Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify patient subgroups in which prosthesis-patient mismatch most influenced late survival. METHODS: Over a 12-year period, 1,400 consecutive patients underwent bioprosthetic (933 patients) or mechanical (467) aortic valve replacement. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was defined as prosthetic effective orifice area/body surface area less than 0.75 cm2/m2 and was present with 11% mechanical and 51% bioprosthetic valves. RESULTS: With bioprosthetic valves, prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with impaired survival for patients less than 60 years old (10-year: 68% +/- 7% mismatch versus 75% +/- 7% no mismatch, p < 0.02) but not older patients (p = 0.47). Similarly, with mechanical valves, prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with impaired survival for patients less than 60 years old (10-year: 62% +/- 11% versus 79% +/- 4%, p < 0.005) but not older patients (p = 0.26). For small patients (body surface area less than 1.7 m2), prosthesis-patient mismatch did not impact survival with bioprosthetic (p = 0.32) or mechanical (p = 0.71) valves. For average-size patients (body surface area 1.7 to 2.1 m2), prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with impaired survival with both bioprosthetic (p < 0.05) and mechanical (p < 0.005) valves. For large patients (body surface area greater than 2.1 m2), prosthesis-patient mismatch was associated with impaired survival with mechanical (p < 0.04) but not bioprosthetic (p = 0.40) valves. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthesis-patient mismatch had a negative impact on survival for young patients, but its impact on older patients was minimal. In addition, although prosthesis-patient mismatch was not important in small patients, prosthesis-patient mismatch negatively impacted survival for average-size patients and for large patients with mechanical valves.

BACKGROUND: With recent improvements in medical and device therapy, the benefit of cardiac transplantation for UNOS Status 2 patients has been questioned. No randomized trial has been performed to compare transplantation versus contemporary medical therapy. METHODS: Between January 1996 and December 2003, 203 patients were listed at our institution for heart transplantation as UNOS Status 2. We performed a retrospective review to determine outcomes in these patients. RESULTS: Demographics of this cohort revealed a mean age of 52 years, female sex in 28%, and ischemic etiology in 47%. Eighty-one patients (40%) had an implantable cardiac defibrillator. A total of 64 patients (32%) had to be upgraded in their UNOS status, with 9 requiring a left ventricular assist device. Of the entire group, 95 (47%) underwent transplantation at a mean time of 303 days, 45 (22%) died while waiting at a mean time of 397 days, and 24 (12%) were removed from the waiting list due to deterioration in medical condition such that transplantation was no longer an option. The remaining patients continue to wait or have been removed from consideration due to improved condition. Survival at 1- and 3-years postlisting was 94% and 87% for patients who received transplants compared to 81% and 57% for patients who did not receive transplants (P < .01). CONCLUSION: A significant number of patients listed as Status 2 are upgraded in UNOS status or die while on the waiting list. Early and midterm survival is significantly better with transplantation. Identification of variables associated with deterioration may allow for better risk stratification in the future. At this point, transplantation offers the best outcome

Surgical repair of recurrent postmyocardial infarction septal defect is associated with a high mortality rate. We present 2 patients whose recurrent defects were closed percutaneously using an Amplatzer device

BACKGROUND: The clinical results of lung transplantation and concomitant cardiac surgery are unclear. The effect of cardiopulmonary bypass on the pulmonary allograft is controversial, and the effect of cardiac arrest and cardiac surgery in this setting is unknown. Our aim was to review the operative results and long-term survival in this group of patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of all lung transplantations between 1988 and 2003 was performed. Patients who had concomitant cardiac surgery during lung transplantation were compared with those who underwent lung transplantation alone. The variables analyzed included allograft ischemic times, use of cardiopulmonary bypass, early graft dysfunction, postoperative morbidity, survival, length of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and overall hospital stay. RESULTS: During this period, 35 of 700 lung transplant recipients (15 single and 20 bilateral transplantations) underwent concomitant cardiac surgery. The cardiac procedures were for patent foramen ovale (n = 18), atrial septal defect (n = 9), ventricular septal defect (n = 2), coronary bypass (n = 4), and "other" (n = 2). Allograft ischemic time, use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of hospital stay, operative mortality, and survival were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Ventilator time and intensive care unit stay were longer in the cardiac surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac surgery at the time of lung transplantation can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality. The immediate and long-term survival in these patients is similar to that of other lung transplant recipients. Lung transplantation should continue to be offered to patients with normal ventricular function who require concomitant limited cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Despite a known survival benefit with the use of the left internal mammary artery, it is used less frequently in women when compared with men. This study evaluated the hypotheses that the radial artery graft is used less frequently in women compared with men, that the radial artery is smaller in women compared with men, and that the use of the radial artery influences operative mortality and long-term survival in women. METHODS: The use of a radial artery graft was evaluated in 2,633 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass. Radial artery size and flow were compared in 207 patients who had intraoperative radial artery diameter and flow measurements. Propensity scoring was utilized to compare short- and long-term outcomes in a matched cohort of 588 women. RESULTS: Of 862 women (33%) who had isolated coronary artery bypass grafting, only 301 (35%) received a radial artery graft versus 44% of men (786 of 1,771, p < 0.001). Radial artery size and flow were significantly less in women. Operative mortality was not different between women with a radial artery graft and women without; however, 5-year survival was significantly better in women with a radial artery graft than in those without. CONCLUSIONS: Women received fewer radial artery grafts than men. Radial artery size and flow were significantly less in women than in men. Use of a radial artery graft did not influence operative mortality among women. However, 5-year survival among women who received a radial artery graft was significantly better than among women who did not.