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.

Fatal cardiac and renal allograft rejection with lenalidomide therapy for light-chain amyloidosis.

We describe a patient who underwent a successful heart and kidney transplant for light-chain amyloidosis. She had an excellent hematologic response to bortezomib/dexamethasone therapy. Follow-up therapy with lenalidomide was started, and the patient quickly had a fatal allograft rejection of the heart and kidney. We present evidence to support the theory that lenalidomide, a known immunomodulator, may have stimulated the immune system and precipitated the fatal rejection episode.

Twenty-year survivors of heart transplantation at Stanford University.

Human heart transplantation started 40 years ago. Medical records of all cardiac transplants performed at Stanford were reviewed. A total of 1446 heart transplantations have been performed between January 1968 and December 2007 with an increase of 1-year survival from 43.1% to 90.2%. Sixty patients who were transplanted between 1968 and 1987 were identified who survived at least 20 years. Twenty-year survivors had a mean age at transplant of 29.4 +/- 13.6 years. Rejection-free and infection-free 1-year survivals were 14.3% and 18.8%, respectively. At their last follow-up, 86.7% of long-term survivors were treated for hypertension, 28.3% showed chronic renal dysfunction, 6.7% required hemodialysis, 10% were status postkidney transplantation, 13.3% were treated for diabetes mellitus, 36.7% had a history of malignancy and 43.3% had evidence of allograft vasculopathy. The half-life conditional on survival to 20 years was 28.1 years. Eleven patients received a second heart transplant after 11.9 +/- 8.0 years. The most common causes of death were allograft vasculopathy (56.3%) and nonlymphoid malignancy (25.0%). Twenty-year survival was achieved in 12.5% of patients transplanted before 1988. Although still associated with considerable morbidity, long-term survival is expected to occur at much higher rates in the future due to major advances in the field over the past decade.

Multiple arterial grafts. Radial versus right internal thoracic arteries.

BACKGROUND: Left internal thoracic artery (LITA) grafts to the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) during coronary bypass surgery (CABG) have greater patency rates than saphenous vein grafts and reduce long-term cardiac morbidity and mortality rates. The benefits of multiple versus single arterial grafts and the role of different arterial conduits with respect to short- and medium-term outcome remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the perioperative and intermediate-term results of: (1) patients receiving 2 arterial grafts versus 1 arterial graft and (2) patients receiving a right internal thoracic artery (RITA) versus a radial artery (RA) as the second arterial graft. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data on consecutive patients undergoing isolated CABG at our institution between 1989 and 1996 was conducted. The first section of the study compared outcomes for 1 arterial graft (LITA to LAD, n = 2333) versus 2 arterial grafts (LITA + RA or LITA + RITA, n = 378). The second section of the study compared outcomes for the RITA (n = 132) versus the RA (n = 171) as second arterial grafts since 1992, when the radial series was initiated. Part I: By multivariable stepwise logistic regression, the use of 1 arterial graft was associated with an increased incidence of perioperative cardiac morbidity and mortality (odds ratio 2.2, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 3.3), with the use of our current patient selection criteria. Double-arterial graft patients had a nonsignificant trend toward increased intermediate-term actuarial survival (P = 0.12) and cardiac event-free survival (P = 0.09). Part II: Comparison of preoperative demographics revealed a higher incidence of diabetes (27% vs 11%, P < 0.001), peripheral vascular disease (16% vs 8%, P = 0.03), and elderly age (13% vs 2%, P = 0.001) in patients receiving an RA versus those receiving a RITA as the second arterial graft. Perioperative outcome analysis revealed a decreased intensive care unit stay in the RA versus RITA group (median 30.4 vs 36.2 hours, respectively, P = 0.005) but no significant difference in hospital length of stay. There was no significant difference in perioperative mortality or cardiac morbidity rates. RITA patients had a higher incidence of sternal wound infection (5.3% vs 0.6%, P = 0.01), however, and tended to have increased blood product transfusion rates (51% vs 40%, P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The use of 2 arterial grafts is safe, with a reduction in perioperative cardiac morbidity or mortality rates compared with 1 arterial graft after adjustment for other risk variables. When comparing RITA to RA as second arterial grafts, patients receiving an RA have a lower incidence of sternal wound infection and decreased transfusion requirements, with no difference in perioperative or intermediate-term cardiac morbidity or mortality rates.

Phase 2 studies of adenosine cardioplegia.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory evidence supports the use of adenosine-supplemented cardioplegia. An initial phase 1 dose-ranging clinical evaluation demonstrated that an adenosine concentration of 15 mumol/L could be safely administered with warm blood cardioplegia and suggested that phase 2 studies were warranted. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two separate double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials were performed in patients undergoing primary, isolated, nonemergent coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Patients were randomized to receive adenosine 15 mumol/L versus placebo in the first study (n = 200) and adenosine 50 or 100 mumol/L versus placebo in the second study (n = 128). Adenosine was infused with both initial and final doses of warm antegrade blood cardioplegia. The data from the 2 trials were combined using the methods of Mantel and Haenszel, and the results of the meta-analysis are presented as the relative risk with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The different study groups were comparable with respect to all preoperative clinical characteristics, angiographic findings, and intraoperative variables. In both trials 1 and 2, no differences were found between groups in the incidence of the individual primary or secondary outcomes. Similarly, when both studies were combined, there was no significant evidence of any consistent treatment benefit (primary: death: relative risk [RR] = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.06, 16.6; myocardial infarction by CK-MB: RR = 0.84, CI = 0.54, 1.31; low output syndrome: RR = 1.38, CI = 0.29, 6.42; any of the above: RR = 0.98, CI = 0.78, 1.25; secondary: Q-wave myocardial infarction: RR = 1.30, CI = 0.41, 4.13; myocardial infarction by troponin T: RR = 0.7, CI = 0.40, 1.21; inotrope requirement: RR = 0.9, CI = 0.46, 1.79; intra-aortic balloon pump requirement: RR = 0.6, CI = 0.07, 4.81; P > 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Despite promising experimental data, adenosine supplementation of warm blood cardioplegia did not demonstrate any statistically significant benefit in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Although sample sizes were relatively small, based on our interim analyses, it is unlikely that increased patient enrollment would reveal any substantive clinical differences between groups.

Phase 1 human trial of adenosine-potassium cardioplegia.

BACKGROUND: The cardioprotective role of adenosine in various models of ischemia-reperfusion, including adenosine supplementation to cardioplegic formulations, has been studied extensively. The appropriate dose of adenosine in humans is uncertain and could be limited by systemic hypotension or AV block. METHODS AND RESULTS: An open-label, nonrandomized phase 1 adenosine dose-ranging study was performed. Patients scheduled for primary isolated coronary bypass surgery were eligible for the study. Antegrade warm blood potassium cardioplegia (ratio, 4:1, blood to crystalloid) was administered in the routine fashion, with adenosine added to the initial 1000-mL dose and final 500-mL dose. Patients were studied in blocks of 4 per concentration. An escalating adenosine dosage schedule was planned to produce blood cardioplegia concentrations from 0 to 250 mumol/L, and the blocks were tested sequentially. Stopping rules were defined for systemic hypotension (phenylephrine dose during cardiopulmonary bypass > or = 5.0 mg; phenylephrine dose during cardioplegic induction > or = 800 micrograms) and AV block (permanent pacemaker insertion; temporary pacing dependency for > 90 minutes after cardiopulmonary bypass). Doses of 1, 2.5, 5, 10, and 25 mumol/L were well tolerated. With 50 mumol/L, systemic hypotension occurred during cardioplegic induction in 3 of 4 patients versus 1 of 24 (P < .005) at all lower concentrations (880 +/- 217 versus 297 +/- 286 micrograms phenylephrine per patient). The studies were repeated with an 8:1 blood-to-crystalloid cardioplegia delivery system. Adenosine concentrations of 0 (n = 4), 15 (n = 12), 20 (n = 8), and 25 mumol/L (n = 4) were tested. Hypotension during cardioplegic induction was more prevalent (P = .05) with the higher doses (15 mumol/L, 394 +/- 189 micrograms, 1 of 12 patients; 20 mumol/L, 360 +/- 355 micrograms, 2 of 8 patients; 25 mumol/L, 600 +/- 478 micrograms, 2 of 4 patients). There were no differences with respect to systemic hypotension during cardiopulmonary bypass or for pacing > 90 minutes after discontinuation of cardiopulmonary bypass, and no patient required permanent pacing. There have been no deaths, Q-wave myocardial infarctions, intra-aortic balloon pump insertions, or cerebral infarctions in the total sample of 56 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our initial investigations have shown that adenosine can be safely administered during cardiopulmonary bypass. The authors recommend that further studies are warranted using adenosine 15 to 25 mumol/L, depending on the delivery system.

The technique of radial artery bypass grafting and early clinical results.

There is renewed interest in the use of the radial artery as a conduit for coronary artery bypass. Fifty patients underwent bypass surgery using the radial artery in addition to other conduits between November 24, 1992 and November 8, 1994 at our institution. The mean age was 54.4 +/- 9.1 years (mean +/- SD) and 47 of the patients were male. There were 3.6 +/- 0.9 and stomses per patient, of which 2.2 +/- 0.4 were arterial anastomoses. The most common target vessel for the radial artery has been the obtuse marginal (58.8%), with the aorta as the usual site for proximal anastomosis (80.4%). There have been no ischemic hand complications and no radial nerve deficits. There have been no early or late deaths and no myocardial ischemic complications related to the use of the radial artery. We present the techniques used at our institution for the use of the radial artery as a conduit for coronary artery bypass.