Methods: Between September 1989 and December 2008, 61 patients who underwent orthotopic heart transplantation in our clinic were included. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical technique used. Standard biatrial anostomosis technique was performed on 28 patients (mean age 31.8±12.5 years; range 16 to 58 years), while bicaval anostomosis technique was performed on 33 patients (mean age 29.8±9.9 years; range 17 to 48 years). There was no significant difference between two groups with respect to the preoperative patient characteristics and demographic data. However, the incidence of pulmonary dysfunction (p<0.05) and renal dysfunction (p<0.05) were higher in biatrial group. Mean cross clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass time were 73.9±13.6 and 114.4±20.8 minutes in biatrial group and 77.4±15.1 and 127.7 ±19.5 minutes in bicaval group.

Results: It was observed that the necessity of temporary pacemaker (p<0.05), increasing incidence of branch block (p<0.01) and atrioventricular block (p<0.05) were significantly higher in biatrial group. One patient required permanent pacemaker and one other patient required intracardiac defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Postoperative echocardiographic examination revealed that the incidence of tricuspid (p<0.01) and mitral insufficiency (p<0.01) were lower in bicaval group compared to biatrial group. Right ventricular hemodynamic function was maintained better in patients who underwent orthotopic transplantation using bicaval technique. Arrhythmia (ventricular arrhytmia and early atrial pulse) and atrioventricular valve insufficiency were less observed in this patient group. Also rhythm returned to normal earlier in bicaval group than biatrial group.

Conclusion: With regard to the results which influence early morbidity, bicaval technique was superior to the biatrial technique. Due to its observed benefits, bicaval anastomosis technique has become the routine for orthotopic heart transplantation in our clinic.