Should biatrial heart transplantation still be performed?: A Meta-analysis

Abstract

The outcomes of total and bicaval heart transplantation techniques are better than those of the biatrial technique; however, the latter is still considered the gold-standard. The objective of this study was to determine whether the total and bicaval heart transplantation techniques are, in fact, better than the biatrial technique. A systematic review with meta-analysis was carried out. Studies were retrieved from Pubmed, Lilacs, Web of Science, Scirus, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Scielo databases, identified by sensitive strategy. Randomized, prospective, and retrospective controlled studies were selected for inclusion. Intra and postoperative parameters were assessed. A total of 11,602 studies were identified and 36 were included in our review. The number of atrial arrhythmias, tricuspid valve regurgitation, deaths, and embolic events, as well as bleeding volume; temporary and permanent pacemaker requirement; and length of stay in the intensive care unit are significantly lower for the total and bicaval techniques than for the biatrial technique. Also, hemodynamic variables such as pulmonary capillary pressure, mean pulmonary artery pressure, and right atrial pressure are lower in total and bicaval transplantation. In prognostic terms, total and bicaval orthotopic heart transplantations are better, than the biatrial transplantation. Therefore, indication of the biatrial technique for transplantation should be the exception, not the rule.