4.6 Article

Heart-lung transplantation over the past 10 years: an up-to-date concept

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 55, Issue 2, Pages 304-308

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy253

Keywords

Heart-lung transplantation; En bloc heart-lung transplantation; 10-Year experience; Outcomes of heart-lung transplantation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: Heart-lung transplantation has been established as an effective treatment for patients with advanced cardiopulmonary failure. Over the years, the number of operations performed has declined. In 2015, only 38 adult heart-lung transplants were reported worldwide. Since then, we have performed 16 operations in high-acuity patients with excellent postoperative outcomes. Herein, we review our single-centre experience with heart-lung transplantation over the past 10 years. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 49 heart-lung transplant recipients between 2008 and 2018 to investigate the patient characteristics and outcomes while comparing those results across 2 cohorts (2008-2015, Era I, n = 30 and 2016-2018, Era II, n = 19). RESULTS: Our patient demographics and waitlist time did not significantly change over time. However, the lung allocation score was significantly higher in Era II compared to Era 1(51.1 +/- 19.8 in Era II and 41.6 +/- 19.5 in Era I; P= 0.006). We also observed a higher rate-while not statistically significant-of preoperative and postoperative use of mechanical circulatory support in the present era. Although there is a trend of higher acuity in the present era, we continue to have excellent outcomes with 100% 30-day and 1-year survival. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that in a high-volume heart-lung transplant programme, excellent postoperative outcomes can be achieved even in patients with rapid and severe cardiopulmonary decline and that, to this day, heart-lung transplantation remains a viable option for patients with advanced cardiopulmonary disease.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available