Does pediatric heart transplant survival differ with various cardiac preservation solutions?
artificial organs
dysfunction
heart (allograft) function
organ
organ procurement
perfusion
preservation
support devices: heart
ventricular assist devices
Journal
Clinical transplantation
ISSN: 1399-0012
Titre abrégé: Clin Transplant
Pays: Denmark
ID NLM: 8710240
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
17
05
2020
revised:
06
09
2020
accepted:
03
10
2020
pubmed:
16
10
2020
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
15
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Few studies directly compare outcomes between the most commonly used preservation solutions in pediatric heart transplantation in a large cohort of recipients. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of cardiac preservation solution on survival in pediatric heart transplant recipients. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was retrospectively reviewed from 01/2004-03/2018 for pediatric donor hearts. Saline, University of Wisconsin (UW), "cardioplegia," Celsior, and Custodiol preservation solutions were evaluated. The primary endpoints were recipient survival at 30 days, 1 year, and long term. After exclusion criteria, 3012 recipients had preservation solution data available. The most common preservation solution used was UW in 1203 patients (40%), followed by Celsior in 542 (18%), cardioplegia in 461 (15%), saline in 408 (14%), and Custodiol in 398 (13%). Survival of recipients whose donor hearts were procured with UW was as follows: 97%-30 day, 92%-1 year; Celsior: 97%-30 day, 92%-1 year; cardioplegia: 97%-30 day, 91%-1 year; saline: 97%-30 day, 91%-1 year; and Custodiol: 96%-30 day and 92%-1 year. Analysis of Cox models for 30-day and long-term survival revealed no statistical differences when comparing UW to Celsior (p = .333), cardioplegia (p = .914), saline (p = .980), or Custodiol (p = .642) in adjusted models. There were no significant differences in 30-day or 1-year survival detected between commonly used preservation solutions in the pediatric heart transplant population.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Few studies directly compare outcomes between the most commonly used preservation solutions in pediatric heart transplantation in a large cohort of recipients. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of cardiac preservation solution on survival in pediatric heart transplant recipients.
METHODS
The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was retrospectively reviewed from 01/2004-03/2018 for pediatric donor hearts. Saline, University of Wisconsin (UW), "cardioplegia," Celsior, and Custodiol preservation solutions were evaluated. The primary endpoints were recipient survival at 30 days, 1 year, and long term.
RESULTS
After exclusion criteria, 3012 recipients had preservation solution data available. The most common preservation solution used was UW in 1203 patients (40%), followed by Celsior in 542 (18%), cardioplegia in 461 (15%), saline in 408 (14%), and Custodiol in 398 (13%). Survival of recipients whose donor hearts were procured with UW was as follows: 97%-30 day, 92%-1 year; Celsior: 97%-30 day, 92%-1 year; cardioplegia: 97%-30 day, 91%-1 year; saline: 97%-30 day, 91%-1 year; and Custodiol: 96%-30 day and 92%-1 year. Analysis of Cox models for 30-day and long-term survival revealed no statistical differences when comparing UW to Celsior (p = .333), cardioplegia (p = .914), saline (p = .980), or Custodiol (p = .642) in adjusted models.
CONCLUSIONS
There were no significant differences in 30-day or 1-year survival detected between commonly used preservation solutions in the pediatric heart transplant population.
Substances chimiques
Insulin
0
Organ Preservation Solutions
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e14122Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : T32 HL105324
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : U54 GM115428
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Dipchand A. Current state of pediatric cardiac transplantation. Ann Cardiothoracic Surg. 2018;7(1):31-55.
Thrush PT, Hoffman TM. Pediatric heart transplantation- indications and outcomes in the current era. J Thoracic Disease. 2014;6(8):1080-1096.
Alessandro AMD, Stratta RJ, Sollinger HW, Kalayoglu M, Pirsch JD, Belzer FO. Use of UW solution in pancreas transplantation. Diabetes. 1989;38(Suppl 1):7-9.
Demmy TL, Biddle JS, Bennett LE, Walls JT, Schmaltz RA, Curtis JJ. Organ preservation solutions in heart transplantation-patterns of usage and related survival. Transplantation. 1997;63:262-269.
Carter KT, Lirette ST, Baran DA, et al. The effect of cardiac preservation solutions on heart transplant survival. J Surg Res. 2019;242:127-165.
Pulis RP, Wu BM, Kneteman NM, Churchill TA. Conservation of phosphorylation state of cardiac phosphofructokinase during in vitro hypothermic hypoxia. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2000;279:H2151-H2158.
Churchill TA, Kneteman NM. Investigation of a primary requirement of organ preservation solutions: supplemental buffering agents improve hepatic energy production during cold storage. Transplantation. 1998;65:551-559.
Hand SC, Carpenter JF. pH-induced hysteretic properties of phosphofructokinase purified from rat myocardium. Am J Physiol. 1986;250:R505-R511.
Mochizuki S, Neely JR. Control of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase in cardiac muscle. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 1979;11:221-236.
Huddleston CB, Mendeloff EN. Heart and lung preservation for transplantation. J Card Surg. 2000;15(2):108-121.
Conte JV, Baumgartner WA. Overview and future practice patterns in cardiac and pulmonary preservation. J Card Surg. 2000;15(2):91-107.
Bretschneider HJ, Hubner G, Knoll D, Lohr B, Nordbeck H, Spieckermann PG. Myocardial resistance and tolerance to ischemia: physiological and biochemical basis. J Cardiovasc Surg. 1975;16:241-260.
Hart NA, Leuvenink HGD, Ploeg RJ. New solutions in organ preservation. Transplant Rev. 2002;16:131-141.
Roskott AM, Nieuwenhuijs VB, Dijkstra G, Koudstaal LG, Leuvenink HG, Ploeg RJ. Small bowel preservation for intestinal transplantation: a review. Transpl Int. 2011;24:107-131.
Latchana N, Peck JR, Whitson B, Black SM. Preservation solutions for cardiac and pulmonary donor grafts: a review of the current literature. J Thorac Dis. 2014;6:1143-1149.
Rovetto MJ, Lamberton WF, Neely JR. Mechanisms of glycolytic inhibition in ischemic rat hearts. Circ Res. 1975;37:742-751.
Llosa JC, Rodriguez Lambert JL, Naya JL, Gosalbez F, Valle JM. Celsior, a novel cardioplegic solution for arrest and storage in heart transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2000;32:2589-2590.
Katz AM. Effects of ischemia on the contractile processes of heart muscle. Am J Cardiol. 1973;32:456-460.
Sternbergh WC, Brunsting LA, Abd-Elfattah AS, Wechsler AS. Basal metabolic energy requirements of polarized and depolarized arrest in rat heart. Am J Physiol. 1989;256:H846-H851.
Wright RN, Levitsky S, Rao KS, Holland C, Feinberg H. Potassium cardioplegia. An alternate method of intraoperative myocardial protection. Arch Surg. 1978;113:976-980.
Matte G, del Nido PJ. History and use of del Nido Cardioplegia solution at Boston Children's Hospital. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2012;44(3):98-103.
Valooran GJ, Nair SK, Chandrasekharan K, Simon R, Dominic C. del Nido cardioplegia in adult cardiac surgery-scopes and concerns. Perfusion. 2016;31(1):6-14.