Similar survival in patients following heart transplantation receiving induction therapy using daclizumab vs. basiliximab

Background: Induction therapy with interleukin-2 receptor antagonists has been established as an effective im-munosuppressive strategy in the management of heart transplant (HTx) recipients. We compared outcomes following HTx in patients receiving basiliximab, daclizumab, or no induction therapy. Methods and Results: We investigated post-transplant prognosis of patients receiving basiliximab (n=67), dacli-zumab (n=98) or no induction therapy (n=70). Patients treated with daclizumab (50.3±14.7 years) were younger than those receiving basiliximab (55.8±11.2 years) or no induction therapy (54.9±14.1 years; both P<0.05). Patients receiving either induction therapy showed better survival 1 year after HTx (95%) than those without induction therapy (82%; P<0.001). Survival was similar between patients receiving basiliximab and daclizumab. The incidence of acute cellular or antibody-mediated rejections did not differ among the groups. The main reason that patients did not receive induction therapy was ongoing infection (65.7%), which was more common in patients on ventricular assist device (VAD) support than those without VAD (76.1% vs. 45.8%; P=0.004). The VAD-related infection rate in the entire study cohort was 29.7% (35/118 VAD recipients). Conclusions: Survival following HTx was worse in patients not receiving induction therapy. No differences were noted in survival or the incidence of rejection between the daclizumab- and basiliximab-treated groups. Induction therapy was less used in patients with infection, which was related to prior VAD support.