ATS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Barry B.K. Chan
William D. Spotnitz
Irving L. Kron
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Blackbourne, L. H.
Right arrow Articles by Kron, I. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Blackbourne, L. H.
Right arrow Articles by Kron, I. L.

Ann Thorac Surg 1994;57:1472-1476
© 1994 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Articles

Successful use of undersized donors for orthotopic heart transplantation—with a caveat

Lorne H. Blackbourne, MD, Curtis G. Tribble, MD, Scott E. Langenburg, MD, Kimberly N. Sinclair, MS, G.Bino Rucker, BS, Barry B.K. Chan, MD, William D. Spotnitz, MD, James D. Bergin, MD, Irving L. Kron, MD*

Departments of Surgery and Medicine, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

* Address reprint requests to Dr. Kron, Department of Surgery, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, Box 18-95, Charlottesville, VA 22908.

Accepted clinical practice has been to require body weights to be within 20% as a criterion for matching donor to recipient for cardiac transplantation. From November 1989 through September 1993 we began accepting larger differences in body weight between donor and recipient with 80 orthotopic heart transplants performed. Twenty-eight of these transplants used undersized donors (donor-to-recipient body weight ratio [DRBW] of 0.6 to 0.8) with the remaining donors being either size matched (DRBW = 0.8 to 1.0) or oversized (DRBW > 1.0). Thirty-three of the 80 transplant recipients (41%) were classified preoperatively as United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status I and the remaining patients were classified as UNOS status II. Hospital survival for status I recipients was 9 of 14 (64%) for undersized mors, 7 of 8 (87.5%) for sized-matched donors, and 11 of 11 (100%) for oversized donors (p < 0.05). Hospital survival for status II recipients was 12 of 14 (85.7%) for undersized donors, 24 of 24 (100%) for sizedmatched donors, and 8 of 9 (88.8%) for oversized donors. Our data support the continued use of hearts from undersized donors in status II recipients. The use of hearts from undersized donors in status I recipients is associated with increased mortality compared with sizematched donors and must be undertaken with caution.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS
Copyright © 1994 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.