Outcomes in the 2018 UNOS donor heart allocation system: A perspective on disparate analyses

Characterizing Adaptive Changes and Patient Survival After 2018 Donor Allocation Restructuring: A UNOS Database Analysis

PURPOSE

We sought to characterize adaptive changes to the revised United Network for Organ Sharing donor heart allocation policy and estimate long-term survival trends for heart transplant (HTx) recipients.

METHODS

Patients listed for HTx between October 17, 2013 and September 30, 2021 were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing database, and stratified into pre- and postpolicy revision groups. Subanalyses were performed to examine trends in device utilization for extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO), durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), microaxial support (Impella), and no mechanical circulatory support (non-MCS). Survival data post-HTx were fitted to parametric distributions and extrapolated to 5 years.

RESULTS

We identified 27,523 HTx waitlist candidates during the study period, most of whom (n = 16,376) were waitlisted in the prepolicy change period. Overall, 19,554 patients underwent HTx during the study period (pre: 12,037 and post: 7517). Listings increased after the policy change for ECMO ( P < 0.01), Impella ( P < 0.01), and IABP ( P < 0.01) patients. Listings for LVAD ( P < 0.01) and non-MCS ( P < 0.01) patients decreased. HTx increased for ECMO ( P < 0.01), Impella ( P < 0.01), and IABP ( P < 0.01) patients after the policy change and decreased for LVAD ( P < 0.01) and non-MCS ( P < 0.01) patients. Waitlist survival increased for the overall ( P < 0.01), ECMO ( P < 0.01), IABP ( P < 0.01), and non-MCS ( P < 0.01) groups. Waitlist survival did not differ for the LVAD ( P = 0.8) and Impella ( P = 0.1) groups. Post-transplant survival decreased for the overall ( P < 0.01), LVAD ( P < 0.01), and non-MCS ( P < 0.01) populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Allocation policy revisions have contributed to greater utilization of ECMO, Impella, and IABP, decreased utilization of LVADs and non-MCS, increased waitlist survival, and decreased post-HTx survival.

Impact of Community Socioeconomic Distress on Survival Following Heart Transplantation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of community-level socioeconomic deprivation on survival outcomes following heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND

Despite growing awareness of socioeconomic disparities in the US health care system, significant inequities in outcomes remain. While recent literature has increasingly considered the effects of structural socioeconomic deprivation, the impact of community socioeconomic distress on outcomes following heart transplantation has not yet been elucidated.

METHODS

All adult heart transplant recipients from 2004 to 2022 were ascertained from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Community socioeconomic distress was assessed using the previously validated Distressed Communities Index, a metric that represents education level, housing vacancies, unemployment, poverty rate, median household income, and business growth by zip code. Communities in the highest quintile were considered the Distressed cohort (others: Non-Distressed ). Outcomes were considered across 2 eras (2004-2018 and 2019-2022) to account for the 2018 UNOS Policy Change. Three- and 5-year patient and graft survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Of 36,777 heart transplants, 7450 (20%) were considered distressed . Following adjustment, distressed recipients demonstrated a greater hazard of 5-year mortality from 2004 to 2018 [hazard ratio (HR)=1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-1.18; P =0.005] and 3-year mortality from 2019 to 2022 (HR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.10-1.51; P =0.002), relative to nondistressed . Similarly, the distressed group was associated with increased hazard of graft failure at 5 years from 2004 to 2018 (HR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.03-1.18; P =0.003) and at 3 years from 2019 to 2022 (HR=1.31, 95% CI: 1.11-1.53; P =0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Community-level socioeconomic deprivation is linked with inferior patient and graft survival following heart transplantation. Future interventions are needed to address pervasive socioeconomic inequities in transplantation outcomes.

Developments and Challenges in Durable Ventricular Assist Device Technology: A Comprehensive Review with a Focus on Advancements in China

Heart transplantation is currently the most effective treatment for end-stage heart failure; however, the shortage in donor hearts constrains the undertaking of transplantation. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) technology has made rapid progress in recent years, providing diverse therapeutic options and alleviating the dilemma of donor heart shortage. The ventricular assist device (VAD), as an important category of MCS, demonstrates promising applications in bridging heart transplantation, destination therapy, and bridge-to-decision. VADs can be categorized as durable VADs (dVADs) and temporary VADs (tVADs), according to the duration of assistance. With the technological advancement and clinical application experience accumulated, VADs have been developed in biocompatible, lightweight, bionic, and intelligent ways. In this review, we summarize the development history of VADs, focusing on the mechanism and application status of dVADs in detail, and further discuss the research progress and use of VADs in China.

Effect of the UNOS policy change on rates of rejection, infection, and hospital readmission following heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

The 2018 adult heart allocation policy sought to improve waitlist risk stratification, reduce waitlist mortality, and increase organ access. This system prioritized patients at greatest risk for waitlist mortality, especially individuals requiring temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS). Posttransplant complications are significantly higher in patients on tMCS before transplantation, and early posttransplant complications impact long-term mortality. We sought to determine if policy change affected early posttransplant complication rates of rejection, infection, and hospitalization.

METHODS

We included all adult, heart-only, single-organ heart transplant recipients from the UNOS registry with pre-policy (PRE) individuals transplanted between November 1, 2016, and October 31, 2017, and post-policy (POST) between November 1, 2018, and October 31, 2019. We used a multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess the effect of policy change on posttransplant rejection, infection, and hospitalization. Two COVID-19 eras (2019-2020, 2020-2021) were included in our analysis.

RESULTS

The majority of baseline characteristics were comparable between PRE and POST era recipients. The odds of treated rejection (p = 0.8), hospitalization (p = 0.69), and hospitalization due to rejection (p = 0.76) and infection (p = 0.66) were similar between PRE and POST eras; there was a trend towards reduced odds of rejection (p = 0.08). In both COVID eras, there was a clear reduction in rejection and treated rejection with no effect on hospitalization for rejection or infection. Odds of all-cause hospitalization was increased in both COVID eras.

CONCLUSIONS

The UNOS policy change improves access to heart transplantation for higher acuity patients without increasing early posttransplant rates of treated rejection or hospitalization for rejection or infection, factors which portend risk for long-term posttransplant mortality.

Challenges with the current United Network for Organ Sharing heart allocation system

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The revised United States heart organ allocation system was launched in October 2018. In this review, we summarize this United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) policy and describe intended and unintended consequences.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although early studies published after the change suggested postheart transplant survival declined at 6 months and 1 year, recent publications with longer follow-up time have confirmed comparable posttransplant survival in adjusted models and several patient cohorts. Moreover, the new allocation decreased overall waitlist time from 112 to 39 days ( P  < 0.001). Mean ischemic time increased because of greater distances traveled to acquire donor hearts under broader sharing. Despite the intention to decrease exception requests by expanding the number of priority tiers to provide more granular risk stratification, ∼30% of patients remain waitlisted under exception status. Left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) implants are declining and the number of LVAD patients on the transplant list has decreased dramatically after the allocation system change.

SUMMARY

As the next allocation system is developed, it is imperative to curtail the use of temporary mechanical support as a strategy solely for listing purposes, identify attributes that more clearly stratify the severity of illness, provide greater oversight of exception requests, and address concerns regarding patients with durable LVADs.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to advanced heart failure therapies

BACKGROUND

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a key support modality for cardiogenic shock. The 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart transplant allocation algorithm prioritizes VA-ECMO patients.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of VA-ECMO in bridging to advanced heart failure therapies.

METHODS

We analyzed adult patients from the multicenter Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry receiving VA-ECMO for cardiac support or resuscitation between 2016 and 2021 in the United States, comparing bridge-to-transplant (BTT) and non-BTT intent patients, as well as pre- vs post-2018 patients, on a wide range of demographic and clinical outcome predictors.

RESULTS

Of 17,087 patients, 797 received left ventricular assist device (LVAD)/heart transplant, 7,931 died or had poor prognosis, and 8,359 had expected recovery at ECMO discontinuation. Patients supported with BTT intent had lower clinical acuity than non-BTT candidates and were more likely to receive LVAD/transplant. The proportion of patients who received VA-ECMO as BTT and received LVAD/transplant increased after 2018. Post-2018 BTT patients had significantly lower clinical acuity and higher likelihood of transplant than both post-2018 non-BTT patients and pre-2018 BTT patients. ECMO complications were associated with lower likelihood of transplant but were significantly less common post-2018 than pre-2018.

CONCLUSIONS

After implementation of the 2018 UNOS allocation system, ECMO utilization as BTT or LVAD has increased, and the acuity of BTT intent patients cannulated for ECMO has decreased. There has not yet been an increase in more acute ECMO patients getting transplanted. This may partially explain the post-transplant outcomes of ECMO patients in the current era reported in UNOS.

Heart waitlist survival in adults with an intra-aortic balloon pump relative to other Status 2, Status 1, and inotrope Status 3 patients

BACKGROUND

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) utilization has significantly outpaced other Status 2 eligibility criteria for heart transplant. The risk of waitlist mortality of IABP-supported patients relative to other Status 2 listed patients has not been described.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all adult patients listed Status 2 for heart transplantation under the current U.S. allocation policy, using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing. Patients listed status 1 and status 3 for high-dose inotropes were included for reference. Mortality and waitlist decompensation were modeled as a function of time-varying status in cause-specific Cox survival models.

RESULTS

We identified 3638 Status 2 listings, of whom 1676 (46%) were Status 2 due to IABP. Relative to patients supported with IABP, status 2 patients with ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation [VT/VF] (HR 4.0, p < .001), right-or-biventricular assist device configurations (HR 2.3, p = .002), or temporary surgical left ventricular assist devices [LVAD] (HR 2.6, p = .003) had greater risk of waitlist mortality and decompensation. Other Status 2 subgroups had mortality comparable to IABP Status 2. Risk of waitlist mortality and decompensation for IABP Status 2 was similar to Status 3 patients listed for high-dose inotropes (HR 1.2, p = .27) and lower than Status 1 patients (HR 0.7, p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Waitlist mortality varies significantly by Status 2 eligibility criteria and is highest among patients listed for VT/VF, right-or-biVAD configurations, or temporary surgical LVADs. IABP-supported patients were among those with the lowest Status 2 waitlist mortality risk and comparable to Status 3 inotrope-supported patients.

Bridging strategies and cardiac replacement outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure-related cardiogenic shock

AIMS

To describe outcomes associated with bridging strategies in patients with acute decompensated heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (ADHF-CS) bridged to durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplantation (HTx).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Durable LVAD or HTx recipients from 2014 to 2019 with pre-operative ADHF-CS were identified in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database and stratified by bridging strategy. The primary outcome was operative or 30-day post-operative mortality. Secondary outcomes included post-operative major bleeding. Exploratory comparisons between bridging strategies and outcomes were performed using overlap weighting with and without covariate adjustment. Among 9783 patients with pre-operative CS, 8777 (89.7%) had ADHF-CS. Medical therapy (n = 5013) was the most common bridging strategy, followed by intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP; n = 2816), catheter-based temporary mechanical circulatory support (TMCS; n = 417), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO; n = 465). Mortality was highest in patients bridged with VA-ECMO (22%), followed by catheter-based TMCS (10%), IABP (9%), and medical therapy (7%). Adverse post-operative outcomes were more frequent in LVAD recipients compared with HTx recipients.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with ADHF-CS bridged to HTx or durable LVAD, the highest rates of death and adverse events during index hospitalization were observed in those bridged with VA-ECMO, followed by catheter-based TMCS, IABP, and medical therapy. Patients who received durable LVAD had higher rates of post-operative complications compared with HTx recipients. Prospective trials are needed to define optimal bridging strategies in patients with ADHF-CS.

Impact of the 2018 UNOS Heart Transplant Policy Changes on Patient Outcomes

In 2018, the United Network for Organ Sharing implemented a 6-tier allocation policy to replace the prior 3-tier system. Given increasing listings of critically ill candidates for heart transplantation and lengthening waitlist times, the new policy aimed to better stratify candidates by waitlist mortality, shorten waiting times for high priority candidates, add objective criteria for common cardiac conditions, and further broaden sharing of donor hearts. There have been significant shifts in cardiac transplantation practices and patient outcomes following the implementation of the new policy, including changes in listing practices, waitlist time and mortality, transplant donor characteristics, post-transplantation outcomes, and mechanical circulatory support use. This review aims to highlight emerging trends in United States heart transplantation practice and outcomes following the implementation of the 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing heart allocation policy and to address areas for future modification.

Racial disparities in post-transplant stroke and mortality following stroke in adult cardiac transplant recipients in the United States

Black heart transplant recipients have a higher mortality rate than white recipients 6-12 months after transplant. Whether there are racial disparities in post-transplant stroke incidence and all-cause mortality following post-transplant stroke among cardiac transplant recipients is unknown. Using a nationwide transplant registry, we assessed the association between race and incident post-transplant stroke using logistic regression and the association between race and mortality among adults who survived a post-transplant stroke using Cox proportional hazards regression. We found no evidence of an association between race and the odds of post-transplant stroke (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.83-1.20). The median survival time of those with a post-transplant stroke in this cohort was 4.1 years (95% CI: 3.0, 5.4). There were 726 deaths among the 1139 patients with post-transplant stroke, including 127 deaths among 203 Black patients and 599 deaths among 936 white patients. Among post-transplant stroke survivors, Black transplant recipients experienced a 23% higher rate of mortality compared to white recipients (HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.00-1.52). This disparity is strongest in the period beyond the first 6 months and appears to be mediated by differences in the post-transplant setting of care between Black and white patients. The racial disparity in mortality outcomes was not evident in the past decade. The improved survival of Black patients in the recent decade may reflect overall protocol improvements for heart transplant recipients irrespective of race, such as advancements in surgical techniques and immediate postoperative care as well as increased awareness about reducing racial disparities.

The impact of the United Network of Organ Sharing allocation change on waitlist trajectories of inpatients listed with inotropic support: A single-center analysis

BACKGROUND

In the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation scheme prior to October 18, 2018, heart transplant (HTx) candidates with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS), or pulmonary artery (PA) catheter inotropic support all received Status 1A priority. In revised scheme, patients with PA catheter and inotropic support are Status 3 after those on ECMO (Status 1) or temporary MCS (Status 2). We examined the impact of the allocation change on HTx candidates listed Status 1A versus Status 3 at a high-volume transplant center.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and January 2021, 75 patients were listed with a PA catheter and inotropic support prior to the allocation change (Era 1) and 48 were listed after (Era 2). Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared for these 123 patients.

RESULTS

Heart transplant (HTx) candidates in Era 2 had higher median inotrope doses at listing. There was no significant difference in inpatient wait list days (12 vs. 20 days, P = .15), transition to temporary MCS (33.3% vs. 22.7%, P = .15), or wait list mortality (6.3% vs. 4.0%, P = .68). There was also no significant difference in survival to transplantation (91.7% vs. 94.7%, P = .71). There were no differences in post-transplant outcomes including 1-year survival (88.6% vs. 93.0%, P = .38).

CONCLUSION

At a high-volume transplant center, the UNOS allocation change did not result in increased wait list time, use of temporary MCS, or mortality on the waitlist or post-transplant for candidates on inotropic support with continuous hemodynamic monitoring.

UNOS policy change benefits high-priority patients without harming those at low priority

The heart transplantation policy change (PC) has improved outcomes in high-acuity (Old 1A, New 1-3) patients, but the effect on low-priority (Old 1B/2, New 4-6) patients is unknown. We sought to determine if low-priority patient outcomes were compromised by benefits to high-priority patients by evaluating for interaction between PC and priority status (PS). We included adult first-time heart transplant candidates and recipients from the UNOS registry during a 19-month period before and after the PC. We compared clinical characteristics and performed competing risks and survival analyses stratified by PC and PS. There was a dependence of PC and PS on waitlist death/deterioration with an interaction sub-distribution hazard ratio (adjusted sdHR) of 0.59 (0.45-0.78), p-value < .001. There was a trend toward a benefit of PC on waitlist death/deterioration (adjusted sdHR: 0.86 [0.73-1.01]; p = .07) and an increase in heart transplantation (adjusted sdHR: 1.08 [1.02-1.14], p = .007) for low-priority patients. There was no difference in 1-year post-transplant survival (log-rank p = .22) when stratifying by PC and PS. PC did not negatively affect waitlisted or transplanted low-priority patients. High-priority, post-PC patients had a targeted reduction in waitlist death/deterioration and did not come at the expense of worse post-transplant survival.

Ischemic time and patient outcomes after the 2018 UNOS donor heart allocation system change

BACKGROUND

The allocation system for heart donors in the United States changed on October 18, 2018. The typical distance from donor hospitals to recipient hospitals has increased as has the ischemic time. We investigated patient outcomes with the new allocation system and the differential effects of ischemic time under both the old and new allocation schemas.

METHODS

The United Network for Organ Sharing Registry (UNOS) was queried for data regarding heart transplants occurring from October 1, 1987 to March 1, 2021. In total, 62,301 adult heart transplants were examined. Survival outcomes at 30 days and 1 year and ischemic times were compared via adjusted logistic and Cox models (overall survival and time until post-transplant rejection).

RESULTS

Mean ischemic time was slightly increased in the new system (3.43 h vs. 3.03 h, p < .001). Survival differences between old versus new systems were not observed in adjusted models (p = .818). However, there was evidence to suggest longer ischemic times are more detrimental to long-term survival under the new system (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.15 per hour increase; p = .001) versus the old system (HR = 1.08 per hour increase; p < .001), although this relationship did not reach statistical significance (p = .150).

CONCLUSIONS

Although travel distances have significantly increased under the new allocation system, survival outcomes remain largely unchanged. Ischemic time is an influential factor in recipient survival that should be limited during organ transport. Further studies on the impact of travel distances and ischemic time under the new allocation system are needed.

An updated estimate of posttransplant survival after implementation of the new donor heart allocation policy

The Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) implemented a new heart allocation policy on October 18, 2018. Published estimates of lower posttransplant survival under the new policy in cohorts with limited follow-up may be biased by informative censoring. Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate 1-year posttransplant survival for pre-policy (November 1, 2016, to October 31, 2017) and post-policy cohorts (November 1, 2018, to October 31, 2019) with follow-up through March 2, 2021. We adjusted for changes in recipient population over time with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. To demonstrate the effect of inadequate follow-up on post-policy survival estimates, we repeated the analysis but only included follow-up through October 31, 2019. Transplant programs transplanted 2594 patients in the pre-policy cohort and 2761 patients in the post-policy cohort. With follow-up through March 2, 2021, unadjusted 1-year posttransplant survival was 90.6% (89.5%-91.8%) in the pre-policy cohort and 90.8% (89.7%-91.9%) in the post-policy cohort (adjusted HR = 0.93 [0.77-1.12]). Ignoring follow-up after October 31, 2019, the post-policy estimate was biased downward (1-year: 82.2%). When estimated with adequate follow-up, 1-year posttransplant survival under the new heart allocation policy was not significantly different.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Effect of UNOS policy change and exception status request on outcomes in patients bridged to heart transplant with an intra-aortic balloon pump

BACKGROUND

Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) are used to bridge select end-stage heart disease patients to heart transplant (HT). IABP use and exception requests both increased dramatically after the UNOS policy change (PC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of PC and exception status requests on waitlist and post-transplant outcomes in patients bridged to HT with IABP support.

METHODS

We analyzed adult, first-time, single-organ HT recipients from the UNOS Registry either on IABP at the time of registration for HT or at the time of HT. We compared waitlist and post-HT outcomes between patients from the PRE (October 18, 2016 to May 30, 2018) and POST (October 18, 2018 to May 30, 2020) eras using Kaplan-Meier curves and time-to-event analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 1267 patients underwent HT from IABP (261 pre-policy/1006 post-policy). On multivariate analysis, PC was associated with an increase in HT (sub-distribution hazard ratio (sdHR): 2.15, p < .001) and decrease in death/deterioration (sdHR: 0.55, p = .011) on the waitlist with no effect on 1-year post-HT survival (p = .8). The exception status of patients undergoing HT was predominantly seen in the POST era (29%, 293/1006); only four patients in the PRE era. Exception requests in the POST era did not alter patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients bridged to heart transplant with an IABP, policy change is associated with decreased rates of death/deterioration and increased rates of heart transplantation on the waitlist without affecting 1-year post-transplant survival. While exception status use has markedly increased post-PC, it is not associated with patient outcomes.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Evolving Characteristics of Heart Transplantation Donors and Recipients: JACC Focus Seminar

Although the burden of end-stage heart failure continues to increase, the number of available organs for heart transplantation (HT) remains inadequate. The HT community has been challenged to find ways to expand the number of donor hearts available. Recent advances include use of hearts from donors infected with hepatitis C virus as well as other previously underutilized donors, including those with left ventricular dysfunction, of older age, and with a history of cocaine use. Concurrently, emerging trends in HT surgery include donation after circulatory death, ex vivo normothermic heart perfusion, and controlled hypothermic preservation, which may enable procurement of organs from farther distances and prevent early allograft dysfunction. Contemporary HT recipients have also evolved in light of the 2018 revision to the U.S. heart allocation policy. This focus seminar discusses recent trends in donor and recipient phenotypes and management strategies for successful HT, as well as evolving areas and future directions.

Trends and Outcomes of Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy: JACC Focus Seminar

As the prevalence of advanced heart failure continues to rise, treatment strategies for select patients include heart transplantation or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support, both of which improve quality of life and extend survival. Recently, the HeartMate 3 has been incorporated into clinical practice, the United Network for Organ Sharing donor heart allocation system was revised, and the management of LVAD-related complications has evolved. Contemporary LVAD recipients have greater preoperative illness severity, but survival is higher and adverse event rates are lower compared with prior eras. This is driven by advances in device design, patient selection, surgical techniques, and long-term management. However, bleeding, infection, neurologic events, and right ventricular failure continue to limit broader implementation of LVAD support. Ongoing efforts to optimize management of patients implanted with current devices and parallel development of next-generation devices are likely to further improve outcomes for patients with advanced heart failure.

Decreased frequency of transplantation and lower post-transplant survival free of re-transplantation in LVAD patients with the new heart transplant allocation system

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of the new heart transplant (HT) allocation system in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) supported patients listed as bridge to transplantation (BTT).

METHODS

Adult patients who were listed for HT between October 18, 2016 and October 17, 2019, and were supported with an LVAD, enrolled in the UNOS database were included in this study. Patients were classified in the old or new system if they were listed or transplanted before or after October 18, 2018, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 3261 LVAD patients were listed for transplant. Of these, 2257 were classified in the old and 1004 in the new system. The cumulative incidence of death or removal from the transplant list due to worsening clinical status at 360-days after listing was lower in the new system (4% vs. 7%, P = .011). LVAD Patients listed in the new system had a lower frequency of transplantation within 360-days of listing (52% vs. 61%, P < .001). A total of 1843 LVAD patients were transplanted, 1004 patients in the old system and 839 patients in the new system. The post-transplant survival at 360 days was similar between old and new systems (92.3% vs. 90%, P = .08). However, LVAD patients transplanted in the new system had lower frequency of the combined endpoint, freedom of death or re-transplantation at 360 days (92.2% vs. 89.6%, P = .046).

CONCLUSION

The new HT allocation system has affected the LVAD-BTT population significantly. On the waitlist, LVAD patients have a decreased cumulative frequency of transplantation and a concomitant decrease in death or delisting due to worsening status. In the new system, LVAD patients have a decreased survival free of re-transplantation at 360 days post-transplant.

A challenge to equity in transplantation: Increased center-level variation in short-term mechanical circulatory support use in the context of the updated U.S. heart transplant allocation policy

BACKGROUND

The United States National Organ Procurement Transplant Network (OPTN) implemented changes to the adult heart allocation system to reduce waitlist mortality by improving access for those at greater risk of pre-transplant death, including patients on short-term mechanical circulatory support (sMCS). While sMCS increased, it is unknown whether the increase occurred equitably across centers.

METHODS

The OPTN database was used to assess changes in use of sMCS at time of transplant in the 12 months before (pre-change) and after (post-change) implementation of the allocation system in October 2018 among 5,477 heart transplant recipients. An interrupted time series analysis comparing use of bridging therapies pre- and post-change was performed. Variability in the proportion of sMCS use at the center level pre- and post-change was determined.

RESULTS

In the month pre-change, 9.7% of patients were transplanted with sMCS. There was an immediate increase in sMCS transplant the following month to 32.4% - an absolute and relative increase of 22.7% and 312% (p < 0.001). While sMCS use was stable pre-change (monthly change 0.0%, 95% CI [-0.1%,0.1%]), there was a continuous 1.2%/month increase post-change ([0.6%,1.8%], p < 0.001). Center-level variation in sMCS use increased substantially after implementation, from a median (interquartile range) of 3.85% (10%) pre-change to 35.7% (30.6%) post-change (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of sMCS at time of transplant increased immediately and continued to expand following heart allocation policy changes. Center-level variation in use of sMCS at the time of transplant increased compared to pre-change, which may have negatively impacted equitable access to heart transplantation.

Geographic disparities in heart transplantation persist under the new allocation policy

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the impact of the 2018 heart allocation policy change on geographic disparities in United States orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT).

METHODS

The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried to measure geographic disparity in OHT rates between pre-policy and post-policy change eras. We performed multilevel Poisson regression to measure region-level OHT rates. We derived an allocation priority-adjusted median incidence rate ratio (MIRR) for each policy era, a measure of median change in OHT rates between regions.

RESULTS

5958.78 waitlist person-years were analyzed, comprising 6596 OHT procedures (3890 pre-policy and 2706 post-policy). Median region-level OHT rate was .94 transplants/person-years before and 1.51 transplants/person-years after the policy change (P < .001). The unadjusted OHT MIRR across regions was 1.29 (95% CI 1.00-1.50) pre-policy change and 1.17 (95% CI 1.00-1.43) post-policy change, suggesting that the region-related variance in OHT rates decreased under the new allocation. After adjustment for allocation priority risk factors, the MIRR pre-policy change was 1.13 (95% CI 1.01-1.32) and post-policy change was 1.15 (95% CI 1.00-1.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Geography accounts for ∼10% of the disparity among United States OHT rates. Despite broader heart sharing, the updated allocation policy did not substantially alter the existing geographic disparities among OHT recipients.

Long-term survival in patients with post-LVAD right ventricular failure: multi-state modelling with competing outcomes of heart transplant

BACKGROUND

Multicenter data on long term survival following LVAD implantation that make use of contemporary definitions of RV failure are limited. Furthermore, traditional survival analyses censor patients who receive a bridge to heart transplant. Here we compare the outcomes of LVAD patients who develop post-operative RV failure accounting for the transitional probability of receiving an interim heart transplantation.

METHODS

We use a retrospective cohort of LVAD patients sourced from multiple high-volume centers based in the United States. Five- and ten-year survival accounting for transition probabilities of receiving a heart transplant were calculated using a multi-state Aalen Johansen survival model.

RESULTS

Of the 897 patients included in the study, 238 (26.5%) developed post-operative RV failure at index hospitalization. At 10 years the probability of death with post-op RV failure was 79.28% vs 61.70% in patients without (HR 2.10; 95% CI 1.72 - 2.57; p = < .001). Though not significant, patients with RV failure were less likely to be bridged to a heart transplant (HR 0.87, p = .4). Once transplanted the risk of death between both patient groups remained equivalent; the probability of death after a heart transplant was 3.97% in those with post-operative RV failure shortly after index LVAD implant, as compared to 14.71% in those without.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Long-term durable mechanical circulatory support is associated with significantly higher mortality in patients who develop post-operative RV failure. Improving outcomes may necessitate expeditious bridge to heart transplant wherever appropriate, along with critical reassessment of organ allocation policies.

Impact of the new heart allocation policy on patients with restrictive, hypertrophic, or congenital cardiomyopathies

Background

Patients with restrictive or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (RCM/HCM) and congenital heart disease (CHD) do not derive clinical benefit from inotropes and mechanical circulatory support. Concerns were expressed that the new heart allocation system implemented in October 2018 would disadvantage these patients. This paper aimed to examine the impact of the new adult heart allocation system on transplantation and outcomes among patients with RCM/HCM/CHD.

Methods

We identified adult patients with RCM/HCM/CHD in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database who were listed for or received a cardiac transplant from April 2017-June 2020. The cohort was separated into those listed before and after allocation system changes. Demographics and recipient characteristics, donor characteristics, waitlist survival, and post-transplantation outcomes were analyzed.

Results

The number of patients listed for RCM/HCM/CHD increased after the allocation system change from 429 to 517. Prior to the change, the majority RCM/HCM/CHD patients were Status 1A at time of transplantation; afterwards, most were Status 2. Wait times decreased significantly for all: RCM (41 days vs 27 days; P<0.05), HCM (55 days vs 38 days; P<0.05), CHD (81 days vs 49 days; P<0.05). Distance traveled increased for all: RCM (76 mi. vs 261 mi, P<0.001), HCM (88 mi. vs 231 mi. P<0.001), CHD (114 mi vs 199 mi, P<0.05). Rates of transplantation were higher for RCM and CHD (P<0.01), whereas post-transplant survival remained unchanged.

Conclusions

The new allocation system has had a positive impact on time to transplantation of patients with RCM, HCM, and CHD without negatively influencing survival.