The University of California at Los Angeles heart transplantation experience.

Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Clinical transplants 01/2005;
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT During the past 20 years, the number of older patients undergoing heart transplantation has steadily increased as a result of expanding indications for this procedure. At UCLA, 1,046 adult heart transplant procedures were performed from 1984-2004. Actuarial one-, 3-, 5-year survival rates for all recipients are 83%, 76%, and 72%, respectively. Our patients were grouped into 2 eras: those transplanted between 1984-1993 and those between 1994-2004. The current era, incorporating those patients transplanted between 1994-2004, may be defined by the introduction of pravastatin in 1994, which we have reported to benefit heart transplant patients. There were 403 adult heart transplant recipients in the pre-1994 era and 643 adult recipients in the current era. Additionally, patients were then grouped by age into those aged 18-61 years and those older than age 61 years. In the current era, there was less rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) with improved survival and comparable survival in younger versus older patients. Although cellular rejection has decreased over the 1990's decade, we have reported that the incidence of noncellular or humoral rejection in our cardiac transplant recipients has remained unchanged despite improved immunosuppressive therapies. Thus, there appears to be a need for newer immunosuppressive agents to treat humoral rejection effectively. CAV is one of the major factors limiting long-term survival in heart transplant patients. Early CAV can be detected by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), which is a new technology that detects intimal thickening in the donor coronary arteries. We demonstrated in the multicenter IVUS validation study that the progression of IVUS-defined intimal thickening > or = 0.5 mm in the first year after heart transplantation appears to be a reliable surrogate marker for subsequent mortality, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events, and the development of angiographic CAV through 5 years follow-up. The limitation on the number of transplants performed has been the number of donor organs available. We began the alternate list at our program in 1992, which is designed to match those patients excluded for regular heart transplant listing (mostly older patients) to marginal donor hearts which are unused. We have demonstrated that the alternate list patients who have undergone heart transplant have satisfactory outcomes. This has allowed expansion of the donor pool and offered heart transplantation to those patients who would not routinely have an opportunity for this life extending procedure.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pediatric donor hearts are regularly refused for donor quality with limited evidence as to which donor parameters are predictive of poor outcomes. We compare outcomes of recipients receiving hearts previously refused by other institutions for quality with the outcomes of recipients of primarily offered hearts. Data for recipients aged ≤18 and their donors were obtained. Specific UNOS refusal codes were used to place recipients into refusal and nonrefusal groups; demographics, morbidity and mortality were compared. Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test was used to determine differences in graft survival. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to determine independent risk factors for postoperative mortality. From July 1, 2000 to April 30, 2011, 182 recipients were transplanted and included for analysis. One hundred thirty received a primarily offered heart; 52 received a refused heart. No difference in postoperative complications or graft survival between the two groups (p = 0.190) was found. Prior refusal was not an independent risk factor for recipient mortality. Analysis of this large pediatric cohort examining outcomes with quality-refused hearts shows that in-hospital morbidity and long-term mortality for recipients of quality-refused hearts are no different than recipients of primarily offered hearts, suggesting that donor hearts previously refused for quality are not necessarily unsuitable for transplant and often show excellent outcomes.
    American Journal of Transplantation 05/2013; 13(6). DOI:10.1111/ajt.12237 · 6.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients in American hospitals receive intensive medical treatments. However, when lifesaving treatments are unsuccessful, patients often die in the hospital with distressing symptoms while receiving burdensome care. Systematic measurement of the quality of care planning and symptom palliation is needed. Medical records were abstracted using 16 Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders quality indicators within the domains of end-of-life care and pain management designed to measure the quality of the dying experience for adult decedents (n = 496) hospitalized for at least 3 days between April 2005 and April 2006 at a university medical center recognized for providing intensive care for the seriously ill. Over half of the patients (mean age, 62 years; 47% were women) were admitted to the hospital with end-stage disease, and 28% were 75 years or older. One-third of the patients required extubation from mechanical ventilation prior to death, and 15% died while receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Overall, patients received recommended care for 70% of applicable indicators (range, 25%-100%). Goals of care were addressed in a timely fashion for patients admitted to the intensive care unit approximately half of the time, whereas pain assessments (94%) and treatments for pain (95%) and dyspnea (87%) were performed with fidelity. Follow-up for distressing symptoms was performed less well than initial assessment, and 29% of patients extubated in anticipation of death had documented dyspnea assessments. A practical, medical chart-based assessment identified discrete deficiencies in care planning and symptom palliation that can be targeted to improve care for patients dying in the hospital.
    Archives of internal medicine 06/2010; 170(12):1057-63. DOI:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.175 · 13.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: -Alternate waiting list strategies expand listing criteria for patients awaiting heart transplantation (HTx). We retrospectively analyzed clinical events and outcome of patients listed as "high risk" recipients for HTx. METHODS AND RESULTS: -We analyzed 822 adult patients who underwent HTx of whom 111 patients met high risk criteria. Clinical data were collected from medical records and outcome factors calculated for 61 characteristics. Significant factors were summarized in a prognostic score. Age>65 years (67%) and amyloidosis (19%) were the most common reason for alternate listing. High risk recipients were older (63.2±10.2 versus 51.4±11.8 yrs; p<0.001), had more renal dysfunction, prior cancer and smoking. Survival analysis revealed lower post-HTx survival in high risk recipients (82.2 versus 87.4 % at 1-yr; 59.8 versus 76.3 % at 5-yrs post-HTx; p=0.0005). Prior CVA, Albumin<3.5 mg/dL, Re-HTx, Renal dysfunction (GFR<40 ml/min) and >2 prior Sternotomies were associated with poor survival following HTx. A prognostic risk score (CARRS) derived from these factors stratified survival post-HTx in high risk (3+ points) versus low risk (0-2 points) patients (87.9 versus 52.9 % at 1-yr; 65.9 versus 28.4 % at 5-yrs post-HTx; p<0.001). Low risk alternate patients had survival comparable to regular patients (87.9 versus 87.0 % at 1-yr and 65.9 versus 74.5 % at 5-yrs post-HTx; p=0.46). CONCLUSIONS: -High risk patients had reduced survival compared to regular patients post-HTx. Among patients previously accepted for alternate donor listing, application of the CARRS score identifies patients with unacceptably high mortality following HTx and those with a survival similar to regularly listed patients.
    Circulation Heart Failure 03/2013; 6(3). DOI:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.112.000092 · 5.95 Impact Factor