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

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) 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): Olivier Baron Philippe Despins Jean Luc Michaud Daniel Duveau Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Baron, O. Articles by Duveau, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Baron, O. Articles by Duveau, D.

Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:1878-1885
© 2003 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Original article: cardiovascular

Does the pretransplant UNOS status modify the short- and long-term cardiac transplant prognosis?

^a Unité de Transplantation Thoracique, Service de Chirurgie Thoracique et Cardiovasculaire, Hôpital G et R Laënnec, Nantes, France

Accepted for publication January 17, 2003.

^* Address reprint requests to Dr Baron, Unité de Transplantation Thoracique, Service de Chirurgie Thoracique et Cardiovasculaire, Hôpital G et R Laënnec, 44093 Nantes, France.
e-mail: olivier.baron{at}chu-nantes.fr

BACKGROUND: We compared the morbidity and mortality rates of patients who had urgent heart transplantation or transplantation after bridging with a ventricular assist device, with the rates of patients whose clinical stability allowed them to wait at home.

METHODS: From March 1985 to December 2000, 404 patients underwent heart transplantation in a single center. There were 273 patients with UNOS status 2 (US 2), 103 patients with UNOS Status 1A (US 1A), and 28 patients with UNOS Status 1B (US 1B). We compared the groups retrospectively with respect to pretransplantation status and operative results.

RESULTS: Despite more severely impaired hemodynamics and a significantly higher preoperative infection rate in US 1A and 1B patients, there were no statistically significant differences in survival rates among the three groups. Donor sex and age, cytomegalovirus and toxoplasmosis, mismatch rate, ischemic time, method of myocardial protection, and operative technique did not differ statistically among the three groups. Length of intensive care unit stay, postoperative morbidity, first year postoperative rejection rate, and graft occlusive vascular disease rate were statistically similar among the three groups. Although pretransplantation cancer assessment was less complete in US 1A and 1B than in US 2 patients, the late-cancer rate was not statistically different among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that urgently transplanted patients have both early and long term morbidity and mortality similar to those of patients waiting for transplantation at home or with a ventricular assist device.