ventricular assist device support on myocardial collagen content. Am J Surg 2000;180(6):498–501 [discussion: 501–2]. [105] Mital S, Loke KE, Addonizio LJ, et al. Left ven- tricular assist device implantation augments nitric oxide dependent control of mitochondrial respira- tion in failing human hearts. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36(6):1897–902. [106] Torre-Amione G, Stetson SJ, Youker KA, et al. De- creased expression oftumornecrosis factor-alpha in failing human myocardium after mechanical circu- latory support: a potential mechanism for cardiac recovery. Circulation 1999;100(11):1189–93. [107] Loebe M, Gorman K, Burger R, et al. Complement activation in patients undergoing mechanical circu- latory support. ASAIO J 1998;44(5):M340–6. [108] Dipla K, Mattiello JA, Jeevanandam V, et al. Myo- cyte recovery after mechanical circulatory support in humans with end-stage heart failure. Circulation 1998;97(23):2316–22. [109] McCarthy PM, Nakatani S, Vargo R, et al. Struc- tural and left ventricular histologic changes after implantable LVAD insertion. Ann Thorac Surg 1995;59(3):609–13. [110] Birks EJ, Latif N, Bowles C. Measurement of cyto- kine levels and activation of the apoptotic pathway in patients requiring left ventricular assist device (LVAD): implication for timing of implantation. Circulation 1999;99:2565–70. [111] Dec GW, Fuster V. Idiopathic dilated cardio- myopathy. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1564–75. [112] Kopecky SL, Gersh BJ. Dilated cardiomyopathy and myocarditis: natural history, etiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Curr Probl Car- diol 1987;12:573–647. [113] Pauschinger M, Chandrasekharan K, Li J, et al. Mechanisms of extracellular matrix remodeling in dilated cardiomyopathy. Herz 2002;27:677–82. [114] Maisch B. Ventricular remodeling. Cardiology 1996;87(Suppl 1):2–10. [115] Maisch B. Extracellular matrix and cardiac intersti- tium: restriction is not a restricted phenomenon. Herz 1995;20:75–80. [116] Frank JS, Langer GA. The myocardial interstiti- um: its structure and its role in ionic exchange. J Cell Biol 1974;60:586–601. [117] Weber KT, Janicki JS, Shroff SG, et al. Collagen remodeling of the pressure-overload, hypertro- phied non-human primate myocardium. Circ Res 1988;62:757–65. [118] Li J, Schwimmbeck PL, Tschope C, et al. Collagen degradation in a murine myocarditis model: relevance of matrix metallop roteinase in associat i on with inflam- matory induction. Cardiovasc Res 2002;56:235–47. [119] Spinale FG, Coker ML, Heung LJ, et al. A matrix metalloproteinase induction/activation system exists in the human left ventricular myocardium and is upregulated in heart failure. Circulation 2000;102:1944–9. [120] Gunja-Smith Z, Morales AR, Romanelli R, et al. Remodeling of human myocardial collagen in idio- pathic dilated cardiomyopathy: role of metallopro- teinases and pyridinoline cross links. Am J Pathol 1996;148:1639–48. [121] Spinale FG, Coker ML, Thomas CV, et al. Time- dependent changes in matrix metalloproteinase ac- tivity and expression during the progression of con- gestive heart failure: relation to ventricular and myocyte function. Circ Res 1998;82:482–95. [122] Spinale FG, Coker ML, Krombach RS, et al. Ma- trix metalloproteinase inhibition during developing congestive heart failure: effects on left ventricular geometry and function. Circ Res 1999;85:364–76. [123] Ries C, Petrides PE. Cytokine regulation of matrix metalloproteinase activity and regulatory dysfunc- tion in disease. Biol Chem 1995;376:345–55. [124] Chancey AL, Brower GL, Peterson JT, et al. Effects of matrix metalloproteinase inhibition on ventricu- lar remodeling due to volume overload. Circulation 2002;105:1983–8. [125] Thomas CV, Coker ML, Zellner JL, et al. Increased matrix metalloproteinase activity and selective upregulation in LV myocardium from patients with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy. Circula- tion 1998;97:1708–15. [126] Diez J, Laviades C, Mayor G, et al. Increased serum concentration of procollagen peptides in essential hypertension. Relation to cardiac alter- ation. Circulation 1995;91:1450–6. [127] Querejeta R, Varo N, Lopez B, et al. Serum carboxy-terminal propeptide of procollagen type I is a marker of myocardial fibrosis in hypertensive heart disease. Circulation 2000;101:1729–35. [128] Poulsen SH, Høst NB, Jensen SE, et al. Relation- ship between serum amino-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen and changes of left ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction. Circula- tion 2000;101:1527–32. [129] Jensen LT, H-Petersen K, Toft P, et al. Serum aminoterminal type III procollagen peptide reflects repair after acute myocardial infarction. Circula- tion 1990;81:52–7. [130] Høst NB, Jensen LT, Bendixen PM, et al. The aminoterminal propeptide of type III procollagen provides new information on prognosis after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1995; 76:869–73. [131] Sato Y, Kataoka K, Matsumori A, et al. Measuring serum aminoterminal type III procollagen peptide, 7S domain of type IV collagen, and cardiac tropo- nin T in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomy- opathy and secondary cardiomyopathy. Heart 1997;78:505–8. [132] Klappacher G, Franzen P, Haab D, et al. Measur- ing extracellular matrix turnover in the serum of patients with idiopathic or ischemic dilated cardio- myopathy and impact on diagnosis and prognosis. Am J Cardiol 1995;75:913–8. 315 PATIENTS WHO HAVE DILATED CARDIOMYOPATHY Patients Who Have Dilated Cardiomyopath y Must Have a Trial of Bridge to Recovery: The Case Against That Proposition Philip A. Poole-Wilson, MD, FRCP, FMedSci * National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK Propositions containing the word ‘‘must’’ are usually mistaken and this proposition is no exception. In the last few years the management of patients who have severe heart failure has increased in complexity, requiring greater skills and finer judg- ment from the physician and surgeon. New drugs have emerged, the expertise of physicians in using these drugs has improved, the indications for cardiac transplantation have changed, new surgical techniques have developed, and effective left ven- tricular assist devices (LVADs) have become avail- able. The newer LVADs are an engineering triumph but raise critical issues regarding how and when they should be used. This problem has been exacerbated by the decline in the number of patients undergoing transplantation, by the dearth of donor hearts, and possibly by a growing public aversion to cardiac transplantation. Indications for the use of left ventricular assist devices The availability on the market of many devices to assist the pumping function of the heart has resulted in a new vocabulary. This has led to a surplus of confusion, even misunderstanding, extending from the characteristics and phenotypes of patients and the indications for the use of LVADs to the appropriate assessment of benefit, if any. The phrase ‘‘bridge to recovery’’ is used to encapsulate the idea that doctors can identify patients who have reversible cardiac dysfunction and who only require transient support of the circulation before spontaneous functional recov- ery of the heart in situ. Established clinical entities in which this can occur include acute myocarditis, Takotsubo syndrome, acute alcohol ingestion, and depression of cardiac function by toxins or drugs. The phrase might also include patients who have cardiogenic shock attributable to a second group of patients who have myocardial infarction in whom the likely outcome may be transformed. In recent years several authors have possibly identi- fied a third group in which a sizable proportion of patients presenting with severe heart failure of idiopathic origin and with large hearts (dilated cardiomyopathy) do recover spontaneously. These authors have argued that such patients should receive a device pending a decision as to whether to proceed to transplantation. The extent to which this claim is correct is unknown largely because many of these patients may in reality belong to the other two groups of patients. The phrases ‘‘destination treatment’’ or ‘‘life- time therapy’’ are used to describe the intention at the moment of insertion of the device: that it should remain in place for the life of the patient and that there is no intention to proceed to transplantation. The first such device inserted with this intention was reported in 2000 [1]. Since then many patients around the world have re- ceived devices of different designs, although the efficacy remains somewhat uncertain [2,3]. * National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, Dovehouse Street, London SW3 6LY, United Kingdom. E-mail address: p.poole-wilson@imperial.ac.uk 1551-7136/07/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.hfc.2007.05.007 heartfailure.theclinics.com Heart Failure Clin 3 (2007) 317–319 Cardiac Transplantation: Any Role Left? Martin Cadeiras, MD, Manuel Prinz von Bayern, PhD, Mario C. Deng, MD, FACC, FESC * College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Heart transplantation was introduced as a breakthrough therapy that dramatically pro- longed life in individually selected patients thought to be near death. Unlike most other ther- apeutic modalities, the survival benefit of cardiac transplantation compared with conventional treatment in advanced heart failure has never been tested in a prospective randomized trial, probably because the benefit of cardiac transplan- tation compared with conventional therapy usu- ally was assumed clinically evident. The early experience at Stanford University Medical Center between January 1968 and August 1976 demon- strated overall 1- and 2-year survival rates of 52% and 43%, respectively, and a 90% return to functional class I New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional status among transplant sur- vivors, most of them returning to their preillness activities. In this initial series, 95% of the patients selected for transplantation for whom donors did not become available were dead 6 months after evaluation. These data suggested that cardiac transplantation probably not only prolonged sur- vival, but could also return carefully selected re- cipients to active lives [1]. In 1993, the 24th Bethesda Conference on Cardiac Transplantation recommended heart transplantation as the gold standard therapy in selected patients who had re- fractory advanced heart failure [2]. Ten years later, according to the established Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, more than 3000 new transplant patients were being reported to the database each year accounting for a total of 71,040 heart transplants since it started in 1982 [3]. The early observations of the Stanford group may not apply today, because major changes on the understand- ing and refinement of the therapeutic orchestra available for patients in the advanced phase of heart failure have occurred, specifically with the introduction of highly specialized heart failure units and comprehensive multidisciplinary teams; new pharmacologic compounds, including angio- tensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, an- giotensin-receptor blockers, spironolactone and beta-blockers; novel devices, including trichamber pacemakers, defibrillators, and mechanical circu- latory support devices; and improved outcomes with high-risk cardiac surgical procedures. Impor- tant improvements in the evaluation of heart transplant patients were achieved after the intro- duction of functional capacity evaluation by mea- suring oxygen consumption [4] and subsequently a multivariate model to identify patients at highest risk of death. The heart failure survival score was derived from a prospective cohort and indepen- dently validated allowing to dissect the referred population into three groups with low-, medium-, or high-risk profile [5]. Using this tool, a highly pro- vocative national cohort study suggested that heart transplantation may not confer a survival benefit during the first year posttransplantation for pa- tients having low- or medium-risk profiles [6,7]. These findings were supported by subsequent re- ports using United Network for Organ Sharing This work was supported at least in part by Grant N HL 077096-01 from the National Institute of Health (MPB, MCD) and by research Funds, Columbia University, Division of Cardiology (MC). * Corresponding author. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, College of Physicians & Sur- geons, Columbia University, 622 West 168th Street, PH12 STEM Room 134, New York NY 10032. E-mail address: md785@columbia.edu (M.C. Deng). 1551-7136/07/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.hfc.2007.04.004 heartfailure.theclinics.com Heart Failure Clin 3 (2007) 321–347 . of these patients may in reality belong to the other two groups of patients. The phrases ‘‘destination treatment’’ or ‘‘life- time therapy’’ are used to describe the intention at the moment of. collagen in idio- pathic dilated cardiomyopathy: role of metallopro- teinases and pyridinoline cross links. Am J Pathol 19 96; 148: 163 9–48. [121] Spinale FG, Coker ML, Thomas CV, et al. Time- dependent. of insertion of the device: that it should remain in place for the life of the patient and that there is no intention to proceed to transplantation. The first such device inserted with this intention