Importance of social vulnerability on long-term outcomes after heart transplantation

Public Reporting of Heart Transplant Center Performance: Promoting Clarity or Causing Confusion?

BACKGROUND

Transplant center report cards are publicly available and used by regulators, insurance payers, and importantly patients and families.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, the authors sought to evaluate the variability in reported public performance ratings of pediatric and adult heart transplant centers.

METHODS

Program-specific reports from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from 2017-2021 were used to evaluate stability, volatility, and reliability of 3 publicly reported ratings: waitlist survival (WS), getting to a faster transplant (FT), and post-transplantation graft failure (GF).

RESULTS

There were 112 adult and 55 pediatric centers. Over the study period, nearly all centers (98%) had at least 1 change in rating in at least 1 of the tiers. The average time to the first rating change of any magnitude was 12-18 months for all tiers and centers. For adult centers, the most volatile rating was WS (SD: 0.77), followed by GF (SD: 0.76) and then FT (SD: 0.57). For pediatric centers, the most volatile rating was WS (SD: 0.79), followed by both GF (SD: 0.66) and FT (SD: 0.68), which were equally volatile. All tiers except adult FT had an estimated Fleiss's kappa <0.20, indicating poor agreement/consistency across the study period. In addition, the intraclass correlation coefficient for all tiers was <0.50, indicating poor reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

The current 5-tier reporting of transplant center performance is highly volatile and has poor reliability and consistency. Given the unintended and significant negative consequences these reports can have, critical revision of these ratings is warranted.

Scoping Review of Screening and Assessment Tools for Social Determinants of Health in the Field of Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Despite the importance of implementing the concept of social determinants of health (SDOH) in the clinical practice of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the tools available to assess SDOH have not been systematically investigated. We conducted a scoping review for tools to assess SDOH and comprehensively evaluated how these tools could be applied in the field of CVD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a systematic literature search of PubMed and Embase databases on July 25, 2023. Studies that evaluated an SDOH screening tool with CVD as an outcome or those that explicitly sampled or included participants based on their having CVD were eligible for inclusion. In addition, studies had to have focused on at least one SDOH domain defined by Healthy People 2030. After screening 1984 articles, 58 articles that evaluated 41 distinct screening tools were selected. Of the 58 articles, 39 (67.2%) targeted populations with CVD, whereas 16 (27.6%) evaluated CVD outcome in non-CVD populations. Three (5.2%) compared SDOH differences between CVD and non-CVD populations. Of 41 screening tools, 24 evaluated multiple SDOH domains and 17 evaluated only 1 domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review revealed recent interest in SDOH in the field of CVD, with many useful screening tools that can evaluate SDOH. Future studies are needed to clarify the importance of the intervention in SDOH regarding CVD.