Why the study?
Is atrial reservoir function reduced in heart transplant recipients operated with the bicaval technique compared to healthy controls?
Is atrial reservoir function reduced in heart transplant recipients operated with the bicaval technique compared to healthy controls?
Atrial reservoir function is markedly reduced in heart transplant recipients operated with the bicaval technique, which is related to elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, left atrial enlargement, and impaired right ventricular function.
Reduced atrial reservoir function in bicaval HTx should not yet change practice; leaves open prognostic value and therapeutic implications.
OBJECTIVES: In heart transplantation (HTx) with the bicaval technique the whole right atrium (RA) is donor tissue while the left atrium (LA) consists of both donor and recipient tissue. The aims of the study were to describe atrial function in comparison with healthy controls and to identify determinants of dysfunction. DESIGN: Forty-three patients and 30 controls were retrospectively included. Echocardiography was performed within 24 h of right heart catheterization (RHC) (HTx recipients). RESULTS: The peak longitudinal atrial systolic strain (ɛ) described the atrial reservoir function. The LA and RA reservoir function were reduced versus controls (LA-ɛ 18 ± 8 versus 44 ± 10%; RA-ɛ 22 ± 10 versus 69 ± 17%, p < 0.001). There were moderate relationships between atrial-ɛ and ventricular filling pressure (r = -0.64 for LA-ɛ; r = -0.57 for RA-ɛ). In a multiple regression analysis the LA-ɛ was determined by pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) and LA minimum volume index (r = -0.71) while RA-ɛ was dependent on the right ventricular ɛ (r = -0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Atrial reservoir function is markedly reduced in HTx recipients related to elevated PCWP and LA-enlargement in the LA and in the RA impaired longitudinal right ventricular function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bech‐Hanssen et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: