On this page
Most people remember the first human heart transplant as a feat of surgical skill. The surgeon himself saw the hard part differently. The operation could be learned; keeping the patient's immune system from destroying the new heart, without letting infection in, was the real fight. This post covers Christiaan Barnard, what his own report of the operation says, how the first patient died, and what the story teaches about immunity, which is in your NCERT syllabus.
Who was Christiaan Barnard?
According to David Cooper's 2018 account in Global Cardiology Science and Practice, Barnard was born on 8 November 1922 in Beaufort West, a rural town in South Africa, the son of a church minister. He later won a scholarship to the University of Minnesota, one of the few centres in the world doing open-heart surgery at the time. He died in 2001, as the title of a 2019 profile in the Singapore Medical Journal records.
Open-heart surgery depended on the heart-lung machine; our post on John Gibbon and the heart-lung machine tells that story.
How did Barnard prepare?
Cooper describes three steps. With his brother Marius, also a cardiac surgeon, Barnard practised heart transplants in dogs, using a technique first described in London and developed extensively by Norman Shumway's team at Stanford. He then spent three months in Richmond, Virginia, in David Hume's kidney transplant programme, learning how to suppress the immune response. Back in Cape Town he performed a kidney transplant, and that patient lived for 20 years.
What does Barnard's own report say?
His paper, "The operation. A human cardiac transplant: an interim report of a successful operation performed at Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town", appeared in the South African Medical Journal on 30 December 1967 and was reprinted for its 50th anniversary. It reports that on 3 December 1967 a heart was transplanted into a 54-year-old man whose own heart had been "irreparably damaged by repeated myocardial infarction". He credits the work of Shumway and his associates.
Some details from the report:
The donor had "compatible red cell antigens and a similar leucocyte antigen pattern", that is, a matching blood group and similar tissue type.
The donor was certified dead when the electrocardiogram had shown no activity for 5 minutes, with no spontaneous breathing and no reflexes.
The donor's body was cooled on a heart-lung machine until the temperature in the oesophagus reached 26 °C, and the heart itself was cooled to 16 °C.
Removing the donor heart took 2 minutes.
Cooper names the people involved: the recipient was Louis Washkansky, and the donor was Denise Darvall, a 25-year-old woman with a severe brain injury whose father consented to the donation.
How did they fight rejection?
The report describes the immunosuppression in detail. Steroids started on the day of the operation, azathioprine was given daily, and the new heart was irradiated locally with a cobalt source on several days. To detect rejection early, the team watched the white blood cell response, cardiac output, heart enzyme levels in the blood, and the size of the R wave on the ECG.
To prevent infection, the room, bed, mattress and every piece of equipment were disinfected or autoclaved. Staff wore caps, masks, gowns and gloves, and swabs from both patient and staff were checked regularly for bacteria.
What happened to Washkansky?
Cooper reports that his early recovery was excellent. After about 12 days, shadows appeared on his lung X-rays. The team believed this was a rejection reaction in the lungs and increased the immunosuppression, until it became clear the cause was pneumonia. He died on 21 December, 18 days after the operation. The autopsy found no features of rejection in the heart; death was due to pneumonia.
Barnard's second patient, Philip Blaiberg, lived for almost 19 months.
How does this connect to your syllabus?
The NCERT Class 12 chapter Human Health and Disease explains that grafts from just any source are rejected sooner or later, that tissue matching and blood group matching are essential, and that patients take immunosuppressants for life. It says the body can tell "self" from "nonself", and that the cell-mediated immune response, run by T-lymphocytes, is responsible for graft rejection. Washkansky's case shows the cost: suppress that response too hard, and an ordinary infection becomes deadly.
Worked example: reading survival figures
A 2017 SAMJ editorial by the Groote Schuur transplant unit gives expected survival after heart transplantation there as 85 per cent at 1 year and 75 per cent at 5 years. Take a sample group of 200 recipients.
Alive at 1 year: 85% of 200 = 170.
Alive at 5 years: 75% of 200 = 150.
Of those alive at 1 year, the share still alive at 5 years: 150 ÷ 170 = 0.882, about 88 per cent.
The common mistake is to subtract percentages and say "10 per cent die between years 1 and 5". In fact 20 people out of 170 survivors at 1 year, about 12 per cent of them, die in that period. Always ask: per cent of which group? If percentage questions like this trip you up, the Fermi Problem Library has a step-by-step solver that explains the reasoning, so you can see which base each percentage uses.
What can a student take from Barnard?
Learn from other fields. He went to a kidney programme to learn immunology before attempting a heart.
Practise before the real thing. Years of animal work came before one human operation.
Respect the trade-offs. The best surgery can fail if the biology after it is misjudged.
Next step: write two lines in your own words on why a transplant patient needs immunosuppressants, and why those drugs raise the risk of infection.
