4.6 Article

Long-term experiences on cardiac retransplantation in adults

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
卷 32, 期 6, 页码 923-925

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.08.031

关键词

retransplantation; cardiac; adult; mortality; survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: It remains disputed whether cardiac retransptantation should be performed. This study aimed to evaluate our tong-term experiences on cardiac retransplantation in adults. Patients and methods: Between March 1989 and December 2004, 2% (28/1290) of cardiac retransplantations were performed. Results: The reasons for cardiac retransptantation were cardiac allograft vasculopathy(n = 13; 47%), primary graft failure (n = 11; 39%), and refractory acute rejection (n = 4; 14%). The 30-day mortality risk was 29% (acute rejection: 50%; primary graft failure: 36%; cardiac allograft vasculopathy: 15%, p = 0.324), compared to 8.5% for primary cardiac transplantation (p < 0.001). The causes of early death were acute rejection In = 3; 37%), multiorgan failure In = 3; 37%), primary graft failure (n = 1; 13%), and right ventricular failure In = 1; 13%). The late mortality rate was 96/1000 patient-years. The causes of late death were acute rejection (n = 4; 50%), cardiac allograft vasculopathy In = 2; 25%), multiorgan failure (n = 1; 13%), and infection (n = 1; 13%). The 1-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year survival was respectively 78, 68, 54, and 38% (primary cardiac transplantation), and 46, 41, 32, and 32% (cardiac retransptantation) (p = 0.003). The short-term survival for cardiac retransplantation due to cardiac allograft vasculopathy was likely better than primary graft failure and refractory acute rejection lip = 0.09). Conclusion: The overall outcomes of cardiac retransplantation are significantly inferior to primary cardiac transplantation. Cardiac retransplantation should be only performed for selected patients. (C) 2007 European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据