Microwave and radiofrequency ablation yield similar success rates for treatment of chronic atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of two different ablation devices (microwave AFx and radiofrequency Medtronic), designed to create linear lesion lines, with respect to efficacy and restoration of sinus rhythm (SR). METHODS: Between February 2001 and December 2002, 42 patients with chronic, persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) >6 months were submitted to different combinations of valve surgery (mitral+/-tricuspid, n = 30; mitral and aortic+/-tricuspid reconstruction, n = 6 aortic+/-tricuspid, n = 8) and concomitant Maze procedure. The biatrial Maze followed the concept of the Cox III procedure, using either microwave energy (AFx Lynx) (group I: age 65.8+/-11.9 years, mean duration of AF 61.9+/-28.9 months, n = 23) or radiofrequency (Medtronic Cardioblate) (group II: age 64.1+/-11.1 years, mean duration of AF 53.5+/-49 months, n = 19). RESULTS: There was one death with group I (4%), due to liver failure. Both groups were comparable with regard to Euro Score, ejection fraction, cross clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, ICU (median 1 day in both groups) and hospital stay, and type of indication. The preoperative diameter of the left atrium was 69.7+/-10.8 and 74.0+/-14.3 mm in groups I and II, respectively (P = 0.359). The Maze procedure resulted in 23+/-2 and 17+/-1 min additional cross clamp time in groups I and II, respectively (P = 0.013). At the 12-month follow up, freedom from AF was 81 and 80% in groups I and II, respectively. Twenty percent in group I and 21% in group II needed a pacemaker (PM), due to sick sinus syndrome (2 versus 2 cases), AV bloc (2 versus 1 case) and preoperative bradycardia (0 versus 1 case), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of complex valve surgery and Maze procedure was safe and reproducible. Following the Cox Maze III line concept, microwave and radiofrequency ablation gave similar results even in patients with more complex double or triple valve procedures.

Reconstructed bicuspid aortic valve after 10 years: clinical and echocardiographic follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Sixteen patients (mean age, 30.9 +/- 12.9 years; range, 9-79 years) with incompetent bicuspid aortic valves underwent valve-sparing correction between 1992 and 1995. METHODS: All patients underwent triangular resection of the enlarged leaflet. In addition, 13 patients underwent commissuroplasty. In 3 patients leaflet perforations were corrected with glutaraldehyde-fixed autologous pericardial patch. All patients underwent annual echocardiographic and clinical examinations at our institution. RESULTS: During follow-up 1 patient died of heart failure, and 3 patients underwent reoperations because of valve incompetence or dilatation of the sinus. Two patients underwent reoperation perioperatively. At long-term follow-up (mean, 10.06 +/- 1.01 years) the remaining 10 patients were in New York Heart Association class I. No patient was receiving anticoagulation, and no thromboembolic, bleeding, or endocarditis events were observed in 107.2 cumulative patientyears of follow-up. Mean grade of regurgitation was 0.7 +/- 0.5; mean aortic flow velocity was 2.29 +/- 0.47 m/s. Optimal valvular function led to normal ventricular diameters (left ventricular end systolic diameter, 39.2 +/- 4.3 mm; left ventricular end diastolic diameter, 56.2 +/- 5.9 mm) and normal ventricular function (fractional shortening, 31.5% +/- 0.1%). The dimensions of the aortic root were stable from 1-year to late followup (mean aortic annulus, 27.1 +/- 6.8 mm; sinus of Valsalva, 33.0 +/- 7.1 mm; sinotubular junction, 34.1 +/- 7.7 mm; ascending aorta, 31.6 +/- 7.4 mm). CONCLUSION: In contrast to early follow-up results of 5 reoperations, clinical and echocardiographic results were excellent for 10 patients who had undergone reconstruction of bicuspid incompetent aortic valves, and the patients were in stable condition after 10 years. However, the mode of early failure is unknown. Reconstruction of bicuspid valves is possible in selected patients.

Long-term survival (>10 years) of patients >60 years with induction therapy after cardiac transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiac transplantation has become an established method for end-stage heart disease. Short- and mid-term outcome has been known to be similar between younger and older (>60 years) recipients. So far, nothing is known about long-term outcome of old patients and the potential long-term effects of antibody induction therapy in these patients. The purpose of this study was to analyse long-term outcome of old cardiac transplant recipients who underwent antibody induction therapy. METHODS: Since 1989, 203 patients (total n = 882) above 60 years have been transplanted at our center. On these patients n = 66 were above 65 years. Survival, incidences of rejection, infection, cancer, graft arteriosclerosis and the amount of renal insufficiency were compared with patients <60 years (n = 679), transplanted during the same period of time. Freedom from specific event was computed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared by log-rank test. RESULTS: Ten year survival was similar in all groups (<60 years: 53.7%; 60-64 years: 53.1% and >65 years: 60.2%; P = NS). Causes of death were similar in all patient groups. There were significant fewer rejection episodes in the older patient group (freedom from rejection: 74.9 vs. 83.5 vs. 90.6; P = 0.03). Yet significantly more number of patients >65 years were without steroid maintenance therapy (43.1%) compared to other patient groups (8.2 vs. 9.3%; P < 0.05). There was no difference in overall freedom from severe infection (74.1 vs. 67.7 vs. 85.3%; P = NS), whereas there was a trend towards more CMV disease in the oldest patient group (82.7 vs. 88.6 vs. 70.8%; P=0.06). The incidence of cancer was similar in all groups (freedom from cancer: 82.2 vs. 84.7 vs. 79.1%; P = NS), as well as there was no difference in severe graftsclerosis between all patients (79.2 vs. 93.7 vs. 93.3%; P = NS). There was no difference in development of chronic renal dysfunction (creatinine > 2.0 mg/dl) between the three groups (10 vs. 14 vs. 16%; P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Old recipients of cardiac transplants have a similar long-term outcome than younger recipients. They were less prone to rejections, had a similar incidence of severe infections and showed a trend towards more CMV disease. All patients had a very low rate of graft arteriosclerosis that was similar amongst the groups. Age-related decline of the immune system further enhanced by immunomodulation of antibody induction therapy might be accounted for the results as well as steroid-free immunosuppression.

Cyclosporine A versus tacrolimus in combination with mycophenolate mofetil and steroids as primary immunosuppression after lung transplantation: one-year results of a 2-center prospective randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Cyclosporine (INN: ciclosporin) A or tacrolimus have been used mostly in combination with azathioprine as primary immunosuppression after lung transplantation. Benefit or risk deriving from the combination with mycophenolate mofetil are yet unknown. METHODS: In a prospective, 2-center, open randomized trial, the combination of cyclosporine A, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids was compared with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids as primary therapy after primary lung transplantation. All patients underwent induction therapy with rabbit antithymocyte globulin for 3 days. The 2 groups were compared with regard to patient survival, freedom from acute rejection, bronchiolitis obliterans, infectious episodes, and side effects. RESULTS: Between September 1997 and April 1999, 74 lung transplant recipients were randomized to receive either cyclosporine A (n = 37) or tacrolimus (n = 37). Groups were comparable with regard to age, sex, transplant procedure, and cytomegalovirus match. Mean follow-up was 507 +/- 258 and 508 +/- 248 days, respectively. Six- and 12-month survival was similar in both groups (89% vs 84% and 82% vs 71%, respectively; P =.748 at 12 months). Two patients from the cyclosporine A group were retransplanted. Freedom from acute rejection at 6 and 12 months was comparable between groups (46% vs 51% and 35% vs 46%, respectively; P =.774 at 12 months). The mean number of treated acute rejection episodes per 100 patient-days was higher in the cyclosporine A than in the tacrolimus group, but the difference was not statistically significant (0.32 +/- 0.42 vs 0.22 +/- 0.30, respectively; P =.097). Four patients from the cyclosporine A group had to be switched to tacrolimus to control ongoing rejection, whereas no patient from the tacrolimus group had to be switched to cyclosporine A. There was a trend toward more infections (0.7 +/- 0.36 vs 0.55 +/- 0.31, P =.059) in the cyclosporine A group. New-onset diabetes mellitus was observed in the tacrolimus group only (11% vs 0%, P =.151), whereas there was a higher incidence of hypertension (60% vs 11%, P =.03) in the cyclosporine A group. CONCLUSION: This 2-center, prospective randomized study showed high immunosuppressive potency of both cyclosporine A and tacrolimus in combination with mycophenolate mofetil. No significant difference in incidence of acute rejection was observed between the 2 groups. Moreover, survival and incidence of infection were similar. Incidence of drug-related adverse events were similar, yet their spectrum was different.

The University of Vienna experience in heart transplantation.

Since the University of Vienna Cardiac Transplant Program began in 1984, 892 heart transplant procedures have been performed through the end of 2001. One- and five-year survival has increased steadily over time to 80% and 75%, respectively, in the most recent cohort. Ten-year survival is 55%. Over the past 10 years our program has seen dramatic changes in patient selection, accepting now patients with more risk factors (age, diabetes, elevated pulmonary resistance,..). Developments in immunosuppression have decreased the incidence of infection, rejection and graft arteriosclerosis continuously. Our program continues to pursue novel strategies to improve the survival and quality of life of our heart transplant patients.