Long-term results of heart transplantation in patients older than 60 years

BACKGROUND: Advanced age has been traditionally considered a relative contraindication for heart transplantation. Older patients are now considered as potential candidates for heart transplantation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term results of heart transplantation in patients older than 60 years. METHODS: Between 1986 and 2001, 81 patients aged between 60 and 70 years (mean, 63 +/- 2 years) underwent heart transplantation. These patients were compared with 403 adult recipients younger than 60 years (mean, 47 +/- 11 years) who underwent transplantation during the same period. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was 6% (5/81) and 6% (25/403) in the older and younger patients, respectively (P = NS). Actuarial survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 88% +/- 4% versus 83% +/- 2%, 75% +/- 5% versus 69% +/- 2%, and 50% +/- 9% versus 51% +/- 3% in the older and younger patients, respectively (P = NS). Older patients had significantly fewer rejection episodes (P =.003). Freedom from allograft coronary artery disease at 1, 5, and 10 years was 98% +/- 2% versus 92% +/- 2%, 85% +/- 6% versus 76% +/- 3%, and 81% +/- 7% versus 68% +/- 3% (P =.1). The incidences of infectious complication, cytomegalovirus infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder were similar between the 2 groups, but older recipients were more likely to have a nonposttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder cancer (P =.002). Age at transplantation was not identified as an independent risk factor for early and late death. CONCLUSION: Heart transplantation in selected patients aged 60 years and older results in survival comparable with that of younger patients. Older patients have a lower risk of rejection but an increased risk of development of a nonposttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder cancer. Advanced age per se should not be considered as an exclusion criterion for transplantation.     

Heart transplantation with donors fifty years of age and older

OBJECTIVE: Limited availability of donor organs has led to the progressive expansion of the criteria for donor selection, particularly a higher age limit of potential donors. We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of patients who underwent heart transplantation using cardiac allografts 50 years of age and older and compared them with patients who had donor organs younger than 50 years. METHOD: Between September 1989 and May 2000, 20 patients underwent orthotopic heart transplantation using donor hearts 50 years of age and older (range 50-56 years, mean 52.7 +/- 1.8 years) and were compared with 267 patients who received donor organs less than 50 years of age (range 9-49.9 years, mean 27.2 +/- 8.6 years). Patient and donor criteria were identical in both groups. Follow-up was 4 to 128 months with a mean of 37.4 +/- 2.8 months in the older donor group and 52.6 +/- 2.4 months in the younger donor group. RESULTS: There were no differences between these 2 cohorts of patients regarding age, sex, cardiomyopathy, preoperative cytomegalovirus status, New York Heart Association class, and transplant status at transplantation. Donor characteristics, including sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, diabetes, cytomegalovirus status, and allograft ischemic times, were also similar in the 2 groups. Donor/recipient cytomegalovirus matching showed no differences as well. Thirty-day or to discharge operative mortality was similar in the older and younger donor groups (5% +/- 4.8% vs 3.5% +/- 1.1%; P =.84). Actuarial survival at 1 and 5 years was also similar in both groups (89.7% +/- 6.9% vs 91% +/- 1.8% and 53.1% +/- 14.7% vs 71.0% +/- 3.1%, respectively; P =.59). No patient in the older donor group required coronary artery bypass grafting or retransplantation during the follow-up period, whereas 2 patients in the younger donor group required coronary artery bypass, and 5 patients underwent retransplantation (P > or =.50). Two patients in the older donor group died of nonspecific allograft failure, whereas 3 patients in the younger donor group experienced similar posttransplant complication (P > or =.50). CONCLUSIONS: Carefully selected donor hearts 50 years of age and older can be used for heart transplantation with long-term survival and related outcomes similar to those of younger donor organs. This use of selective cardiac allografts maximizes donor organ usage and expands the donor pool effectively without an adverse impact on long-term results.     

Long-term results of cardiac transplantation in patients 65 years of age and older: a comparative analysis

BACKGROUND: Advanced age is viewed by some transplant centers as a contraindication for heart transplantation secondary to concerns regarding decreased survival. METHODS: Between January 1992 and June 2002, 63 of 881 (7.2%) orthotopic heart transplants were performed in patients above 65 years. These patients were compared to 63 recipients below age 65 who were matched for sex, etiology of heart failure, United Network for Organ Sharing status, and immunosuppression therapy era. RESULTS: Mean age was 67.1 +/- 2.3 years (range, 65.0 to 74.8) for the older group and 48.1 +/- 14.5 years (range, 18.3 to 64.4) for the younger group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or peripheral vascular disease between the groups (p = not significant) although there were more patients with prior myocardial infarctions in the older group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in overall survival between the groups, with 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year actuarial survival of 85.8%, 80.3%, 73.1%, and 49.9% for the older group; and 86.9%, 83.4%, 75.0%, and 57.0% for the younger group (p = 0.597). Postoperative intensive care unit stay and overall hospital stay were similar for the two groups (p = not significant). There was no significant difference between the groups in freedom from infection or rejection at 1, 3, or 5 years after transplant (p = not significant) although the incidence of transplant coronary artery disease was higher in the older group (p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate similar short-term and long-term results for elderly and young recipients undergoing cardiac transplantation. This supports proceeding with transplantation in carefully selected elderly patients.     

Renal transplant survival from older donors: a single center experience

HYPOTHESIS: Despite the observation that kidney transplantations from older donors have an increased risk of failure, the percentage of kidney donors 55 years and older has increased. We explored the risk of allograft failure in a single transplantation center with older (55-79 years) vs younger (18-54 years) donors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort review with a mean follow-up of 32 months. SETTING: Academic transplant center. PATIENTS: Consecutive recipients (n = 324) of renal transplants from adult donors. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into 4 groups based on donor status (living or deceased) and donor age (< or =54 or > or =55 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Allograft survival and function, incidence of acute rejection. RESULTS: Recipients of older donor kidneys were significantly older (53.6 vs 43.6 years, P<.001). Seven allografts (12.7%) failed from 55 transplants from donors 55 years and older, compared with 41 allografts (15.2%) from 269 younger donors (P =.63). Renal function was superior following renal transplantation using younger donors (P =.004). However, renal function was acceptable in all groups, with a mean +/- SD serum creatinine level of 1.7 +/- 0.4 mg/dL (150 +/- 35 micro mol/L) among recipients of older donor kidneys. Allograft survival at 1, 2, and 3 years, censored for death with allograft function, did not differ when comparing older vs younger donors. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients receiving allografts from older donors do well. Older donor kidneys provide suitable renal function for many patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation.     

Blood versus crystalloid cardioplegia for myocardial protection of donor hearts during transplantation: A prospective, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of myocardial protection of the donor heart during transplantation with the use of blood cardioplegia, a prospective randomized clinical trial was undertaken between January 1997 and March 1998. METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive patients were assigned either to crystalloid (27 patients; group 1) or blood cardioplegia (20 patients; group 2). Comparison of recipient age (54 +/- 11 years vs 55 +/- 7 years; P =. 9), sex (89% vs 90% male patients; P =.9), diagnosis (63% vs 65% dilated cardiomyopathy; P =.8), elevated pulmonary vascular resistance (30% vs 30%; P =.9), prior cardiac operations (22% vs 30%; P =.5), need for urgent heart transplantation (7% vs 20%; P =. 2), donor age (32 +/- 11 years vs 31 +/- 13 years; P =.7), cause of death (33% vs 40% vascular; P =.5), and global myocardial ischemia (176 +/- 51 minutes vs 180 +/- 58 minutes; P =.5) showed no difference. Hemodynamically unstable donors (15% vs 45%; P =.02) were more prevalent in group 2. RESULTS: Operative mortality rates (4% vs 5%; P =.8), high-dose inotropic support (41% vs 30%; P = 0.6), and postoperative mechanical assistance (11% vs 10%; P = 0.9) were comparable in the 2 groups. Prevalence of acute right heart failure (27% vs 0; P =.02) and of temporary complete atrioventricular block (52% vs 20%; P =.02) were greater in group 1. Spontaneous sinus rhythm recovery was more prevalent in group 2 (11% vs 40%; P =.02). Higher peak creatine kinase (1429 +/- 725 u/L vs 868 +/- 466 u/L; P =.01) and creatine kinase MB (144 +/- 90 u/L vs 102 +/- 59 u/L; P =. 06) levels suggested more severe ischemic injury in group I. CONCLUSION: Use of blood cardioplegia was associated with a lower prevalence of right heart failure, cardiac rhythm dysfunction, and laboratory evidence of ischemia.     

Differential characteristics of heart transplantation in patients older than 60 years

BACKGROUND: The effect of advanced age on the results of heart transplantation (HTx) is still controversial. The few articles addressing this issue have not been conclusive, due to either short follow-up periods or small numbers of patients. METHODS: We present a retrospective study of 560 HTx which were divided into group A, including patients of 60 or less years at HTx (n=465, 83%), and group B, of 95 recipients older than 60 years. A subgroup of the latter, named B1, includes 24 patients older than 65. More than 100 recipient, donor and surgical procedure variables were analyzed for their impact on actuarial survival and incidence of common causes of posttransplant morbidity and mortality during a follow-up period longer than 10 years. RESULTS: Group B showed a lower number of acute rejection episodes than group A, (1.53+/-1.87 versus 1.96+/-1.81, P<.04). Both groups showed a similar incidence of infection episodes, malignancies or graft vasculopathy, but older patients experienced fewer viral infections than younger ones (9% in group A versus 18% in group B, P<.05). Log-rank test showed a trend to shorter survival in group B (P=.08), a disadvantage that reached significance (P=.01) among patients older than 65 years. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were older than 60 at HTx displayed a lower incidence of acute rejection episodes and viral infections, but a trend toward shorter long-term survival. This disadvantage in prognosis was statistically significant among recipients older than 65 years.     

Outcomes of ostomy procedures in patients aged 70 years and older

HYPOTHESIS: Patients aged 70 years and older undergo proportionately more emergency and permanent fecal ostomy procedures than younger patients. Older patients have comparable short-term outcomes in morbidity and mortality, with adverse outcomes dependent on comorbid conditions and timing of the procedure rather than age alone. Older patients should be treated similarly to younger patients in terms of subsequent ostomy takedown, if an acceptable operative risk. DESIGN: A retrospective review of our facility's experience with fecal ostomies between 1992 and 2002 was performed to determine the effect of advanced age on surgical outcome measures. SETTING: A tertiary managed care medical center. PATIENTS: Three hundred eighty-three consecutive patients who underwent new fecal ostomy procedures between October 1, 1992, and October 1, 2002. One hundred three patients were aged 70 years or older (mean age, 76.4 years), and 280 patients were younger than 70 years (mean age, 49.6 years). There were 220 elective procedures and 163 emergency procedures. Outcome was analyzed between the 2 age groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Indications for ostomy, type of ostomy, preoperative comorbidity, postoperative morbidity and mortality, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, and subsequent ostomy takedown success. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-three new fecal ostomies were created. The diagnosis leading to creation of the ostomy was more often malignancy in older patients (74.8%) compared with younger patients (45.0%). Both age groups underwent a similar proportion of emergency procedures (older vs younger patients, 43.7% vs 42.1%; P=.07), but more older patients were left with permanent stomas (59.2% vs 41.1%, P=.002). Older patients also had more preoperative comorbidities (P=.001), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (P=.001), longer hospital stays (P=.04), and more postoperative complications. Thirty-day mortality was 6.8% in the older group vs 0.4% in the younger group (P=.001). Fewer older patients were eligible for ostomy reversal (41.1% vs 59.2%), and a smaller proportion of eligible older patients actually underwent the reversal procedure (78.7% vs 95.2%). The complication rate associated with ostomy reversal was not significantly different in the 2 age groups (P=.002). CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged 70 and older undergo proportionately more permanent fecal ostomy procedures than younger patients, with longer hospital stays, more postoperative complications, and higher mortality rates. However, surgical outcome measures in older patients following ostomy procedures remain within acceptable standards. Furthermore, older patients tolerate ostomy reversal with minimal morbidity and should not be denied consideration based on age alone if an eligible candidate.     

Toll of methamphetamine on the trauma system

HYPOTHESIS: Methamphetamine use affects length of hospital stay in the minimally injured patient. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: The only tertiary trauma center serving Hawaii. PATIENTS: Trauma patients examined during a 12-month period with an Injury Severity Score of 1 to 5 and an age of 18 to 55 years undergoing urine toxicology screen for suspected suicide attempt or altered sensorium. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presence or absence of amphetamine or methamphetamine on urine toxicology screen, intention of injury, hospital admission rate, length of stay, and hospital charges. RESULTS: During the study period, 1650 trauma patients were examined, with 544 meeting study criteria. Urine toxicology screens were performed in 212 patients, with 57 positive and 155 negative for amphetamine or methamphetamine. There was no difference in sex (77% vs 73% male; P =.53), Injury Severity Score (3.2 for both groups), or total number of computed tomographic scans performed (mean +/- SEM, 3.0 +/- 0.3 vs 4.0 +/- 0.3; P =.07). Patients in the positive group were more likely to have intentional self-inflicted injury or intentional assaults than patients in the negative group (37% vs 22%; P =.04). The positive group was older than the negative group (33.6 +/- 1.3 vs 29.9 +/- 0.8 years; P =.02), had a significantly longer hospital stay (2.7 +/- 0.4 vs 1.7 +/- 0.1 days; P =.003), had significantly higher hospital charges (15 617 dollars +/- 1866 dollars vs 11 600 dollars +/- 648 dollars; P =.01), and was more likely admitted to the hospital (91% vs 70%; P =.001) despite the low Injury Severity Score. CONCLUSION: Methamphetamine use results in trauma center resource utilization out of proportion to injury severity.     

Orthotopic heart transplantation in elderly patients: a 10-year experience at a single center

INTRODUCTION: A consensus has not yet been reached regarding the indications for orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) in elderly patients or the age limit contraindicating the procedure. The objective of this study was to assess OHT outcomes to determine whether elderly patients benefit from the procedure. METHODS: From February 1993 to February 2003, 178 OHTs were performed on recipients of mean age 47.4 +/- 15 years (range, 4 to 74) including 80.3% men. The population was divided into two groups: group A included patients >/= 60 years, and group B those younger than that age. Survival was analyzed for the overall population and for both age groups during a 10-year follow-up period. RESULTS: Group A included 36 patients (20.8%) and group B 142 patients (79.2%). Mean age was 63.7 +/- 2.9 years (60 to 74) in A, and 43 +/- 13.9 years (4 to 59) in B. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher among group A (n = 11, 31.4%) compared to B (n = 17, 12.1%, P =.008). Survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 61.5% +/- 8%, 58.1% +/- 8.3%, and 49.8% +/- 10.5% group A; and 84.2% +/- 3%, 73.7% +/- 4.1%, and 69.9% +/- 4.7 for group B. Elderly patients showed a lower survival rate (49.8%) compared with the younger group (69.9%) at 10-year follow-up (P =.007). Conditional survival at 9 years failed to show significant differences (A 72.2% vs B 79.6%, P =.4). CONCLUSION: In our population, elderly recipients showed a higher in-hospital mortality. However, when the first post-OHT year was excluded, we found similar survival rates for both age groups.     

A comparative analysis of outcome after heart transplantation in patients aged 60 years and older: the University of Alberta experience

BACKGROUND: The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) 2001 Annual Report indicated that the vast majority of heart transplant recipients are between 50 and 64 years of age. However, patient age beyond 60 years may have higher long-term mortality compared to younger patients. The purpose of this study was to compare short- and intermediate-term results including rates of acute rejection, transplant coronary artery disease, infections, malignancy, and mortality in cardiac transplant recipients 60 years or older with those below the age of 60 years. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the results of 50 patients aged 60 years and older who underwent heart transplantation at the University of Alberta from January 1990 to December 2000 and compared them with the results of 225 younger patients undergoing heart transplantation in the same time period. RESULTS: The older and younger groups had similar rates for treated acute rejection episodes (20.0% vs. 12.6%), transplant coronary artery disease (4.0% vs. 1.1%), and mortality (10.5% vs. 14.3%), respectively. No differences were noted with regards to quality and quantity of infection or malignancy rates. Five-year actuarial survival between the older and younger patients was also comparable at 89.5% vs.86.9% (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Heart transplantation in patients 60 years of age and older can be performed as successfully as in younger patients (< 60 years) with comparable morbidity and mortality, suggesting that patient age per se should not be an exclusion criterion for heart transplantation.     

Bicaval and standard techniques in orthotopic heart transplantation: medium-term experience in cardiac performance and survival.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the medium-term results of right heart pressures, tricuspid valve dysfunction, overall cardiac performance, and survival between the bicaval and standard techniques. METHOD: Between 1991 and 1997, 201 heart transplantations were performed in our center. Right heart catheterization was performed up to 12 months after transplantation. Echocardiography was used to assess left ventricular and tricuspid valve function. RESULT: The standard technique was used in 105 cases, and the bicaval technique was used in 96 cases. There was no difference in the age, preoperative parameters, pulmonary hemodynamics, or ischemic time between the 2 groups. Right atrial pressure (4.3 +/- 4.0 mm Hg for the bicaval vs 10.9 +/- 4.8 mm Hg for standard technique) and mean pulmonary artery pressure (17.5 +/- 5.3 mm Hg and 22.5 +/- 5.2 mm Hg, respectively) were lower for the bicaval recipients up to 12 months after the operation (P =.001 and. 01, respectively). Left ventricular ejection fraction was higher for the recipients of the bicaval technique up to the most recent measurement (P =.005). The prevalence of moderate or severe tricuspid regurgitation was higher in the recipients of the standard technique up to the most recent measurement (28% vs 7%; P =.02). The actuarial survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 74%, 70%, and 62% for the recipients of the standard technique versus 87%, 82%, and 81% for the recipients of the bicaval technique (P <.03, <.04, and <.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: The bicaval technique maintains good left ventricular function, lower incidence and severity of tricuspid valve dysfunction, and improved survival compared with the standard technique.     

Heart transplantation in patients aged 70 years and older: a two-decade experience

Objective

Advanced age has been viewed as a contraindication to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). We analyzed the outcome of OHT in patients who were aged 70 years or older and compared the results with those in younger patients during a two-decade period.

Methods

A total of 519 patients underwent first-time single-organ OHT at our institution from 1988 to 2009. Patients were divided into three groups by age: ≥ 70-years old (group 1, n = 37), 60 to 69-years old (group 2, n = 206), and ≤60-years old (group 3, n = 276). Primary endpoints were 30-days, and 1-, 5-, and 10-years survival. Secondary outcomes included re-operation for bleeding, postoperative need for dialysis, and length of postoperative intubation.

Results

There was no significant difference in survival between the greater than or equal to 70-year-old group and the two younger age groups for the first 10 years after OHT. Survival rates at 30 days, and 1-, 5-, and 10-years, and median survival in group 1 recipients were 100%, 94.6%, 83.2%, 51.7%, and 10.9 years (CI 7.1–11.0), respectively; in group 2 those numbers were 97.6%, 92.7%, 73.8%, 47.7%, and 9.1 years (CI 6.7–10.9), respectively; and in group 3 those numbers were 96.4%, 92.0%, 74.7%, 57.1%, and 12.2 years (CI 10.7–15.4; P = NS), respectively. There was no significant difference in secondary outcomes of re-operation for bleeding, postoperative need for dialysis, and prolonged intubation among the three age groups.

Conclusions

Patients who are aged 70 years and older can undergo heart transplantation with similar morbidity and mortality when compared with younger recipients. Advanced heart failure patients who are aged 70 years and older should not be excluded from transplant consideration based solely on an age criterion. Stringent patient selection, however, is necessary.     

Lung transplantation with lungs from donors fifty years of age and older

BACKGROUND: A shortage of donors has led to the progressive expansion of criteria for donor selection in lung transplantation. The outcome of recipients of lungs from donors aged 50 years or older is analyzed systematically. METHODS: From March 1998 to June 2003, 49 recipients received lungs from donors aged 50 years or older (range 50-64 years, mean 54 +/- 3 years). This group of recipients was compared with 244 patients receiving lungs from donors aged less than 50 years (range 7-49 years, mean 32 +/- 11 years). This study was undertaken on all 293 patients at our institution who received Perfadex-preserved lungs (Vitrolife, Goteborg, Sweden). RESULTS: Recipient age, sex, and indications for transplant did not differ significantly between groups. Also, the percentage of the different types of transplants (bilateral or single lung transplantation) performed was equal in both cohorts. Donor Pa(O2) /F(IO2) ratios before lung retrieval (415 +/- 91 vs 439 +/- 113, respectively) and length of ischemic time (347 +/- 67 minutes vs 351 +/- 84 minutes, respectively) did not differ significantly between the older and younger donor groups. The following posttransplant parameters were also not statistically different: first Pa(O2)/F(IO2) at intensive care unit arrival (274 +/- 125 in the older donor group vs 253 +/- 119 in the younger donor group, respectively), mechanical ventilation time (328 +/- 427 hours vs 269 +/- 425 hours, respectively), and length of stay in the intensive care unit (16 +/- 18 days vs 14 +/- 18 days, respectively). Recipient survival in the older and younger donor groups at 30 days, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 60 months was 77% +/- 6%, 75% +/- 6%, 73% +/- 7%, 73% +/- 7%, 68% +/- 5%, and 68% +/- 4% versus 86% +/- 2%, 83% +/- 3%, 80% +/- 3%, 78% +/- 3%, 71% +/- 4%, and 66% +/- 4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lung grafts from elderly donors have been considered as marginal organs for transplantation. However, this study indicates that transplantation of lungs from carefully selected donors aged 50 years or more may lead to similar short- and long-term outcomes compared with lungs from younger donors. The use of lungs from elderly donors may help to increase the number of donor organs in lung transplantation.     

Expanding the donor pool: lung transplantation with donors 55 years and older

The scarcity of donor organs is one of the major limitations to lung transplantation. This has led to a progressive expansion of criteria for donor selection in lung transplantation. This study evaluated the outcome of recipients of lungs from donors >/=55 years. We performed a retrospective analysis of 212 consecutive lung transplantations. Recipients were divided into two groups, those receiving lungs from donors >/=55 years (older donor group) and those receiving lungs from donors <55 years (younger donor group). Recipient baseline characteristics, time in the intensive care unit (ICU), early mortality, and long-term survival (Kaplan-Meier) were compared between the groups. Forty-one donors (19%) were >/=55 years. Mean recipient age in the older donor group was higher than in the younger donor group (52 +/- 8 vs. 47 +/- 12 years; P = .015). Indication for transplantation did not differ between the groups. ICU stay was comparable between the two groups (6 +/- 12 vs. 7 +/- 11 days; P = .64). Actual 30-day mortality (10.8% vs. 6.4%; P = .32), 1-year mortality (17.1 vs. 19.6%; P = .50), and cumulative long-term survival (65% and 62% at 5 years, P = 1.00) did not differ between the older and younger donor group. This study indicated that transplantation of lungs from selected donors aged >/=55 years did not impair short-or long-term results. The use of lungs from elderly donors may help to increase the number of donor organs for lung transplantation.     

Causes of rehospitalization after renal transplantation; does age of recipient matter?

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the causes and related factors of rehospitalization following renal transplantation among elderly compared with younger patients. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 567 patients rehospitalized after kidney transplantation from 2000 to 2006. According to age at the time of transplantation, hospitalizations were divided into two groups: group 1 (age >or=50 years) and group II (age 20 to 50 years). Demographics, clinical findings, causes for rehospitalization, patient outcomes (recovery, graft loss, death), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of hospital stay, time interval from transplantation to rehospitalization, as well as hospital costs were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-five (32.6%) rehospitalizations were charted for group I, who showed a higher proportion of admissions due to infection (42.2% vs 29.8%, P=.004) and macrovascular disease (3.8% vs 1.0%, P=.027) compared with group II. ICU admission (8.8% vs 2.4%, P=.001), mortality (10.2% vs 3.6%, P=.008), and hospital charges (1610 +/- 933 vs 931 +/- 850 purchase power parity dollars, P=.001) were also seen more frequently in group I but displayed a lower frequency of admissions due to graft rejection (20% vs 34.3%, P=.001). CONCLUSION: Recipient age at the time of transplantation was a main factor affecting rehospitalization among our patients.     

Outcomes analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the extremely elderly

BACKGROUND: A study was conducted to determine whether extremely elderly patients, age 80 years or older, were at higher risk for adverse outcomes from laparoscopic cholecystectomy than patients younger than 80 years. METHODS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was attempted in 421 patients age 65 years or older from 1989 through 1999. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (age 65-79 years; n = 351) and group 2 (age, 80-95 years; n = 70). A prospective database was analyzed for mean +/- standard deviation and using Student's t-test and chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Advanced age (group 2) was associated with a higher mean American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class (2.7 vs 2.3; p < 0.001) and a greater incidence of common bile duct stones (43% vs 26%; p < 0.01), as compared with those of younger age (group 1). Mean operative times in group 2 were 106 +/- 45 min as compared with 96 +/- 38 min in group 1, a difference that is not significant. The extremely elderly (group 2) had a four-fold higher rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy (16% vs 4%) and a longer mean postoperative hospital stay (2.1 vs 1.4 days). Grades 1 and 2 complications also were more common in group 2: grade 1: group 1, 8.8% vs group 2, 17% and grade 2: group 1, 4.3% vs group 2, 7.1% (p < 0.05). One patient in group 1 had a myocardial infarction 13 days postoperatively, and two deaths occurred in the extremely elderly group within 30 days postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the extremely elderly is associated with more complications and a higher rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy than in elderly individuals younger than 80 years. The greater chance of encountering a severely inflamed or scarred gallbladder and common bile duct stones as well as increasing comorbidities likely account for these differences in outcome.     

Cardiopulmonary bypass for bilateral sequential lung transplantation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease without adverse effect on lung function or clinical outcome

OBJECTIVE: The use of cardiopulmonary bypass in lung transplantation remains controversial. Previous studies have concluded that cardiopulmonary bypass is deleterious, but these studies were confounded by the inclusion of patients with different diagnoses undergoing single- and double-lung transplantation with elective or emergency use of bypass. The goal of this study was to determine whether cardiopulmonary bypass has deleterious effects on lung function or clinical outcome by analyzing the cases of patients with a single disease entity and elective use of bypass for bilateral sequential lung transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective review of 50 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who underwent bilateral sequential lung transplantation was performed. Fourteen patients who underwent elective cardiopulmonary bypass for 218.3 +/- 75.4 minutes were compared to 36 control patients. RESULTS: After the operation, the bypass and nonbypass groups were not significantly different with respect to median duration of mechanical ventilation (1 day vs 1 day, P =.76), median stay in the intensive care unit (4 days vs 4 days, P =.44), median hospital stay (15.5 days vs 16 days, P =.74), mean increase in serum creatinine level (1.4 +/- 1.9 mg/dL vs 0.9 +/- 1.0 mg/dL, P =.33), and mean ratio of Pao(2) to fraction of inspired oxygen at 1 hour (376.6 +/- 123 vs 357.0 +/- 218, P =.75), at 24 hours (309.9 +/- 92 vs 350.6 +/- 122, P =.26), and at 48 hours (335.0 +/- 144 vs 316.2 +/- 120, P =.64). Late outcome markers compared between the bypass and nonbypass groups were the following: 1-year percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (76.1% +/- 17.0% vs 85.3% +/- 21.7%, P =.24), 30-day mortality (7.1% vs 8.3%, P >.999), 1-year survival (85.7% vs 80.1%, P =.66), 3-year survival (64.3% vs 58.3%, P =.70), and the prevalence of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (0% vs 36.1%, P =.01). CONCLUSION: Cardiopulmonary bypass appears to have no deleterious effect on early lung function or clinical outcome. We hope that this pilot study removes some of the unwarranted fear of the use of bypass in lung transplantation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.     

Long-term results of liver transplantation in older patients 60 years of age and older

BACKGROUND: Advances in perioperative care and immunosuppression have enabled clinicians to broaden the indications for organ transplantation. Advanced age is no longer considered a contraindication to transplantation at most centers. Although short-term studies of elderly liver transplant recipients have demonstrated that the incidence of complications and overall patient survival are similar to those of younger adults, transplant center-specific, long-term data are not available. METHODS: From August of 1984 to September of 1997, 91 patients 60 years of age or older received primary liver transplants at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. This group of patients was compared with a group of younger adults (n=387) ranging in age from 18 to 59 years who received primary liver transplants during the same period. The most common indications for transplantation in both groups were Laennec's cirrhosis, hepatitis C, primary biliary cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and cryptogenic cirrhosis. There was no difference in the preoperative severity of illness between the groups. Results. The length of hospitalization was the same for both groups, and there were no significant differences in the incidence of rejection, infection (surgical or opportunistic), repeat operation, readmission, or repeat transplantation between the groups. The only significant difference identified between the groups was long-term survival. Five-year patient survival was 52% in the older group and 75% in the younger group (P<0.05). Ten-year patient survival was 35% in the older group and 60% in the younger group (P<0.05). The most common cause of late mortality in elderly liver recipients was malignancy (35.0%), whereas most of the young adult deaths were the result of infectious complications (24.2%). CONCLUSION: Although older recipients at this center did as well as younger recipients in the early years after liver transplantation, long-term survival results were not as encouraging.     

Older liver graft transplantation, cholestasis and synthetic graft function

Older liver grafts are often discarded because of conservative selection criteria. We report on our clinical experience with graft-age related outcome. Patients transplanted with livers older than 70 years (70.2-80.2 years, n = 38) were compared with controls transplanted with livers younger than 70 years. Pairs were matched for age, gender, indication and cold ischemic time. Mean donor age was 73.4 +/- 2 vs. 39 +/- 16 years. Patient and graft survival did not differ between both groups after 1-year follow-up (P = 0.19 and P = 0.24 respectively). Retransplantation rate was 10.5% vs. 5.3% (P = 0.40). Initial poor function occurred in two patients in the study group versus four patients in the control group (P = 0.69). The incidence of rejection episodes was comparable. Parameters of cholestasis and protein synthesis showed no difference 1-year post-transplant. Mean age of donor organs in matched pairs group B was near by half of that in the older donor group A (39.0 vs. 73.4 years). Post-transplant outcome as indicated by patient and graft survival was comparable between both groups. Donor organ age had no impact on postoperative organ function. We recommend to accept liver grafts from organ donors older than 70 years to expand the donor pool.     

Outcome of right hepatectomies in patients older than 70 years

HYPOTHESIS: The increasing number of elderly patients undergoing liver resections mandates updating of clinical outcomes on this specific population. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: A tertiary care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty-three patients older than 70 years who underwent right hepatectomies (including 7 extended right hepatectomies) between January 1, 1995, and October 31, 2001 (group 1) and 99 patients younger than 70 years who underwent 64 right hepatectomies and 35 extended right hepatectomies during the same period (group 2) were included for a total sample population of 122. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative clinicopathological features, intraoperative factors, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, intensive care unit requirement, hospital stay, and course of main biochemical liver function test results of groups 1 and 2 were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The 2 groups were similar for indications for surgery and the presence of underlying liver disease. Group 1 had a higher incidence of associated pulmonary diseases (21.7% vs 5%, P =.02) and patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of III (ie, a patient with severe systemic disease limiting activity, but not incapacitating) (56.5% vs 26.3% of cases, P =.01). There were no differences in intraoperative requirement of packed red blood cells and in operation time. There were no in-hospital deaths in group 1; there were 2 deaths (2%) in group 2. Nine patients (39.1%) in group 1 and 32 patients (32.3%) in group 2 experienced postoperative complications (P =.53), of whom, respectively, 5 (21.7%) and 17 (17.2%) developed transient liver dysfunction (P =.56), and 4 (17.4%) and 5 (5.1%) required a supplementary intesive care unit stay (P =.06). The postoperative stay (mean [SD], 16 [14] days vs 13 [9] days, P =.88) and peak values of the aminotransferase level, total serum bilirubin level, and prothrombin time were similar in the 2 groups. The timing of the peak value of the total serum bilirubin level (mean [SD], 4.1 [4.8] days vs 2.5 [2.5] days, P =.28) and its period of normalization (mean [SD], 9.4 [10.8] days vs 6.7 [5.1] days, P =.67) were also similar for both groups. For patients with malignancies, the 3-year survival rate was 64.2% in group 1 and 53.9% in group 2 (P =.53). CONCLUSION: Being older than 70 years should not be a contraindication for major hepatectomies, provided that liver cirrhosis and severe associated medical conditions are ruled out during the preoperative evaluation.