Mitigating Risks of Primary Graft Dysfunction with Antegrade Myocardial Perfusion

Purpose Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) is the leading cause of early mortality after heart transplantation. Several risk factors of PGD have been identified, including; prolonged warm ischaemic time, advanced donor age, gender mismatch and recipient diabetes mellitus. We adopted a novel method of implantation using “antegrade myocardial perfusion (AMP)” during implantation and compared this to the conventional approach. Methods We obtained the retrospective data retrospectively from the Golden Jubilee National Hospital heart transplant database, ClinicalPortal and CIS databases from January/2012-May/2018. Missing data were obtained from the hard copy case notes. We performed AMP utilising continuous cold blood (4-6°C) antegrade cardioplegia to achieve aortic root pressures of 60-70 mmHg. Leucocyte filer was utilised. The infusion would continue with an LV vent insitu until the left atrial and aortic anastomoses were complete. “Hotshot” warm blood was then infused prior to removal of the cross clamp. Multivariable logistic regression with moderate/severe PGD as the outcome measure. Confounders were adjusted for recipient age, total ischaemic time, bypass time, predicted left ventricular (LV) mass mismatch, recipient diabetes mellitus and donor age. Results A total of 75 patients were included in this study. 44% (n=33) underwent AMP and 56 % (n=42) had orthotopic heart transplantation with the conventional approach. There was no statistically significant difference in age, gender, incidence of diabetes mellitus, preoperative utilisation of mechanical circulatory support between the AMP and the control group. We found that total ischaemia time was significantly shorter in the AMP cohort (154+/-50.2 vs. 181+/-47.1 min, p=0.018). The rate of postoperative VA ECMO support was significantly lower in the AMP cohort (15% vs. 54%, p Conclusion Our implantation technique utilising AMP significantly lowers the rate of moderate and severe PGD when compared to the standard implantation technique employed by the historical cohort.