HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Roy G. Masters Paul J. Hendry Wilbert J. Keon Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Masters, R. G. Articles by Keon, W. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Masters, R. G. Articles by Keon, W. J.

Ann Thorac Surg 1996;61:1734-1739
© 1996 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Original Article: Cardiovascular

Cardiac Transplantation After Mechanical Circulatory Support: A Canadian Perspective

Divisions of Surgery, Cardiology, and Pathology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa Civic Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Accepted for publication January 26, 1996.

Background. To assess the relative efficacy of cardiac transplantation after mechanical circulatory support with a variety of support systems, we analyzed our consecutive series of patients who had and did not have mechanical support before transplantation.

Methods. A review of 209 patients undergoing cardiac transplantation from 1984 to May 1995 was performed. Group 1 consisted of 110 patients who were maintained on oral medications while awaiting transplantation, and group 2 consisted of 60 patients who required intravenous inotropic support. Group 3 included 39 patients who had transplantation after mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. The indication for device implantation was acute onset of cardiogenic shock in 38 patients and deterioration while awaiting transplantation in 1 patient. The support systems were an intraaortic balloon pump in 13 (subgroup 3A), a ventricular assist device in 7 (subgroup 3B), and a total artificial heart in 19 patients (subgroup 3C).

Results. After transplantation, infection was more common in group 3 (56%) than in group 1 (28%) or group 2 (32%) (p = 0.005). Survival to discharge was lower for group 3 (71.7%) than for group 1 (90.9%) or 2 (88.3%) (p = 0.009). For mechanically supported patients, survival to discharge was 84.6% in subgroup 3A, 71.4% in subgroup 3B, and 63.1% in subgroup 3C (p = not significant).

Conclusions. Transplantation after mechanical support offers acceptable results in this group of patients for whom the only alternative is certain death. Patient selection and perioperative management remain the challenge to improving these results.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Williams, J. Casher, N. Joshi, T. Hankinson, M. Warren, M. Oz, Y. Naka, and D. Mancini Insertion of a left ventricular assist device in patients without thorough transplant evaluations: a worthwhile risk? J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., August 1, 2003; 126(2): 436 - 441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				O. Baron, A. Le Guyader, J. N. Trochu, M. Burban, J. C. Chevalier, M. Treilhaud, T. Petit, O. Al Habash, P. Despins, J. L. Michaud, et al. Does the pretransplant UNOS status modify the short- and long-term cardiac transplant prognosis? Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2003; 75(6): 1878 - 1885. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Omoto, K. Minami, T. Muramatsu, S. Kyo, and R. Korfer Pseudoaneurysm after heart transplantation with history of LVAD driveline infection Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2001; 72(1): 263 - 264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]