4.5 Article

Cardiac transplantation for amyloid heart disease: The United Kingdom experience

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 23, Issue 10, Pages 1142-1153

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2003.08.027

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Heart transplantation (TX) for cardiac amyloidosis is uncommon because of concern about progression of amyloid in other organs and the possibility of amyloid deposition in the donor heart. Methods: Records of all 24 patients with amyloid heart disease who have undergone TX. in the United Kingdom were examined. Seventeen patients had AL amyloidosis (AL) and 7 had non-AL forms of amyloidosis (non-AL). Results: Survival of the 10 patients with AL who underwent TX but had no additional chemotherapy was 50%, 50%, and 20% at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively; amyloid recurred in the grafts of these patients after a median of 11 months, and extra-cardiac amyloid deposition contributed to mortality in 70% of these patients. Survival of 7 patients with AL who also had chemotherapy was 71%, 71%, and 36% respectively and 2 patients remain alive. Survival of the 7 patients with non-AL was 86%, 86%, and 64% at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively; 5 patients remain alive. One patient from this group had recurrence of amyloid in the graft at 60 months. Five-year survival for all 24 amyloid patients was 38%, compared to patients undergoing TX in the UK for other indications (n = 4,058) for whom it was 67% (p = 0.013). Conclusion: Regardless of the use of adjunctive chemotherapy, the 5-year survival after TX for cardiac AL amyloidosis was less than that after TX for other indications, and progression of the systemic disease contributed substantially to the increased mortality. In contrast, the 5-year survival after TX for non-AL amyloid, combined as necessary with liver or kidney TX, was similar to that after TX in general.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available