271 patients for analysis. The pioneering era was defined by date of transplant between 1981 and 2000 (n = 155), and the modern era between 2001 and 2022 (n = 116). Survival analysis was performed using cardinality matching of populations based on donor and recipient age, donor and recipient sex, ischemic time, and sex matching. RESULTS: Between 1981 and 2022, 271 HLTx were performed at a single institution. Recipients in the modern era were older (age 42 vs 34 y; P < .001) and had shorter waitlist times (78 vs 234 days; P < .001). Allografts from female donors were more common in the modern era (59% vs 39%; P = .002). In the matched survival analysis, 30-day survival (97% vs 84%; P = .005), 1-year survival (89% vs 77%; P = .041), and 10-year survival (53% vs 26%; P = .012) significantly improved in the modern era relative to the pioneering era, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival in HLTx is achievable with institutional experience and may continue to improve in the coming decades. Advances in mechanical circulatory support, improved maintenance immunosuppression, and early recognition and management of acute complications such as primary graft dysfunction and acute rejection have dramatically improved the prognosis for recipients of HLTx in our contemporary institutional experience.

Midterm Outcomes in Type A Aortic Dissection Repair With and Without Malperfusion in a Hybrid Operating Room.

Treatment approach to type A aortic dissection with malperfusion, immediate open aortic repair vs upfront endovascular treatment, remains controversial. From January 2017 to July 2021, 301 consecutive type A repairs were evaluated at our institution. Starting in 2019, all type A aortic dissections were performed in a fixed-fluoroscopy, hybrid operating room. Propensity score matching was used to control baseline patient characteristics between traditional and hybrid operating room approaches. There were 144 patients in the traditional group and 157 in the hybrid group. In the hybrid group, 41% (64/157) underwent intraoperative angiograms, and of those, 58% (37/64) received at least 1 endovascular intervention. Following propensity matching, 125 patients remained in each the traditional and hybrid groups. Thirty-day survival was significantly improved in the hybrid cohort at 96.7% (122/125) as compared to the traditional cohort at 87.2% (109/125) (P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in perioperative paralysis (1.6% vs 1.6%, P > 0.9), new hemodialysis (12% vs 9.6%, P = 0.5), fasciotomy (2.4% vs 5.6%, P = 0.20, and exploratory laparotomy (1.6% vs 4.8%, P = 0.3). The hybrid operating room approach to type A aortic dissection, provides the ability to immediately assess distal malperfusion and perform endovascular interventions at the time of open aortic repair, and is associated with significantly higher 30-day and 2-year survival when compared to a stepwise repair approach in a traditional operating room.