Outcomes after transplantation for “failed” Fontan: A single-institution experience

ObjectiveDespite the excellent outcomes in the current era after the Fontan procedure, it continues to have an inherent risk of failure. Cardiac transplantation provides 1 option for treating these patients; however, the indications for, timing of, and outcomes after, transplantation remain undefined. We examined our own institutional experience with transplantation for failed Fontan.MethodsThe records of 155 patients transplanted for congenital heart disease at a single institution from June 1984 to September 2007 were reviewed. Of these patients, 43 had undergone a previous Fontan procedure (25 male, 15 female; median age, 14.5 years; range, 1–47; 23 classic Fontan, 13 lateral tunnel, 4 extracardiac conduit, and 3 revised to shunt). The predictors of short- and long-term survival were evaluated, and the Fontan patients were compared with all other patients with congenital heart disease (n = 129, 78 male, 51 female).ResultsThe most common indications for transplantation included protein-losing enteropathy (PLE) (39.5%), chronic heart failure (41.8%), and acute post-Fontan failure (9.3%). The transplants performed in Fontan patients were more likely to require pulmonary artery reconstruction (85.4% vs 42.9%; P < .0001) and had longer cardiopulmonary bypass times (278 vs 179 minutes; P < .0001). The 90-day mortality rate was greater in the Fontan group (35.0% vs 20.0%; P = .055). No correlation was observed between the interval from Fontan to transplantation and morality; however, renal failure was a strong predictor of early mortality (odds ratio, 10.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.5–75.7).ConclusionsTransplantation is an acceptable treatment for patients with a failed Fontan. Clinical factors (instead of the indication for transplantation) appear to have the greatest correlation with early mortality

Posttransplant survival is not diminished in heart transplant recipients bridged with implantable left ventricular assist devices

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare posttransplantation morbidity and mortality in orthotopic heart transplant recipients bridged to transplant with a left ventricular assist device with nonbridged recipients. To account for potential differences across device types, we stratified bridge-to-transplant recipients by type of ventricular assist device: extracorporeal (EXTRA), paracorporeal (PARA), and intracorporeal (INTRA).MethodsThe United Network for Organ Sharing provided de-identified patient-level data. The study population included 10,668 orthotopic heart transplant recipients aged 18 years old or older and undergoing transplantation between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2006. Follow-up data were provided through August 3, 2008, with a mean follow-up time of 3.17 ± 2.15 years (range, 0–8.11 years). The primary outcome was actuarial posttransplant graft survival. Other outcomes of interest included infection, stroke, and dialysis during the transplant hospitalization; primary graft failure at 30 days; transplant hospitalization length of stay; and long-term complications including diabetes mellitus, transplant coronary artery disease, and chronic dialysis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression (backward, P < .15) was used to determine the relationship between groups and overall graft survival, and multivariable logistic regression analysis (backward, P < .15) was used to determine the relationship between groups and secondary outcome measures.ResultsIn multivariable Cox regression analysis, when compared with the nonbridged group, risk-adjusted greater than 90-day graft survival was diminished among the EXTRA group (hazard ratio = 3.54, 2.28–5.51, P < .001), but not the INTRA group (1.04, 0.719–1.51, P = .834) or the PARA group (1.06, 0.642–1.76, P = .809). There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted graft survival across the 4 groups during the 90-days to 1-year or 1- to 5-year intervals. However, at more than 5 years, risk-adjusted graft survival in the INTRA group (0.389, 0.205–0.738, P = .004) was better than in the nonbridged group. The EXTRA, PARA, and INTRA groups all experienced increased risks of infection. The EXTRA group had increased risks of dialysis, stroke, and primary graft failure at 30 days, whereas neither the PARA nor the INTRA group differed from the nonbridged group. Long-term complications did not differ by group.ConclusionThe use of implantable left ventricular assist devices as bridges to transplantation, including both intracorporeal and paracorporeal devices, is not associated with diminished posttransplant survival. However, 90-day survival was diminished in recipients bridged with extracorporeal devices

Is isolated aortic valve replacement sufficient to treat concomitant moderate functional mitral regurgitation? A propensity-matched analysis

Abstract Background A significant proportion of patients presenting for isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) demonstrate some degree of functional mitral regurgitation (fMR). Guidelines addressing concomitant mitral valve intervention in those patients with moderate fMR lack strong evidence-based support. Our aim is to determine the effect of untreated moderate fMR at the time of AVR on long-term survival. Methods All patients undergoing isolated AVR from 2000 to 2013 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were stratified according to severity of preoperative fMR; 0–1+ MR (Group NoMR, n = 1826) and 2–3+ MR (Group MR, n = 330). All patients in Group MR were propensity-matched with patients in Group NoMR to control for differences in baseline characteristics. The primary outcome of interest was overall survival. Results Propensity analysis matched 330 patients from each group. Mean age was 77.9 ± 10.0 years and 50.6% were male. There were no differences in baseline demographics, echocardiographic parameters, or co-morbidities between groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly worse medium and long-term survival in Group MR compared to Group NoMR (log-rank p = 0.02). Follow-up echocardiography showed slightly more severe MR in Group MR (1.1 ± 0.7 MR vs. 0.8 ± 0.7 NoMR, p = 0.03) at 1 year. Conclusions Patients undergoing isolated AVR with concomitant 2–3+ fMR experience poorer long-term survival than those patients with no or mild fMR. This suggests that mitral valve intervention may be necessary in patients undergoing AVR with clinically significant fMR