4.5 Article

Outcome of shared care for pediatric cardiac transplantation between two nations with different health care systems

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 806-814

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2014.12.010

关键词

cardiac transplantation; pediatric; rejection; cellular; antibody-mediated; vasculopathy; survival; shared care; assist device; cardiac failure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: No data are available for the outcome of children undergoing cardiac transplantation with shared care programs in different countries. We sought to investigate the outcome of a shared care transplant program between 2 countries given the complex immunologic, cardiac, and psychologic needs of these young people. METHODS: We investigated the results of a shared care program for children who underwent cardiac transplantation between our center in the Republic of Ireland and 2 centers in the United Kingdom over 2 decades. RESULTS: Between 1990 and 2013, 22 patients underwent 23 cardiac transplants. The median age at transplant was 3.2 years (range, 0.3-13.3 years), median age at listing was 30 months (range, 0.1-13.3 years), and the median waiting list time was 2.8 months (range, 0.3-14 months). The median time to return to the referral center from the time of transplant was 3 weeks (range, 2-8 weeks). The referral center treated 4 of 5 late rejection episodes. Angiography was undertaken in the transplant center at annual or biannual review. Outcomes for rejection, coronary vasculopathy, and survival were comparable between the referral and transplant centers. CONCLUSIONS: This report of shared care for pediatric transplant patients between 2 sovereign nations demonstrates good results, with comparable outcomes to the specialist transplant center. These data may encourage liberalization of follow-up in other centers. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015;34:806-814 (C) 2015 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. 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

4.5
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