Donor-recipient sex mismatch portends poor 10-year outcomes in a single-center experience

Sex and Gender-related Disparities in Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Heart Transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Limited research has been conducted on sex disparities in heart transplant (HT). The aim of this review is to analyse the available evidence on the influence of sex and gender-related determinants in the entire HT process, as well as to identify areas for further investigation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although women make up half of the population affected by heart failure and related mortality, they account for less than a third of HT recipients. Reasons for this inequality include differences in disease course, psychosocial factors, concerns about allosensitisation, and selection or referral bias in female patients. Women are more often listed for HT due to non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and have a lower burden of cardiovascular risk factors. Although long-term prognosis appears to be similar for both sexes, there are significant disparities in post-HT morbidity and causes of mortality (noting a higher incidence of rejection in women and of malignancy and cardiac allograft vasculopathy in men). Additional research is required to gain a better understanding of the reasons behind gender disparities in eligibility and outcomes following HT. This would enable the fair allocation of resources and enhance patient care.

Differences in excess mortality by recipient sex after heart transplant: An individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Identification of differences in mortality risk between female and male heart transplant recipients may prompt sex-specific management strategies. Because worldwide, males of all ages have higher absolute mortality rates than females, we aimed to compare the excess risk of mortality (risk above the general population) in female vs male heart transplant recipients.

METHODS

We used relative survival models conducted separately in SRTR and CTS cohorts from 1988-2019, and subsequently combined using 2-stage individual patient data meta-analysis, to compare the excess risk of mortality in female vs male first heart transplant recipients, accounting for the modifying effects of donor sex and recipient current age.

RESULTS

We analyzed 108,918 patients. When the donor was male, female recipients 0-12 years (Relative excess risk (RER) 1.13, 95% CI 1.00-1.26), 13-44 years (RER 1.17, 95% CI 1.10-1.25), and ≥45 years (RER 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.27) showed higher excess mortality risks than male recipients of the same age. When the donor was female, only female recipients 13-44 years showed higher excess risks of mortality than males (RER 1.09, 95% CI 1.00-1.20), though not significantly (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of a male donor, female recipients of all ages had significantly higher excess mortality than males. When the donor was female, female recipients of reproductive age had higher excess risks of mortality than male recipients of the same age, though this was not statistically significant. Further investigation is required to determine the reasons underlying these differences.

Sex Differences in Cardiac Transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this review was to summarize contemporary evidence surrounding sex differences in heart transplantation (HT).

RECENT FINDINGS

Women have steadily comprised approximately 25% of waitlist candidates and HT recipients. This disparity is likely multifactorial with possible explanations including barriers in referral to advanced heart failure providers, implicit bias, and concerns surrounding sensitization. Women continue to experience higher waitlist mortality at the highest priority tiers. After HT, there are differences in post-transplant complications and outcomes. Future areas of study should include sex differences in noninvasive surveillance, renal outcomes after transplantation, and patient-reported outcomes. There are important sex-specific considerations that impact candidate selection, donor matching, waitlist and post-transplant outcomes. Concerted efforts are needed to improve referral patterns to ensure transplantation is allocated equally.

No Evidence for Oversizing Hearts and Donor Size Impact on 1-Year Survival in Heart Failure Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Device

The predicted heart mass (PHM) ratio has recently emerged as a better metric for donor-to-recipient size-matching than weight ratios. It is unknown whether this applies to transplant candidates on left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. Our study examines if PHM ratio is optimal for size-matching specifically in the LVAD patient population. Patients with LVAD who received a heart transplant from January 1997 to December 2020 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database were studied. We compared 5 size-matching metrics, including donor-recipient ratios of weight, height, body mass index, body surface area, and PHM. Single and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models for 1-year mortality were calculated. Our sample consisted of 11,891 patients. In our multivariate analysis, we found that patients in the undersized group with PHM ratios <0.83 had a hazard ratio for 1-year mortality of 1.34 (95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.65, p = 0.007) suggestive of increased mortality with the use of undersized donors. There was no statistical difference in mortality between the matched (PHM ratio 0.83 to 1.2) and oversized group (PHM ratio ≥1.2). In heart transplant recipients on LVAD support, the PHM ratio provides better risk stratification than other metrics. Use of undersized donor hearts with PHM ratio <0.83 confers higher 1-year mortality. Using oversized donor hearts for transplantation in recipients on LVAD support has no benefit.

Understanding and Investigating Sex-Based Differences in Heart Transplantation: A Call to Action

Women represent only about 25% of heart transplant recipients annually. Although the number of women living with advanced heart failure remains unknown, epidemiologic research suggests that more women should be receiving advanced heart failure therapies. Sex differences in risk factors, presentation, response to pharmacotherapy, and outcomes in heart failure have been well described. Yet, less is known about sex differences in heart transplant candidate selection, waitlist management, donor selection, perioperative considerations, and post-transplant management and outcomes. The purpose of this review was to summarize the existing published reports related to sex differences in heart transplantation, highlighting areas in which sex-based considerations are well described and supported by available evidence, and emphasizing topics that require further study.

Genitourinary vascularized composite allotransplantation for gender affirmation in trans men: An anatomical feasibility study

PURPOSE

Gender affirmation in trans men requires multiple staged procedures. The final masculinizing step involves phalloplasty or metoidioplasty and further incorporation of penile and testicular prostheses. However, these are functionally suboptimal and associated with high complication rates. Therefore, we sought to investigate the anatomical feasibility of one-stage genitourinary vascularized composite allotransplantation (GUVCA) for such gender-affirming surgeries.

METHODS

Twenty fresh cadaveric dissections were performed to delineate the neurovascular anatomy of the proposed GUVCA. Specifically, in donors (n = 14), besides the penis and scrotum, the GUVCA included an inferior bladder patch with the urinary sphincter, prostate, seminal vesicles, as well as a strip of the pubic bone. In trans men recipients, osteotomies of the pubic bone to match that of the donor GUVCA were required. Five cadaveric GUVCA transplants were then performed to simulate one-stage gender affirmation surgery.

RESULTS

The GUVCA required (1) vascular anastomoses between the recipient's deep inferior epigastric, external pudendal, and superficial circumflex iliac (or superficial inferior epigastric) vessels to the donor's internal pudendal, external pudendal and genitofemoral vessels respectively; (2) neurosynthesis between the recipient pudendal and dorsal clitoral nerves to the donor pudendal and genitofemoral nerves; and (3) urinary bladder anastomosis at the bladder neck, upstream of the urinary sphincter. Average donor measurements (length (cm), diameter (mm)) were: external pudendal artery (2.5, 2.0) and vein (2.0, 3.5), internal pudendal artery (15.0, 4.0), pudendal (15.0, 3.0) and genitofemoral nerves (8.0, 2.0).

CONCLUSIONS

We have described the anatomical basis for a one-stage GUVCA in trans masculine genitourinary reconstruction.

Choosing wisely: incorporating appropriate donor-recipient size matching in heart transplantation

Historically, transplantation of a female donor heart to male recipient has been viewed with caution given evidence of suboptimal outcomes, particularly in special populations such as patients with pulmonary hypertension or those supported by ventricular assist devices. However, the use of predicted heart mass ratio for donor-recipient size matching demonstrated that the size of the organ rather than sex of the donor was most responsible for the outcomes. With the advent of the predicted heart mass ratio, avoiding female donor hearts for male recipients is no longer justified and may result in unnecessary waste of available organs. In this review, we highlight the value of donor-recipient sizing by predicted heart mass ratio and summarize the evidence of different approaches to the donor-to-recipient size and sex matching. We conclude that the utilization of predicted heart mass is currently considered a preferred method of matching heart donors and recipients.

Female donor hearts can improve survival for male pediatric heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Both gender- and weight-matching between donor and recipient are thought to impact survival in pediatric heart transplantation, with clinical dogma holding that male donor hearts and "ideal" weight-matching yield superior survival. The composite impacts of gender and weight on post-transplant survival (PTS) are understudied.

METHODS

All pediatric (age <18) heart recipients between 1989 and 2021 with the complete recipient and donor gender and weight data were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Patients were grouped by recipient-donor gender (M & F) and donor-to-recipient weight ratio (DRWR; undersized [<0.8], ideal-sized [0.8-1.5], oversized [>1.5]).

RESULTS

A total of 10 697 patients were identified. Among male recipients, PTS was greatest with oversized DRWR from either male or female donors (median 22.4 and 20.6 years; p < .001 vs. others) and lowest for undersized DRWR from either male or female donors (median 13.4 and 13.2 years; p < .001 vs. others). The majority (64%) of male recipients received ideal-sized DRWR, among which female donor hearts yielded superior survival to males (median 18.9 vs. 17.4 years, p = .014). No differences in PTS existed for female recipients on the basis of gender-match, DRWR, and gender/DRWR together (all p > .1).

CONCLUSIONS

When considered together, gender and DRWR pairings impact PTS in male-but not female-pediatric heart transplant recipients. For males receiving ideal-sized DRWR organs (most common pairing, >60%), male recipients achieve superior survival when female donor hearts are transplanted. These findings suggest that if weight is being used for size-matching, donor gender should also be considered, particularly for male recipients.

Sex mismatch following heart transplantation in the United States: Characteristics and impact on outcomes

BACKGROUND

Available literature indicates the possible detrimental effect of sex mismatching on mortality in patients undergoing heart transplantation. Our objective was to examine the role of sex and heart mass (predicted heart mass [PHM]) mismatch on mortality and graft rejection in patients undergoing heart transplantation in the US.

METHODS

Data on adult patients who underwent heart transplantation between January 2015 and October 2021 were queried from the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, 1-year all-cause mortality and treated acute rejection.

RESULTS

A total of 19 805 adult patients underwent heart transplant during the study period. 92.2% of the patients in the female graft to male group had a PHM mismatch <25%, while only 38.5% had such a mismatch in the male graft to female group. In male to male and female to female groups, 79% and 76% of the patients had a PHM mismatch <25% (p = .122). Proportion of PHM mismatch was similar throughout the study period. Unadjusted analysis showed that male recipients of female grafts had increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.13; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.02, 1.27; p = .026) and 1-year mortality (HR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.45; p = .002) compared to male recipients of male grafts. Graft failure incidence was also higher (HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.25; p = .041). However, all these associations were non- significant after risk factor adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Sex mismatching is associated with post-transplant mortality with transplantation of female donor grafts to male recipients demonstrating worse outcomes, although this association disappears after risk factor adjustment. Further research is required to elucidate the need for potential changes in clinical practice.

Sex Disparities in Organ Donation: Finding an Equitable Donor Pool

Background

The majority of living organ donors are women, but few are deceased organ donors, which increases risks associated with sex mismatched organs. We sought to identify reasons for sex disparities in organ donation and strategies for equity.

Methods and Results

Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, we examined US adults' perceptions regarding donation in a mixed‐methods survey study. Results were compared by sex with Fisher's exact test and T‐tests for quantitative results and qualitative descriptive analyses for write‐in responses. Among 667 participants (55% women), the majority of men (64.8%) and women (63.4%) self‐identified as registered donors. Women's willingness to donate their own organs to family members (P=0.03) or strangers (P=0.03) was significantly higher than men. Donors from both sexes were guided by: desire to help, personal experience, and believing organs would be useless to deceased donors. Non‐donors from both sexes were guided by: no reason, medical mistrust, contemplating donation. When considering whether to donate organs of a deceased family member, women were equally guided by a family member's wishes and believing the family member had no further use for organs. Men had similar themes but valued the family member's wishes more. Among non‐donors, both sexes would consider donation if more information was provided.

Conclusions

In a national survey, both sexes had similar reasons for becoming and not becoming an organ donor. However, compared with men, women were more willing to donate their organs to family members and strangers. Improving education and communicating wishes regarding organ donation with direct relatives may increase sex equity in deceased organ donation.

Differences in Heart Graft Survival by Recipient Sex

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

We aimed to characterize patterns of differences in heart graft failure rates by recipient sex, accounting for modifying effects of donor sex and recipient age.

Influence of Sex-Mismatch on Prognosis After Heart Transplantation

The influence of donor and recipient sex on prognosis after heart transplantation has been analyzed in single, multi-center studies, and international registries. In most of them, sex-mismatch was identified as a risk factor for the worst prognosis, especially in men recipients of female heart. This could be attributed to physiological differences between women and men, differences in complications rates after heart transplantation (rejection, cardiovascular allograft vasculopathy, and primary graft failure), and pulmonary hypertension of the recipient. Confounding variables as age, urgent transplantation, and size-mismatch should also be considered. When allocating a graft, sex-mismatch should be considered but its influence in long-term survival should be further explored.

Differences in Liver Graft Survival by Recipient Sex

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

We aimed to characterize patterns of differences in liver graft failure rates by recipient sex, accounting for the modifying effects of donor sex and recipient age.

Perioperative Considerations Regarding Sex in Solid Organ Transplantation

Sex plays a role in all stages of the organ transplant process, including listing, sex/size matching of organs, complications, graft survival, and mortality. Sex-related differences in organ transplantation are likely multifactorial related to biological and social characteristics. More information is needed to determine how sex-related differences can lead to improved outcomes for future donors and recipients of solid organs. This article provides an overview on the impact of sex on various types of solid organ transplant, including kidney, pancreas, liver, lung, and heart transplants.

Sex-mismatch influence on survival after heart transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Heart transplantation (HT) is the treatment for patients with end-stage heart disease. Despite contradictory reports, survival seems to be worse when donor/recipient sex is mismatched. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesize the evidence on the effect of donor/recipient sex mismatch after HT.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and EMBASE until November 2017. Comparative cohort and registry studies were included. Published articles were systematically selected and, when possible, pooled in a meta-analysis. The primary endpoint was one-year mortality.

RESULTS

After retrieving 556 articles, ten studies (76 175 patients) were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Significant differences were found in one-year survival between sex-matched and mismatched recipients (odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-1.35, P < .001). In female recipients, we found that sex mismatch was not a risk factor for one-year mortality (OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.85-1.00, P = .06). However, in male recipients, we found that it was a risk factor for one-year mortality (OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.31-1.44, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Sex mismatch increases one-year mortality after HT in male recipients. Its influence in long-term survival should be further explored with high-quality studies.

Increasing heart transplant donor pool by liberalization of size matching

BACKGROUND

The heart transplant (HT) guidelines recommendation to match recipient and donors within 30% of body weight lacks a strong evidence base and is not well established in patients bridged to transplant with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). In light of the scarcity of donor hearts, we investigated the effect of size mismatch on hemodynamics, one-year survival and length of stay (LOS) following HT.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive HT patients from April 2007 to September 2017. Recipients were divided into 3 cohorts based on donor-to-recipient weight ratio (DRWR): (1) undersized (<0.7), (2) size-matched, (0.7-1.3); (3) oversized (>1.3).

RESULTS

288 consecutive patients were identified (mean age 53 ± 11 years; 76% male), 46 were undersized (0.61 ± 0.05), 210 size-matched (0.94 ± 0.16), and 32 oversized (1.65 ± 0.38). There was no significant difference in donor left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) between the 3 groups (p = 0.11). The donor/recipient (D/R) predicted heart mass (PHM) was lowest in the undersized group (0.92 ± 0.13). There were no significant differences in 1-year survival in the overall and LVAD cohort (p = 0.65 and 0.59, respectively). Neither donor LVEDD nor D/R PHM differed among survivors or non-survivors. LOS was longer in the undersized group than the size-matched cohort (p = 0.004). The undersized group had hearts with the highest filling pressures and lowest cardiac index at 1 week among the remaining groups (p = 0.009, 0.017, and p = 0.05, respectively). There were no clinically significant differences in hemodynamics at 1 or 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

HT undersizing affects hemodynamics early but not later in the course and does not impact 1-year survival. The liberalization of size matching may increase the HT donor pool significantly.

Heart Transplantation Survival and Sex-Related Differences

Orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) is the "gold standard" treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure, with approximately 5000 transplants performed each year worldwide. Heart transplantation survival rates have progressively improved at all time points, despite an increase in donor and recipient age and comorbidity and greater recipient urgency; according to the registry of the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT), the median survival of patients posttransplantation is currently 12.2 years.Long-term survival is sub-optimal, and outcomes after OHT remain constrained by the development of acute rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV). Moreover, donor organs are in short supply, making optimal organ utilization an ongoing priority. For these reasons, substantial interest continues to exist in identifying factors portending increased survival and improved organ utilization.

Mortality, rehospitalization, and post-transplant complications in gender-mismatched heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Limited research has been published on outcomes in heart transplant (HT) recipients with gender-mismatched donors.

OBJECTIVE

Compare 3-year post-transplant outcomes in 2 groups of gender-mismatched HT recipients and a no-mismatch group.

METHODS

Sample: 347 HT recipients: 21.3% (74) received a heart from the opposite gender: Group 1: same gender donor/recipient (273, 78.7%); Group 2: female donor/male recipient (40, 11.5%); Group 3: male donor/female recipient (34, 9.8%).

OUTCOMES

mortality, hospitalization, and complications.

RESULTS

Female patients with male heart donors had shorter 3-year survival, were rehospitalized more days after HT discharge, and had more treated acute rejection episodes and cardiac allograft vasculopathy. No differences were found in: HT length of stay, respiratory failure, stroke, cancer, renal dysfunction, steroid-induced diabetes, number of IV-treated infections, or the timing of infection and rejection.

CONCLUSION

Female HT recipients with male donors had worse 3-year outcomes as compared to male-mismatch and no-mismatch groups.

The impact of gender mismatching on early and late outcomes following heart transplantation

Aims

The role of donor/recipient gender matching on the long‐term rejection process and clinical outcomes following heart transplantation (HT) outcomes is still controversial. We aim to investigate the impact of gender matching on early and long‐term outcome HT.

Methods and results

The study population comprised 166 patients who underwent HT between 1991 and 2013 and were prospectively followed up in a tertiary referral centre. Early and late outcomes were assessed by the type of donor–recipient gender match (primary analysis: female donor–male recipient [FD–MR, n = 36] vs. male donor–male recipient [MD–MR, n = 109]). Early mortality, need for inotropic support, length of hospital stay, and major perioperative adverse events did not differ between the FD–MR and MD–MR groups. However, the FD–MR group experienced significantly higher rates of early major rejections per patient as compared with the MD–MR group (1.2 ± 1.6 vs. 0.4 ± 0.8; P = 0.001), higher rates of overall major rejections (16 vs. 5.5 per 100 person years; P < 0.05), and higher rate of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (43% vs. 20%; P = 0.01). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed that the cumulative probabilities of survival free of rejections and major adverse events were significantly higher in MD–MR group (P = 0.002 and 0.001, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that FD–MR status was associated with >2.5‐fold (P = 0.03) increase in the risk for rejections and with a >3‐fold (P = 0.01) increase in the risk for major adverse events during follow‐up.

Conclusions

Donor–recipient gender mismatch is a powerful independent predictor of early and late rejections and long‐term major adverse events following HT.

Organ transplantation and gender differences: a paradigmatic example of intertwining between biological and sociocultural determinants

Organ transplantation, e.g., of the heart, liver, or kidney, is nowadays a routine strategy to counteract several lethal human pathologies. From literature data and from data obtained in Italy, a striking scenario appears well evident: women are more often donors than recipients. On the other hand, recipients of organs are mainly males, probably reflecting a gender bias in the incidence of transplant-related pathologies. The impact of sex mismatch on transplant outcome remains debated, even though donor-recipient sex mismatch, due to biological matters, appears undesirable in female recipients. In our opinion, the analysis of how sex and gender can interact and affect grafting success could represent a mandatory task for the management of organ transplantation.

Donor to recipient sizing in thoracic organ transplantation

Donor-to-recipient organ size matching is a critical aspect of thoracic transplantation. In the United States potential recipients for lung transplant and heart transplant are listed with limitations on donor height and weight ranges, respectively. Height is used as a surrogate for lung size and weight is used as a surrogate for heart size. While these measures are important predictors of organ size, they are crude surrogates that fail to incorporate the influence of sex on organ size. Independent of other measures, a man’s thoracic organs are approximately 20% larger than a woman’s. Lung size can be better estimated using the predicted total lung capacity, which is derived from regression equations correcting for height, sex and age. Similarly, heart size can be better estimated using the predicted heart mass, which adjusts for sex, age, height, and weight. These refined organ sizing measures perform better than current sizing practice for the prediction of outcomes after transplantation, and largely explain the outcome differences observed after sex-mismatch transplantation. An undersized allograft is associated with worse outcomes. In this review we examine current data pertaining to size-matching in thoracic transplantation. We advocate for a change in the thoracic allocation mechanism from a height-or-weight-based strategy to a size-matching process that utilizes refined estimates of organ size. We believe that a size-matching approach based on refined estimates of organ size would optimize outcomes in thoracic transplantation without restricting or precluding patients from thoracic transplantation.

Impact of donor-recipient sex match on long-term survival after heart transplantation in children: An analysis of 5797 pediatric heart transplants

The effect of donor-recipient sex matching on long-term survival in pediatric heart transplantation is not well known. Adult data have shown worse survival when male recipients receive a sex-mismatched heart, with conflicting results in female recipients. We analyzed 5795 heart transplant recipients ≤ 18 yr in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (1990-2012). Recipients were stratified based on donor and recipient sex, creating four groups: MM (N = 1888), FM (N = 1384), FF (N = 1082), and MF (N = 1441). Males receiving sex-matched donor hearts had increased unadjusted allograft survival at five yr (73.2 vs. 71%, p = 0.01). However, this survival advantage disappeared with longer follow-up and when adjusted for additional risk factors by multivariable Cox regression analysis. In contrast, for females, receiving a sex-mismatched heart was associated with an 18% higher risk of allograft loss over time compared to receiving a sex-matched heart (HR 1.18, 95% CI: 1.00-1.38) and a 26% higher risk compared to sex-matched male recipients (HR 1.26, 95% CI: 1.10-1.45). Females who receive a heart from a male donor appear to have a distinct long-term survival disadvantage compared to all other groups.

Cardiac size and sex-matching in heart transplantation : size matters in matters of sex and the heart

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated whether worsened outcomes in sex mismatch are related to mismatch of organ size in heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND

Sizing for organ allocation in heart transplantation currently incorporates only body weight differences between the donor and recipient. Weight correlates poorly to cardiac size, and donor–recipient weight differences are not associated with differential survival. Heart size correlates with sex, and donor–recipient sex mismatch conveys worse-than-expected outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 31,634 donor–recipient adult heart transplant pairings from the United Network for Organ Sharing transplantation registry. We used predictive models to calculate the predicted total heart mass (pHM) for recipient and donor pairs. We assessed organ size mismatch by calculating the percent difference between the donor and recipient pHM as [(pHM(recipient) – pHM(donor))/(pHM(recipient))]*100.

RESULTS

The most-undersized pHM septile demonstrated higher mortality during the first year post-transplantation (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.27; p < 0.001), which remained robust in adjusted models (HR: 1.25; p = 0.03). Survival did not vary across septiles of weight differences. On univariate analysis, sex mismatch was associated with higher mortality in male patients, but not in female patients. Controlling for differences in pHM reversed these associations. Adjusted models demonstrated worse survival associated with sex mismatch in female patients (1-year HR: 1.28; p = 0.02) but no difference in male patients (1-year HR, 1.00; p = 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in donor–recipient pHM modulated the survival associated with donor–recipient sex mismatch and identified donor heart undersizing as an otherwise occult and potentially preventable cause of mortality following orthotopic heart transplantation.

Donor/recipient sex mismatch and survival after heart transplantation: only an issue in male recipients? An analysis of the Spanish Heart Transplantation Registry

The results of studies on the association between sex mismatch and survival after heart transplantation are conflicting. Data from the Spanish Heart Transplantation Registry. From 4625 recipients, 3707 (80%) were men. The donor was female in 943 male recipients (25%) and male in 481 female recipients (52%). Recipients of male hearts had a higher body mass index (25.9 ± 4.1 vs. 24.3 ± 3.7; P < 0.01), and male donors were younger than female donors (33.4 ± 12.7 vs. 38.2 ± 12.3; P < 0.01). No further relevant differences related to donor sex were detected. In the univariate analysis, mismatch was associated with mortality in men (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.32; P = 0.003) but not in women (HR, 0.91; 95% CI 0.74-1.12; P = 0.4). A significant interaction was detected between sex mismatch and recipient gender (P = 0.02). In the multivariate analysis, sex mismatch was associated with long-term mortality (HR, 1.14; 95% CI 1.01-1.29; P = 0.04), and there was a tendency toward significance for the interaction between sex mismatch and recipient gender (P = 0.08). In male recipients, mismatch increased mortality mainly during the first month and in patients with pulmonary gradient >13 mmHg. Sex mismatch seems to be associated with mortality after heart transplantation in men but not in women.

The effect of gender and gender match on mortality in pediatric heart transplantation

The effect of organ-recipient gender match on pediatric heart transplant mortality is unknown. We analyzed the effects of gender and donor-recipient gender matching. Based on Organ Procurement and Transplant Network data, we performed a historical cohort study in a population of 3630 heart transplant recipients less than 18 years old. We compared unadjusted and adjusted mortality by recipient gender, donor gender and between gender-matched and gender-mismatched recipients. Female recipients had decreased survival compared to male recipients (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.31; p = 0.020). Organ-recipient gender mismatch did not affect mortality for either male or female recipients, though gender-mismatched females had the worst survival compared to gender-matched males, who had the best survival (unadjusted HR 1.26, CI 1.07-1.49; p = 0.005). After adjustment for other risk factors affecting transplant mortality, female recipients had decreased survival compared to male recipients (HR 1.27, CI 1.12-1.44; p = 0.020) and gender matching had no effect. In conclusion, gender mismatch alone did not increase long-term mortality for pediatric heart transplant recipients. However, there may be additive effects of gender and gender matching affecting survival. There are insufficient data at this time to support that recipient and donor gender should affect heart allocation in children.

Impact of low donor to recipient weight ratios on cardiac transplantation

BACKGROUND

International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines for adult heart transplantation (HT) suggest a donor to recipient body weight ratio (WR) of greater than 0.8. For female to male transplants, a WR of greater than 0.9 is recommended.

METHODS

The United Network for Organ Sharing database was examined for adult HT from 1999 to 2011. Controls with a WR of 0.9 or greater (normal donor to recipient weight ratio) were compared with patients with a WR of 0.6 to 0.89 (WRL) and a WR of less than 0.59 (WRVL). The primary measured outcome was survival.

RESULTS

Of the 21,928 patients undergoing HT, 14,592 (66.6%) were performed with a normal donor to recipient weight ratio, 7212 (32.9%) were performed with WRL, and 124 (0.6%) were performed with WRVL. In male donor to male recipient, male donor to female recipient, and female donor to female recipient HT, the use of WRL did not influence median survival (P = .3621) and was not associated with increased mortality (P = .7273). In female donor to male recipient HT, WRL was associated with decreased median survival (435 days, P = .0241) and was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio, 1.201; P = .0383).

CONCLUSIONS

HT can be safely performed using WRL donors between sex-matched and male to female transplants. However, in female to male transplants, WRL donors are associated with decreased survival. Although clinical circumstances will guide decision making, consensus criteria may be revisited to liberalize the pool of acceptable donors in an era of unprecedented donor shortage.