OBJECTIVES
Demand for heart transplant donors worldwide continues to outstrip supply. Transplanting hearts following donation after circulatory-determined death (DCD) is increasingly recognized as a safe and effective alternative. As the fourth centre worldwide to have established such a programme, our goal was to present our initial experience.
METHODS
This was a single-centre retrospective observational study. All DCD hearts were retrieved using direct procurement and perfusion. Continuous normothermic perfusion of the procured heart was then established on the TransMedics® Organ Care System. The primary outcome of this study was the 30-day survival rate.
RESULTS
Between May 2017 and December 2018, 8 DCD hearts were procured and 7 were subsequently implanted, including in 2 patients who had left ventricular assist devices explanted. During the same time period, 30 patients received donation after brainstem death heart transplants. Therefore, the DCD heart transplant programme led to a 23% increase in transplant activity. The median donation warm ischaemic time was 34 min [interquartile range (IQR) 31–39 min]. The median functional warm ischaemic time was 28 min (IQR 25–30 min). The median time spent by the organ on the Organ Care System was 263 min (IQR 242–296 min). The overall 30-day survival rate was 100% and the 90-day survival rate was 86%. Postoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was required in 3/7 (43%).
CONCLUSIONS
DCD heart transplants can lead to a 23% increase in heart transplant activity and should be adopted by more institutions across the world. Already established transplant programmes with good early outcomes can start such a programme safely.
ObjectivesSocial deprivation impacts on healthcare outcomes but is not included in the majority of cardiac surgery risk prediction models. The objective was to investigate geographical variations in social deprivation of patients undergoing cardiac surgery and identify whether social deprivation is an independent predictor of outcomes.MethodsNational Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit data for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or valve surgery performed in England between April 2003 and March 2013, were analysed. Base hospitals in England were divided into geographical regions. Social deprivation was measured by quintile groups of the index of multiple deprivation (IMD) score with the first quintile group (Q1) being the least, and the last quintile group (Q5) the most deprived group. In-hospital mortality and midterm survival were analysed using mixed effects logistic, and stratified Cox proportional hazards regression models respectively.Results240 221 operations were analysed. There was substantial regional variation in social deprivation with the proportion of patients in IMD Q5 ranging from 34.5% in the North East to 6.5% in the East of England. Following adjustment for preoperative risk factors, patients undergoing all cardiac surgery in IMD Q5 were found to have an increased risk of in-hospital mortality relative to IMD Q1 (OR=1.13; 95%CI 1.03 to 1.24), as were patients undergoing isolated CABG (OR=1.19; 95%CI 1.03 to 1.37). For midterm survival, patients in IMD Q5 had an increased hazard in all groups (HRs ranged between 1.10 (valve+CABG) and 1.26 (isolated CABG)). For isolated CABG, the median postoperative length of stay was 6 and 7 days, respectively, for IMD Q1–Q4 and Q5.ConclusionsSignificant regional variation exists in the social deprivation of patients undergoing cardiac surgery in England. Social deprivation is associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality and reduced midterm survival. These findings have implications for health service provision, risk prediction models and analyses of surgical outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.