Development of a Transplantation Risk Index in Patients With Mechanical Circulatory Support

Risk factors of 180-day rebleeding after management of blunt splenic injury without surgery and embolization: a national database study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify risk factors for rebleeding within 180 days post-discharge in blunt splenic injury patients managed without splenectomy or embolization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. Adult patients aged ≥ 18 years with blunt splenic injury (ICD-9-CM codes 865.01-865.09) from 2000 to 2012 were included. Patients who died, underwent splenectomy (ICD-9-OP codes 41.5, 41.42,41.43, and 41.95) or transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) (ICD-9-OP codes 39.79 and 99.29) on the first admission were excluded. The primary endpoint was rebleeding, which was identified if patients underwent splenectomy or TAE at 180 days after discharge. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors, which were validated in a separate cohort.

RESULTS

Of 6,140 patients, 80 (1.302%) experienced rebleeding within 180 days. Five significant risk factors were identified: age < 54 years (aOR 3.129, p = 0.014), male sex (aOR 2.691, p = 0.010), non-traffic accident-induced injury (aOR 2.459, p = 0.006), ISS ≥ 16 (aOR 2.130, p = 0.021), and congestive heart failure (aOR 6.014, p = 0.006). We generate Delayed Splenic Bleeding System (DSBS). Patients with > 2 points had significantly higher rebleeding rates (risk-identifying cohort: 2.2% vs. 0.6%, OR 3.790, p < 0.001; validation cohort: 2.6% vs. 0.8%, OR 3.129, p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Age < 54 years, male, non-traffic accident-induced injury, ISS ≥ 16, and congestive heart failure are risk factors of rebleeding within 180 days after discharge from treating blunt splenic injury without splenectomy or embolization. Despite limitations, this study underscores large-scale data's role in identifying risks which can aid clinicians in prioritizing additional interventions during NOM.

Predictive model for contralateral inguinal hernia repair within three years of primary repair: a nationwide population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Limited reports have discussed the risk factors for contralateral inguinal hernia (CIH) repair. We generated a risk factor scoring system to predict CIH within 3 years after unilateral inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

We extracted the admission data of patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair without any other operation from the National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients were randomly divided into 80% and 20% validation cohorts. Multivariate analysis with a logistic regression model was used to generate the scoring system, which was used in the validation group.

RESULTS

Overall, 170,492 adult men were included, with a median follow-up of 87 months. The scoring system ranged from 0-5 points, composited with age (< 45 years, 0 points; 45-65 years, 2 points; 65-80 years, 3 points; > 80 years, 2 points) and two comorbidities (cirrhosis and prostate disease: 1 point each). The areas under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were 0.606 and 0.551 for the derivation and validation groups, respectively. The rates and adjusted odds ratios (OR) of CIH repair in the derivation group were 3.0% at 0-2 points, 5.5% (1.854, p < 0.001) at 3, 6.7% (2.279, p < 0.001) at 4, and 6.9% (2.348, p < 0.001) at 5, with similar results in the validation group [2.3% at 0-2 points, 3.8% (1.668, p < 0.001) at 3, 5.4% (2.386, p < 0.001) at 4, and 6.8% (3.033, p < 0.001) at 5].

CONCLUSIONS

The CIH scoring system effectively predicted CIH repair within three years of primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair. Surgeons could perform laparoscopic surgery with CIH scores > 2 points which enables easier contralateral exploration and repair during the same surgery, without additional incisions, to minimize the need for future surgeries. However, further prospective validation of this scoring system is required.

Donor/recipient ascending aortic diameter ratio as a novel potential metric for donor selection and improved clinical outcomes in heart transplantation: a propensity score-matched study

Background

Donor/recipient size matching is paramount in heart transplantation. Body weight, height, body mass index, body surface area, and predicted heart mass (PHM) ratios are generally used in size matching. Precise size matching is important to achieve better clinical outcomes. This study aims to determine the donor/recipient ascending aortic diameter (AAoD) ratio as a metric for donor selection and its effect on postoperative clinical outcomes in heart transplant patients.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients who underwent heart transplantation from January 2015 to December 2018. A cutoff value of 0.8032 for the donor/recipient AAoD ratio (independent variable for the primary endpoint during unmatched cohort analysis) was determined for predicting in-hospital mortality. The patients were divided into two groups based on the cutoff value. Group A, AAoD < 0.8032 (n = 96), and Group B, AAoD > 0.8032 (n = 265). A propensity score-matched (PSM) study was performed to equalize the two groups comprising 77 patients each in terms of risk. A Cox regression model was developed to identify the independent preoperative variables affecting the primary end-point. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality.

Results

A total of 361 patients underwent heart transplantation during the given period. On the multivariate analysis, donor/recipient PHM ratio [HR 16.907, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.535-186.246, P = 0.021], donor/recipient AAoD ratio < 0.8032 (HR 5.398, 95% CI 1.181-24.681, P = 0.030), and diabetes (HR 3.138, 95% CI 1.017-9.689, P = 0.047) were found to be independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Group A had higher 3-year mortality than Group B (P = 0.022). The surgery time was longer and postoperative RBC, plasma, and platelets transfusion were higher in Group A (P < 0.05). Although not statistically significant the use of continuous renal replacement therapy (P = 0.054), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (P = 0.086), was realatively higher, and ventilation time (P = 0.079) was relatively longer in Group A.

Conclusions

The donor/recipient AAoD ratio is a potential metric for patient matching and postoperative outcomes in heart transplantation. A donor/recipient AAoD ratio > 0.8032 could improve post-heart transplantation outcomes and donor heart utilization.

Predicting in-hospital mortality risk for perforated peptic ulcer surgery: the PPUMS scoring system and the benefit of laparoscopic surgery: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

The major treatment for perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) is surgery. It remains unclear which patient may not get benefit from surgery due to comorbidity. This study aimed to generate a scoring system by predicting mortality for patients with PPU who received non-operative management (NOM) and surgical treatment.

METHOD

We extracted the admission data of adult (≥ 18 years) patients with PPU disease from the NHIRD database. We randomly divided patients into 80% model derivation and 20% validation cohorts. Multivariate analysis with a logistic regression model was applied to generate the scoring system, PPUMS. We then apply the scoring system to the validation group.

RESULT

The PPUMS score ranged from 0 to 8 points, composite with age (< 45: 0 points, 45-65: 1 point, 65-80: 2 points, > 80: 3 points), and five comorbidities (congestive heart failure, severe liver disease, renal disease, history of malignancy, and obesity: 1 point each). The areas under ROC curve were 0.785 and 0.787 in the derivation and validation groups. The in-hospital mortality rates in the derivation group were 0.6% (0 points), 3.4% (1 point), 9.0% (2 points), 19.0% (3 points), 30.2% (4 points), and 45.9% when PPUMS > 4 point. Patients with PPUMS > 4 had a similar in-hospital mortality risk between the surgery group [laparotomy: odds ratio (OR) = 0.729, p = 0.320, laparoscopy: OR = 0.772, p = 0.697] and the non-surgery group. We identified similar results in the validation group.

CONCLUSION

PPUMS scoring system effectively predicts in-hospital mortality for perforated peptic ulcer patients. It factors in age and specific comorbidities is highly predictive and well-calibrated with a reliable AUC of 0.785-0.787. Surgery, no matter laparotomy or laparoscope, significantly reduced mortality for scores <  = 4. However, patients with a score > 4 did not show this difference, calling for tailored approaches to treatment based on risk assessment. Further prospective validation is suggested.

Donor heart selection: Evidence-based guidelines for providers

The proposed donor heart selection guidelines provide evidence-based and expert-consensus recommendations for the selection of donor hearts following brain death. These recommendations were compiled by an international panel of experts based on an extensive literature review.

Mortality Prediction Model before Surgery for Acute Mesenteric Infarction: A Population-Based Study

Surgery for acute mesenteric infarction (AMI) is associated with high mortality. This study aimed to generate a mortality prediction model to predict the 30-day mortality of surgery for AMI. We included patients ≥18 years who received bowel resection in treating AMI and randomly divided into the derivation and validation groups. After multivariable analysis, the ‘Surgery for acute mesenteric infarction mortality score’ (SAMIMS) system was generated and was including age >62-year-old (3 points), hemodialysis (2 points), congestive heart failure (1 point), peptic ulcer disease (1 point), diabetes (1 point), cerebrovascular disease (1 point), and severe liver disease (4 points). The 30-day-mortality rates in the derivation group were 4.4%, 13.4%, 24.5%, and 32.5% among very low (0 point), low (1−3 point(s)), intermediate (4−6 points), and high (7−13 points)-risk patients. Compared to the very-low-risk group, the low-risk (OR = 3.332), intermediate-risk (OR = 7.004), and high-risk groups (OR = 10.410, p < 0.001) exhibited higher odds of 30-day mortality. We identified similar results in the validation group. The areas under the ROC curve were 0.677 and 0.696 in the derivation and validation groups. Our prediction model, SAMIMS, allowed for the stratification of the patients’ 30-day-mortality risk of surgery for acute mesenteric infarction.

Development and validation of specific post-transplant risk scores according to the circulatory support status at transplant: A UNOS cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical use of post-transplant risk scores is limited by their poor statistical performance. We hypothesized that developing specific prognostic models for each type of circulatory support at transplant may improve risk stratification.

METHODS

We analyzed the UNOS database including contemporary, first, non-combined heart transplantations (2013-2018). The endpoint was death or retransplantation during the first year post-transplant. Three different circulatory support statuses at transplant were considered: no support, durable mechanical support and temporary support (inotropes, temporary mechanical support). We generated 1,000 bootstrap samples that we randomly split into derivation and test sets. In each sample, we derived an overall model and 3 specific models (1 for each type of circulatory support) using Cox regressions, and compared, in the test set, their statistical performance for each type of circulatory support.

RESULTS

A total of 13,729 patients were included; 1,220 patients (8.9%) met the composite endpoint. Circulatory support status at transplant was associated with important differences in baseline characteristics and distinct prognosis (p = 0.01), interacted significantly with important predictive variables included in the overall model, and had a major impact on post-transplant predictive models (type of variables included and their corresponding hazard ratios). However, specific models suffered from poor discriminative performance and significantly improved risk stratification (discrimination, reclassification indices, calibration) compared to overall models in a very limited proportion of bootstrap samples (<15%). These results were consistent across several sensitivity analyzes.

CONCLUSION

Circulatory support status at transplant reflected different disease states that influenced predictive models. However, developing specific models for each circulatory support status did not significantly improve risk stratification.

Are the current evaluation tools for advanced therapies biased?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite attention to racial disparities in outcomes for heart failure (HF) and other chronic diseases, progress against these inequities has been gradual at best. The disparities of COVID-19 and police brutality have highlighted the pervasiveness of systemic racism in health outcomes. Whether racial bias impacts patient access to advanced HF therapies is unclear.

RECENT FINDINGS

As documented in other settings, racial bias appears to operate in HF providers' consideration of patients for advanced therapy. Multiple medical and psychosocial elements of the evaluation process are particularly vulnerable to bias.

SUMMARY

Reducing gaps in access to advanced therapies will require commitments at multiple levels to reduce barriers to healthcare access, standardize clinical operations, research the determinants of patient success and increase diversity among providers and researchers. Progress is achievable but likely requires as disruptive and investment of immense resources as in the battle against COVID-19.

Statistical performance of 16 posttransplant risk scores in a contemporary cohort of heart transplant recipients

Accurate risk stratification of early heart transplant failure is required to avoid futile transplants and rationalize donor selection. We aimed to evaluate the statistical performance of existing risk scores on a contemporary cohort of heart transplant recipients. After an exhaustive search, we identified 16 relevant risk scores. From the UNOS database, we selected all first noncombined adult heart transplants performed between 2014 and 2017 for validation. The primary endpoint was death or retransplant during the first year posttransplant. For all scores, we analyzed their association with outcomes, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and discrimination (concordance index and overlap of individual scores). The cohort included 9396 patients. All scores were significantly associated with the primary outcome (P < .001 for all scores). Their likelihood ratios, both negative and positive, were poor. The discriminative performance of all scores was limited, with concordance index ranging from 0.544 to 0.646 (median 0.594) and an important overlap of individual scores between patients with or without the primary endpoint. Subgroup analyses revealed important variation in discrimination according to donor age, recipient age, and the type of assist device used at transplant. Our findings raise concerns about the use of currently available scores in the clinical field.

Impact of donor smoking history on post heart transplant outcomes: A propensity-matched analysis of ISHLT registry

PURPOSE

Smoking is a major public health issue, and its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is well established. This study evaluates the impact of donor smoking on heart transplant (HT) outcomes.

METHODS

HT recipients between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016, with known donor smoking status were queried from the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) registry. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary endpoints were graft failure, acute rejection, and cardiac allograft vasculopathy. We utilized propensity-score matching to identify cohorts of recipients with and without a history of donor smoking. Hazard ratios for post-transplant outcomes for the matched sample were estimated from separate Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Of 26 390 patients in the cohort, 18.9% had history of donor smoking. Donors with history of smoking were older, predominantly male and had higher incidence of diabetes, hypertension, cocaine use, and "high-risk" status. In propensity-matched analysis, recipients with a history of donor smoking had increased risk of death (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.20) and higher risk of graft failure (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.20).

CONCLUSION

Donor smoking was associated with increased mortality and higher incidence of graft failure following HT. Consideration of donor smoking history is warranted while evaluating donor hearts.

Review of interactions between high-risk pediatric heart transplant recipients and marginal donors including utilization of risk score models

BACKGROUND

Donor organ acceptance practices vary among pediatric heart transplant professionals. We sought to understand what is known about the interactions between the "high-risk" recipient and the "marginal donor," and how donor risk scores can impact this discussion.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature on pediatric HTx was undertaken with the assistance of a medical librarian. Two authors independently assessed search results, and papers were reviewed for inclusion.

RESULTS

We found that there are a large number of individual factors, and clusters of factors, that have been used to label individual recipients "high-risk" and individual donors "marginal." The terms "high-risk recipient" and "marginal donor" have been used broadly in the literature making it virtually impossible to make comparisons between publications. In general, the data support that patients who could be easily agreed to be "sicker recipients" are at more risk compared to those who are clearly "healthier," albeit still "sick enough" to need transplantation. Given this variability in the literature, we were unable to define how being a "high-risk" recipient interplays with accepting a "marginal donor." Existing risk scores are described, but none were felt to adequately predict outcomes from factors available at the time of offer acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

We could not determine what makes a donor "marginal," a recipient "high-risk," or how these factors interplay within the specific recipient-donor pair to determine outcomes. Until there are better risk scores predicting outcomes at the time of organ acceptance, programs should continue to evaluate each organ and recipient individually.

Optimization of heart allocation: The transplant risk score

The new French heart allocation system is designed to minimize waitlist mortality and extend the donor pool without a detrimental effect on posttransplant survival. This study was designed to construct a 1-year posttransplant graft-loss risk score incorporating recipient and donor characteristics. The study included all adult first single-organ recipients transplanted between 2010 and 2014 (N = 1776). This population was randomly divided in a 2:1 ratio into derivation and validation cohorts. The association of variables with 1-year graft loss was determined with a mixed Cox model with center as random effect. The predictors were used to generate a transplant-risk score (TRS). Donor-recipient matching was assessed using 2 separate recipient- and donor-risk scores. Factors associated with 1-year graft loss were recipient age >50 years, valvular cardiomyopathy and congenital heart disease, previous cardiac surgery, diabetes, mechanical ventilation, glomerular filtration rate and bilirubin, donor age >55 years, and donor sex: female. The C-index of the final model was 0.70. Correlation between observed and predicted graft loss rate was excellent for the overall cohort (r = 0.90). Hearts from high-risk donors transplanted to low-risk recipients had similar survival as those from low-risk donors. The TRS provides an accurate prediction of 1-year graft-loss risk and allows optimal donor-recipient matching.

Implication of Ventricular Assist Devices in Extracorporeal Membranous Oxygenation Patients Listed for Heart Transplantation

The new allocation criteria classify patients on veno-arterial extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (VA-ECMO) as the highest priority for receiving orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) especially if they are considered not candidates for ventricular assist devices. The outcomes of patients who receive ventricular assist devices (VADs) after being listed for heart transplantation with VA-ECMO is unknown. We analyzed 355 patients listed for OHT with VA-ECMO from the United Network for Organ Sharing database from 2006 to 2014. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models were used to determine the contribution of prognostic variables to the outcome. Thirty-three patients (9.3%) received VADs (15 dischargeable, 7 non-dischargeable VADs). The VAD and non-VAD groups had similar listing characteristics except that the VAD group were more likely to have non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (48.5% vs. 25.2%), and less likely to be obese (6.1% vs. 25.2%) or have a history of prior organ transplant (3% vs. 31.1%). Patients who underwent VAD implantation had more days on the list (median 189 vs. 14 days) compared to the non-VAD group. Amongst the patients who had VADs, (25/33) 75.5% patients were subsequently transplanted with similar post-transplant survival compared to the non-VAD group (72% vs. 60.5%; p = 0.276). Predictors of one-year post-transplant mortality included panel reactive antibodies (PRA) class I ≥ 20%, recipient smoking history, increased serum creatinine and total bilirubin. Therefore, a small proportion of patients listed for transplantation with VA ECMO undergo VAD implantation. Their waitlist survival is better than non-VAD group but with similar post-transplant survival.

Risk Stratification of Patients With Current Generation Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices Being Bridged to Heart Transplantation

Patients bridged to transplant (BTT) with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) have increased in the past decade. Decision support tools for these patients are limited. We developed a risk score to estimate prognosis and guide decision-making. We included heart transplant recipients bridged with CF-LVADs from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database and divided them into development (2,522 patients) and validation cohorts (1,681 patients). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were performed. Variables that independently predicted outcomes (age, African American race, recipient body mass index [BMI], intravenous [IV] antibiotic use, pretransplant dialysis, and total bilirubin) were assigned weight using linear transformation, and risk scores were derived. Patients were grouped by predicted posttransplant mortality: low risk (≤ 38 points), medium risk (38-41 points), and high risk (≥ 42 points). We performed Cox proportional hazards analysis on wait-listed CF-LVAD patients who were not transplanted. Score significantly discriminated survival among the groups in the development cohort (6.7, 12.9, 20.7; p = 0.001), validation cohort (6.4, 10.1, 13.6; p < 0.001), and ambulatory cohort (6.4, 11.5, 17.2; p < 0.001). We derived a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) BTT risk score that effectively identifies CF-LVAD patients who are at higher risk for worse outcomes after heart transplant. This score may help physicians weigh the risks of transplantation in patients with CF-LVAD.

Donor and recipient risk factor analysis of inferior postheart transplantation outcome in the era of durable mechanical assist devices

The study objective is to quantify the impact of donor and recipient variables on heart transplant survival in recipients with a significant proportion of implanted continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). This is a prospective cohort study of International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) Registry that includes all primary heart-alone transplants in adult recipients (January 2005 and June 2013, N = 15 532, 27% LVADs). Donor and recipient characteristics were assessed for association with death or graft failure within 90 days and between 90 days and 5 years after transplantation. On Cox proportional hazard model donor cause of death other than head trauma (hazard ratio [HR] 1.985, P < 0.0001), recipient congenital (HR 2.7555, P < 0.0001) and ischemic (HR 1.165, P = 0.0383) vs dilated etiology and female donor heart transplanted into male recipient (HR 1.207, P = 0.0354) were predictors of death or graft failure within 90 days. Between 90 days and 5 years, donor cigarette use (HR 1.232, P = 0.0001), recipient cigarette use (HR 1.193, P = 0.0003), diabetes (HR 1.159, P = 0.0050), arterial hypertension (HR 1.129, P = 0.0115), and ischemic vs dilative cardiomyopathy had an increased probability of death or graft failure.

Report From the American Society of Transplantation Conference on Donor Heart Selection in Adult Cardiac Transplantation in the United States

Cardiac transplantation remains the only definitive treatment for end-stage heart failure. Transplantation rates are limited by a shortage of donor hearts. This shortage is magnified because many hearts are discarded because of strict selection criteria and concern for regulatory reprimand for less-than-optimal posttransplant outcomes. There is no standardized approach to donor selection despite proposals to liberalize acceptance criteria. A donor heart selection conference was organized to facilitate discussion and generate ideas for future research. The event was attended by 66 participants from 41 centers with considerable experience in cardiac donor selection. There were state-of-the-art presentations on donor selection, with subsequent breakout sessions on standardizing the process and increasing utilization of donor hearts. Participants debated misconceptions and established agreement on donor and recipient risk factors for donor selection and identified the components necessary for a future donor risk score. Ideas for future initiatives include modification of regulatory practices to consider extended criteria donors when evaluating outcomes and prospective studies aimed at identifying the factors leading to nonacceptance of available donor hearts. With agreement on the most important donor and recipient risk factors, it is anticipated that a consistent approach to donor selection will improve rates of heart transplantation.

Pharmacometrics-based decision tools facilitate mHealth implementation

INTRODUCTION

The healthcare system is experiencing a paradigm shift in delivering its services, evolving from a reactive 'one size-fits-all' structure to a patient-centric model focusing on individualized medicine. This change is driven by scientific progress, including quantitative evaluation and optimization of treatment strategies through pharmacometric approaches, harnessing the power of the digital revolution. Areas covered: This review describes four main steps to apply pharmacometrics-based decision support tools, consisting of validated scientific components, available technical options, consideration of regulatory aspects, and achievement of efficient commercialization. Examples of pharmacometrics-based decision tools that support monitoring of patients and individualization of treatment strategies in neonates, children and adults are presented. Expert commentary: We envision that user-friendly decision support tools will facilitate implementation of mobile health approaches (mHealth) realizing benefits to paediatric and adult patients and their caregivers.