Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the impact of the bicaval technique versus the biatrial technique (by Lower and Shumway) in paediatric heart transplant patients. Only a few studies investigate this matter regarding the long-term outcome after paediatric heart transplantation. We compared the two surgical methods regarding survival, the necessity of pacemaker implantation.
Methods and results: All 134 patients (aged <18 years) - (group-1) biatrial (n = 84), versus (group-2) bicaval (n = 50), who underwent heart transplantation between October 1988 and December 2021, were analysed. Freedom from events were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Potential differences were analysed using the log rank test and Cox proportional hazard models. Mean ± standard deviation: Bypass time (per minutes) was higher in the group 1 as compared with group 2 (P = 0.050). Survival was not significantly different (P = 0.604) in either groups. Eighteen patients required permanent pacemaker implantation in the group 1 and only one patient required it in the group 2 (P = 0.001).
Conclusions: Paediatric heart transplantation using bicaval technique results similar long-term survival compared with the biatrial technique. The incidence of atrial rhythm disorders was significantly higher in the biatrial group, requiring a higher frequency of pacemaker implantation in this group. As a results, the bicaval technique has replaced the biatrial technique in our centre.
Keywords: Biatrial technique; Bicaval technique; Paediatric heart transplantation.
© 2024 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.