Duration of Graft Cold Ischemia Does Not Affect Outcomes in Pediatric Heart Transplant Recipients

A. Scheule, G. Zimmerman, J. Johnston, A. Razzouk, S. Gundry, L. Bailey
{"title":"Duration of Graft Cold Ischemia Does Not Affect Outcomes in Pediatric Heart Transplant Recipients","authors":"A. Scheule, G. Zimmerman, J. Johnston, A. Razzouk, S. Gundry, L. Bailey","doi":"10.1161/01.CIR.0000032882.55215.00","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundUtilizing donor hearts with prolonged graft ischemia may extend the donor pool. Methods and ResultsThe medical records of 363 infants and children, aged 1 day to 17 years, transplanted at Loma Linda University between November 1985 and March 2001, were retrospectively reviewed. Fourteen children received organs with prolonged ischemic times (>8 hours)(PIT) compared with 14 with short ischemic times (≤90 minutes)(SIT). There were no significant differences when comparing donors for gender, age, weight, cause of death, or duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Preoperative donor shortening fraction (%), as determined by echocardiography, was significantly higher in the SIT group (44.5 versus 36.5%;P =0.006). There were no significant differences between PIT and SIT recipients when comparing age at transplant, weight at transplant, waiting time, weight mismatch, postoperative days on ventilator, duration of inotropic support, and hospital stay. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly longer in the PIT group (140.5 versus 80.5 minute;P =0.001). Median length of follow-up for both groups was approximately 5 years. Five grafts were lost in the PIT group; 7 were lost in the SIT group, with 1 early graft loss in each group. Significant posttransplant coronary artery disease was diagnosed in 2 recipients in each group (PIT: 80 and 42; SIT: 84 and 67 months posttransplant). There was no significant difference between groups in actuarial graft survival. Number of rejection episodes and hospital readmissions during the first posttransplantation year did not differ significantly between groups. ConclusionLate outcomes were not adversely affected by donor hearts preserved by single dose cold crystalloid cardioplegia with greater than 8 hours of cold ischemia.","PeriodicalId":10194,"journal":{"name":"Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association","volume":"26 1","pages":"I-163-I-167"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"51","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000032882.55215.00","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 51

Abstract

BackgroundUtilizing donor hearts with prolonged graft ischemia may extend the donor pool. Methods and ResultsThe medical records of 363 infants and children, aged 1 day to 17 years, transplanted at Loma Linda University between November 1985 and March 2001, were retrospectively reviewed. Fourteen children received organs with prolonged ischemic times (>8 hours)(PIT) compared with 14 with short ischemic times (≤90 minutes)(SIT). There were no significant differences when comparing donors for gender, age, weight, cause of death, or duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Preoperative donor shortening fraction (%), as determined by echocardiography, was significantly higher in the SIT group (44.5 versus 36.5%;P =0.006). There were no significant differences between PIT and SIT recipients when comparing age at transplant, weight at transplant, waiting time, weight mismatch, postoperative days on ventilator, duration of inotropic support, and hospital stay. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly longer in the PIT group (140.5 versus 80.5 minute;P =0.001). Median length of follow-up for both groups was approximately 5 years. Five grafts were lost in the PIT group; 7 were lost in the SIT group, with 1 early graft loss in each group. Significant posttransplant coronary artery disease was diagnosed in 2 recipients in each group (PIT: 80 and 42; SIT: 84 and 67 months posttransplant). There was no significant difference between groups in actuarial graft survival. Number of rejection episodes and hospital readmissions during the first posttransplantation year did not differ significantly between groups. ConclusionLate outcomes were not adversely affected by donor hearts preserved by single dose cold crystalloid cardioplegia with greater than 8 hours of cold ischemia.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
移植物冷缺血持续时间不影响儿童心脏移植受者的预后
背景:利用移植物长时间缺血的供体心脏可以扩大供体池。方法与结果对1985年11月至2001年3月在美国洛马林达大学(Loma Linda University)进行移植手术的363例1天~ 17岁婴幼儿的病历进行回顾性分析。14例患儿接受了缺血时间延长(>8小时)(PIT), 14例患儿接受了缺血时间短(≤90分钟)(SIT)。在比较供者的性别、年龄、体重、死亡原因或心肺复苏持续时间时,没有显著差异。超声心动图显示,SIT组术前供体缩短率(%)明显高于对照组(44.5 vs 36.5%;P =0.006)。在比较移植时的年龄、移植时的体重、等待时间、体重不匹配、术后使用呼吸机天数、肌力支持持续时间和住院时间时,PIT和SIT受者之间没有显著差异。PIT组体外循环时间明显更长(140.5分钟vs 80.5分钟;P =0.001)。两组的中位随访时间约为5年。PIT组丢失5个移植物;SIT组丢失7例,每组1例早期移植物丢失。两组分别有2例移植后冠脉病变(PIT: 80和42;SIT:移植后84和67个月)。精算移植存活率组间无显著差异。移植后第一年内的排斥事件和再入院次数在两组之间没有显著差异。结论单剂量冷晶体心脏停跳保存供体心脏超过8小时,对晚期预后无不良影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Abstracts 4th Scientific Forum on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research in Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke Heat Shock Protein 72 Enhances Manganese Superoxide Dismutase Activity During Myocardial Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury, Associated With Mitochondrial Protection and Apoptosis Reduction Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling After Surgical Therapy for Aortic Stenosis: Correlation to Renin-Angiotensin System Gene Expression Circulatory Assistance With a Permanent Implantable IABP: Initial Human Experience Keratinocyte Growth Factor Enhances Post-Pneumonectomy Lung Growth by Alveolar Proliferation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1