BACKGROUND: Extended criteria cardiac transplant (ECCT) programs expand the transplant pool by matching donors and recipients typically excluded from the transplant process because of age or comorbidity. There is a paucity of data examining long-term outcomes with this strategy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between January 2000 and December 2009, adult patients undergoing isolated heart transplant were prospectively classified as ECCT based on prespecified criteria. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between ECCT and standard criteria cardiac transplant recipients. Two Cox proportional hazards models were developed. The first to identify clinical variables contributing to survival between the 2 groups, and the second to determine the additional risk associated with assignment to ECCT. Among the 454 patients who underwent heart transplant, 84 (18.5%) were ECCT. Compared with the patients who underwent standard criteria cardiac transplant, ECCT patients were older (median, 66.6 years versus 53.2 years; P<0.001), with higher frequency of diabetes mellitus (46.4% versus 24.6%; P<0.001) and chronic kidney disease (median estimated glomerular filtration rate, 55 versus 61.6 mL/min; P=0.001). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, standard criteria cardiac transplant survival was higher than ECCT at 1 (89% versus 86%; P=0.18) and 5 (77% versus 66%; P=0.035) years. In a multivariate model that included listing criteria, creatinine (hazard ratio, 1.05 per 0.1 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.09; P=0.001) was a significant predictor of post-transplant mortality. CONCLUSIONS: ECCT is an acceptable alternative for advanced heart failure therapy in select patients. Age and renal dysfunction are important determinants of long-term survival and post-transplant morbidity.
BACKGROUND: Extended criteria cardiac transplant (ECCT) programs expand the transplant pool by matching donors and recipients typically excluded from the transplant process because of age or comorbidity. There is a paucity of data examining long-term outcomes with this strategy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between January 2000 and December 2009, adult patients undergoing isolated heart transplant were prospectively classified as ECCT based on prespecified criteria. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between ECCT and standard criteria cardiac transplant recipients. Two Cox proportional hazards models were developed. The first to identify clinical variables contributing to survival between the 2 groups, and the second to determine the additional risk associated with assignment to ECCT. Among the 454 patients who underwent heart transplant, 84 (18.5%) were ECCT. Compared with the patients who underwent standard criteria cardiac transplant, ECCT patients were older (median, 66.6 years versus 53.2 years; P<0.001), with higher frequency of diabetes mellitus (46.4% versus 24.6%; P<0.001) and chronic kidney disease (median estimated glomerular filtration rate, 55 versus 61.6 mL/min; P=0.001). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, standard criteria cardiac transplant survival was higher than ECCT at 1 (89% versus 86%; P=0.18) and 5 (77% versus 66%; P=0.035) years. In a multivariate model that included listing criteria, creatinine (hazard ratio, 1.05 per 0.1 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.09; P=0.001) was a significant predictor of post-transplant mortality. CONCLUSIONS: ECCT is an acceptable alternative for advanced heart failure therapy in select patients. Age and renal dysfunction are important determinants of long-term survival and post-transplant morbidity.
Authors: Josef Stehlik; Leah B Edwards; Anna Y Kucheryavaya; Christian Benden; Jason D Christie; Fabienne Dobbels; Richard Kirk; Axel O Rahmel; Marshall I Hertz Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Mani A Daneshmand; Keshava Rajagopal; Brian Lima; Nikta Khorram; Laura J Blue; Andrew J Lodge; Adrian F Hernandez; Joseph G Rogers; Carmelo A Milano Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: G Michael Felker; Carmelo A Milano; Jonathan E E Yager; Adrian F Hernandez; Laura Blue; Michael B Higginbotham; Andrew J Lodge; Stuart D Russell Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2005-08-08 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: W A Ghali; H Quan; R Brant; G van Melle; C M Norris; P D Faris; P D Galbraith; M L Knudtson Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-09-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jonathan M Chen; Mark J Russo; Kim M Hammond; Donna M Mancini; Aftab R Kherani; Jen M Fal; Pamela A Mazzeo; Sean P Pinney; Niloo M Edwards; Yoshifumi Naka Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Hillel Laks; Daniel Marelli; Gregg C Fonarow; Michele A Hamilton; Abbas Ardehali; Jaime D Moriguchi; Jessica Bresson; David Gjertson; Jon A Kobashigawa Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Mark S Slaughter; Joseph G Rogers; Carmelo A Milano; Stuart D Russell; John V Conte; David Feldman; Benjamin Sun; Antone J Tatooles; Reynolds M Delgado; James W Long; Thomas C Wozniak; Waqas Ghumman; David J Farrar; O Howard Frazier Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joseph G Rogers; Javed Butler; Steven L Lansman; Alan Gass; Peer M Portner; Michael K Pasque; Richard N Pierson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-08-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Marc D Samsky; Carmelo A Milano; Salpy Pamboukian; Mark S Slaughter; Emma Birks; Steven Boyce; Samer S Najjar; Akinobu Itoh; Bruce Reid; Nahush Mokadam; Keith D Aaronson; Francis D Pagani; Joseph G Rogers Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 3.826
Authors: Michael A Fuery; Fouad Chouairi; Peter Natov; Jasjit Bhinder; Maya Rose Chiravuri; Lynn Wilson; Katherine A Clark; Samuel W Reinhardt; Clancy Mullan; P Elliott Miller; Robert P Davis; Joseph G Rogers; Chetan B Patel; Sounok Sen; Arnar Geirsson; Muhammad Anwer; Nihar Desai; Tariq Ahmad Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 5.501