Gender mismatch between donor and recipient is a factor of morbidity but does not condition survival after cardiac transplantation

We intended to evaluate the influence of sex mismatch between donor and recipient, which is still under much debate, on survival and comorbidities after cardiac transplantation. From November 2003 to December 2013, a total of 258 patients were transplanted in our center. From these, 200 receptors were male (77.5%) and constituted our study population, further divided into those who received the heart from a female donor (Group A) - 44 patients (22%) and those who received it from a male donor (Group B) - 156 (78%). Median follow-up was 4.2 ± 3.0 years (1-10 years). The two groups were quite comparable with each other, except for body mass index, systolic pulmonary artery pressure, and transpulmonary gradient, which were significantly lower in Group A. A low donor/recipient weigh ratio (<0.8) was avoided whenever possible. Hospital mortality was not different in the two groups. During follow-up, global survival was similar, as was survival free from acute cellular rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy. However, patients in Group A had decreased survival free from serious infections and malignant tumors. Allocation of female donors to male receptors can be done safely, at least in receptors without pulmonary hypertension and when an adequate donor/recipient weigh ratio is ensured.

Heart Transplantation in Patients Older than 65 Years: Worthwhile or Wastage of Organs?

BACKGROUND: Patients older than 65 years have traditionally not been considered candidates for heart transplantation. However, recent studies have shown similar survival. We evaluated immediate and medium-term results in patients older than 65 years compared with younger patients. METHODS: From November 2003 to December 2013, 258 patients underwent transplantation. Children and patients with other organ transplantations were excluded from this study. Recipients were divided into two groups: 45 patients (18%) aged 65 years and older (Group A) and 203 patients (81%) younger than 65 years (Group B). RESULTS: Patients differed in age (67.0 ± 2.2 vs. 51.5 ± 9.7 years), but gender (male 77.8 vs. 77.3%; p = 0.949) was similar. Patients in Group A had more cardiovascular risk factors and ischemic cardiomyopathy (60 vs. 33.5%; p < 0.001). Donors to Group A were older (38.5 ± 11.3 vs. 34.0 ± 11.0 years; p = 0.014). Hospital mortality was 0 vs. 5.9% (p = 0.095) and 1- and 5-year survival were 88.8 ± 4.7 versus 86.8 ± 2.4% and 81.5 ± 5.9 versus 77.2 ± 3.2%, respectively. Mean follow-up was 3.8 ± 2.7 versus 4.5 ± 3.1 years. Incidence of cellular/humoral rejection was similar, but incidence of cardiac allograft vasculopathy was higher (15.6 vs. 7.4%; p = 0.081). Incidence of diabetes de novo was similar (p = 0.632), but older patients had more serious infections in the 1st year (p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Heart transplantation in selected older patients can be performed with survival similar to younger patients, hence should not be restricted arbitrarily. Incidence of infections, graft vascular disease, and malignancies can be reduced with a more personalized approach to immunosuppression. Allocation of donors to these patients does not appear to reduce the possibility of transplanting younger patients.

Are Complications Associated With the Repiphysis(®) Expandable Distal Femoral Prosthesis Acceptable for Its Continued Use?

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of the distal femur after resection for malignant bone tumors in skeletally immature children is challenging. The use of megaprostheses has become increasingly popular in this patient group since the introduction of custom-made, expandable devices that do not require surgery for lengthening, such as the Repiphysis(®) Limb Salvage System. Early reports on the device were positive but more recently, a high complication rate and associated bone loss have been reported. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) what are the clinical outcomes using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system after 5-year minimum followup in patients treated with this prosthesis at one center; (2) what are the problems and complications associated with the lengthening procedures of this implant; and (3) what are the specific concerns associated with revision of this implant? METHODS: At our institute, between 2002 and 2007, the Repiphysis(®) expandable prosthesis was implanted in 15 children (mean age, 8 years; range, 6-11 years) after distal femoral resection for malignant bone tumors. During this time, the general indication for use of this implant was resection of the distal femur for localized malignant bone tumors in pediatric patients. Alternative techniques used for this indication were modular prosthetic reconstruction, massive (osteoarticular or intercalary) allograft reconstruction, or rotationplasty. Age and tumor extension were the main factors to decide on the surgical indication. Of the 15 patients who had this prosthesis implanted during reconstruction surgery, five died with the implant in situ or underwent amputation before 5 years followup and the remaining 10 were evaluated at a minimum of 5 years (mean, 104 months; range, 78-140 months). No patients were lost to followup. These 10 patients were long-term survivors and underwent the lengthening program. They were included in our study analysis. The first seven lengthening procedures were attempted in an outpatient setting; however, owing to pain and burning sensations experienced by the patients, the procedures failed to achieve the desired lengthening. Therefore, other procedures were performed with the patients under general anesthesia. We reviewed clinical data at index surgery for all 15 patients. We further analyzed the lengthening procedures, implant survival, radiographic and functional results, for the 10 long-term survivors. Functional results were assessed according to the MSTS scoring system. Complications were classified according to the International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) classification system. RESULTS: Nine of the 10 survivors underwent revision of the implant for mechanical failure. They had a mean MSTS score of 64% (range, 47%-87%) before revision surgery. At final followup the 10 long-term surviving patients had an average MSTS score of 81% (range, 53%-97%). In total, we obtained an average lengthening of 39 mm per patient (range, 17-67 mm). Exact expansion of the implant was unpredictable and difficult to control. Nine of 10 of the long-term surviving patients underwent revision surgery of the prosthesis-eight for implant breakage and one for stem loosening. At revision surgery, six patients had another type of expandable prosthesis implanted and three had an adult-type megaprosthesis implanted. In five cases, segmental bone grafts were used during revision surgery to compensate for loss of bone stock. CONCLUSIONS: We could not comfortably expand the Repiphysis(®) prosthesis in an outpatient setting because of pain experienced by the patients during the lengthening procedures. Furthermore, use of the prosthesis was associated with frequent failures related to implant breakage and stem loosening. Revisions of these procedures were complex and difficult. We no longer use this prosthesis and caution others against the use of this particular prosthesis design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.