| Literature DB >> 22778997 |
Francisco Buendía-Fuentes1, Luis Almenar-Bonet, Luis Martínez-Dolz, Ignacio Sánchez-Lázaro, María Rodríguez-Serrano, Diana Domingo-Valero, María José Sancho-Tello de Carranza, Antonio Salvador-Sanz.
Abstract
Functional results after heart transplantation range from modest to spectacular improvement. Little is known about factors to predict functional result. This study aimed to identify these factors. We present a prospective study including all consecutive transplant recipients (n = 55) in a two-year period whose survival was greater than two months. Perioperative, donor, and recipient issues were systematically analyzed. Exercise capacity was assessed by symptom-limited treadmill exercise testing two months after transplantation. Exercise capacity was classified as satisfactory or poor depending on achieving or not 4.5 METs (metabolic equivalents), respectively. Thirty-three patients (60%) showed a good exercise capacity (>4.5 METs), whereas the remaining twenty-two patients (40%) were unable to exceed this threshold. The variables which correlated with exercise capacity in univariate analysis were recipient age, inotropic treatment, ischemic time, ventricular assist device, etiology, urgent transplant, and INTERMACS score. Among them only recipient age and ischemic time were proved to be correlated with exercise capacity in the multiple regression analysis. Thus, younger patients and those who had received an organ with shorter ischemic time showed greater exercise capacity after transplant. These findings strengthen the trend toward reducing ischemic time as much as possible to improve both survival and clinical recovery.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22778997 PMCID: PMC3385640 DOI: 10.5402/2012/907102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Cardiol ISSN: 2090-5580
Clinical characteristics in both groups depending on achieving or not 4.5 METs (metabolic equivalents) in the effort test.
| <4.5 METs | >4.5 METs | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| Days after surgery | 59.1 ± 11.4 | 63.8 ± 17.3 |
| Recipient age (years)∗ | 56.1 ± 9.3 | 48.9 ± 9.7 |
| Donor age (years) | 39.4 ± 11.6 | 42.4 ± 11.1 |
| Male recipients | 68.2 | 75.7 |
| Male donors | 68.2 | 57.6 |
| Donor BMI/recipient BMI | 1 ± 0.17 | 0.99 ± 0.19 |
| Recipient BMI | 25.1 ± 3.7 | 24.6 ± 3.5 |
| PCP (mmHg) | 24.5 ± 10.9 | 23.7 ± 10.3 |
| PVR (WU) | 2.4 ± 1.8 | 2.3 ± 1.4 |
| LVEF (%) | 19.1 ± 11.3 | 18.7 ± 10.2 |
| Creatinine (mg/dl) | 1.1 ± 0.5 | 1.1 ± 0.4 |
| Ischemic time (min)∗ | 190.9 ± 45.9 | 151.3 ± 48.8 |
| Ischemic time > 180 min∗ | 68.2 | 30.3 |
| Inotropic treatment# | 45.5 | 22.7 |
| NYHA ≥ III-IV | 81.8 | 78.8 |
| INTERMACS score∗ | 3.6 ± 1.3 | 4.4 ± 1.3 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 27.3 | 15.2 |
| Hypertension requiring treatment | 31.8 | 27.3 |
| Baseline heart disease (ischemic/idiopathic/hypertrophic/other)∗ | 59/18/0/23 | 33.3/45.5/12.1/9.1 |
| Smoking <1 years | 36.4 | 27.3 |
| Ventricular assist device∗ | 31.8 | 6.1 |
| Urgent transplant# | 45.4 | 21.2 |
| Moderate-severe obstructive respiratory pattern | 13.7 | 15.5 |
| Treated rejection episodes | 31.8 | 27.3 |
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation or as percentages.
Body mass index (BMI), pulmonary capillary pressure (PCP), pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association (NYHA), Wood unit (WU) *P < 0.05, # P < 0.1.
Figure 1Distribution of ischemic time (> or <180 min) in both groups depending on achieving or not 4.5 METs (metabolic equivalents) in the effort test.
Figure 2Predictors of exercise capacity included in the multivariate model. Recipient age and ischemic time reached P < 0.05. They both were inversely related to exercise capacity.
Figure 3ROC curve for ischemic time values and development of exercise capacity >4.5 METs (metabolic equivalents) two months after heart transplant. The cut-off value considered optimal for classifying the patients was 177.5 min. With this value, we achieved a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 58%. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.73 ± 0.07.