Kirsch Lotti, Timmermans Thierry, Van Caenegem Olivier, Gurne Olivier, Noirhomme Philippe, Jacquet Luc-Marie, Latinne Dominique, Poncelet Alain J
Transplantation Unit, Cardiovascular Department, Université catholique de Louvain, Saint Luc Hospital, Avenue Hippocrate 10, Brussels, Belgium.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008 Aug;34(2):268-74; discussion 274. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.03.063. Epub 2008 May 23.
The true relevance of allosensitization in patients benefiting from left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as bridge to transplant (BTT) is still debated. Available registry data referred to numerous devices precluding LVAD-specific analysis. Therefore, we studied all patients with Novacor LVAD prior to transplantation.
From 1985 to 2006, 37 Novacor LVADs were implanted as BTT, with 30 patients surviving to transplantation (81%). Post-LVAD sensitization was determined for anti-HLA-class I and class II IgGs. Study endpoints were overall survival and/or graft loss, > or =3A cellular rejection and chronic allograft vasculopathy (CAV). The results from LVAD patients were compared to non-LVAD primary heart transplant recipients (n=318).
After LVAD insertion, 5 out of 27 patients available for analysis developed anti-HLA antibodies (18.5%). The mean anti-HLA titer after Novacor LVAD implantation was 14% [SD 31]. Actuarial 5- and 10-year patient/graft survival for LVAD and non-LVAD transplant recipients were 73% and 55%, and 70% and 55%, respectively (p=NS). Overall prevalence of rejection > or =3A was 23.3 % (LVAD group) and 18.9% (non-LVAD group) (p=NS). At follow-up, the respective incidence of CAV was 8% (LVAD group) and 32.4% (non-LVAD group) (p<0.01). However, mean follow-up was significantly different for LVAD and non-LVAD patients, 46 vs 90 months (p<0.001).
In this study, allosensitization occurred infrequently after Novacor LVAD implantation. Secondly, analysis of outcome variables shows that Novacor-LVAD BTT patients can anticipate similar survival to non-LVAD patients, thus minimizing the impact of allosensitization after LVAD implantation.
对于受益于左心室辅助装置(LVAD)作为移植桥梁(BTT)的患者,同种致敏的真正相关性仍存在争议。现有的登记数据涉及众多装置,无法进行LVAD特异性分析。因此,我们研究了所有在移植前使用诺瓦科尔LVAD的患者。
1985年至2006年,37例诺瓦科尔LVAD作为BTT植入,30例患者存活至移植(81%)。测定LVAD植入后抗HLA I类和II类IgG的致敏情况。研究终点为总生存率和/或移植物丢失、≥3A细胞排斥反应和慢性移植物血管病(CAV)。将LVAD患者的结果与非LVAD原发性心脏移植受者(n = 318)进行比较。
在LVAD植入后,27例可分析患者中有5例产生了抗HLA抗体(18.5%)。诺瓦科尔LVAD植入后的平均抗HLA滴度为14%[标准差31]。LVAD和非LVAD移植受者的5年和10年患者/移植物精算生存率分别为73%和55%,以及70%和55%(p =无显著性差异)。≥3A排斥反应的总体发生率在LVAD组为23.3%,在非LVAD组为18.9%(p =无显著性差异)。随访时,CAV的发生率在LVAD组为8%,在非LVAD组为32.4%(p<0.01)。然而,LVAD和非LVAD患者的平均随访时间差异显著,分别为46个月和90个月(p<0.001)。
在本研究中,诺瓦科尔LVAD植入后同种致敏很少发生。其次,对结局变量的分析表明,诺瓦科尔LVAD BTT患者的生存率与非LVAD患者相似,从而将LVAD植入后同种致敏的影响降至最低。