The new heart transplant allocation system: Early observations and mechanical circulatory support considerations

Impact of Left Ventricular Unloading on Outcome of Heart Transplant Bridging With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support in New Allocation Policy

BACKGROUND

The new heart allocation policy places veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO)-supported heart transplant (HT) candidates at the highest priority status. Despite increasing evidence supporting left ventricular (LV) unloading during VA-ECMO, the effect of LV unloading on transplant outcomes following bridging to HT with VA-ECMO remains unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From October 18, 2018 to March 21, 2023, 624 patients on VA-ECMO at the time of HT were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing database and were divided into 2 groups: VA-ECMO alone (N=384) versus VA-ECMO with LV unloading (N=240). Subanalysis was performed in the LV unloading group: Impella (N=106) versus intra-aortic balloon pump (N=134). Recipient age was younger in the VA-ECMO alone group (48 versus 53 years, P=0.018), as was donor age (VA-ECMO alone, 29 years versus LV unloading, 32 years, P=0.041). One-year survival was comparable between groups (VA-ECMO alone, 88.0±1.8% versus LV unloading, 90.4±2.1%; P=0.92). Multivariable Cox hazard model showed LV unloading was not associated with posttransplant mortality after HT (hazard ratio, 0.92; P=0.70). Different LV unloading methods had similar 1-year survival (intra-aortic balloon pump, 89.2±3.0% versus Impella, 92.4±2.8%; P=0.65). Posttransplant survival was comparable between different Impella versions (Impella 2.5, versus Impella CP, versus Impella 5.0, versus Impella 5.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Under the current allocation policy, LV unloading did not impact waitlist outcome and posttransplant survival in patients bridged to HT with VA-ECMO, nor did mode of LV unloading. This highlights the importance of a tailored approach in HT candidates on VA-ECMO, where routine LV unloading may not be universally necessary.

An explainable machine learning approach using contemporary UNOS data to identify patients who fail to bridge to heart transplantation

Background

The use of Intra-aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) and Impella devices as a bridge to heart transplantation (HTx) has increased significantly in recent times. This study aimed to create and validate an explainable machine learning (ML) model that can predict the failure of status two listings and identify the clinical features that significantly impact this outcome.

Methods

We used the UNOS registry database to identify HTx candidates listed as UNOS Status 2 between 2018 and 2022 and supported with either Impella (5.0 or 5.5) or IABP. We used the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm to build and validate ML models. We developed two models: (1) a comprehensive model that included all patients in our cohort and (2) separate models designed for each of the 11 UNOS regions.

Results

We analyzed data from 4,178 patients listed as Status 2. Out of them, 12% had primary outcomes indicating Status 2 failure. Our ML models were based on 19 variables from the UNOS data. The comprehensive model had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (±0.03), with a range between 0.44 (±0.08) and 0.74 (±0.01) across different regions. The models' specificity ranged from 0.75 to 0.96. The top five most important predictors were the number of inotropes, creatinine, sodium, BMI, and blood group.

Conclusion

Using ML is clinically valuable for highlighting patients at risk, enabling healthcare providers to offer intensified monitoring, optimization, and care escalation selectively.

Blood type O heart transplant candidates have longer waitlist time and higher delisting under the new allocation system

OBJECTIVE

Prior studies have examined the effect of blood type on heart transplantation (HTx) waitlist outcomes in cohorts through 2015. We aim to analyze the effect of blood type on contemporary waitlist outcomes with a new allocation system focus.

METHODS

Adults listed for HTx between April 2015 and December 2020 were included. Survival to HTx and waitlist death/deterioration was compared between type O and non-type O candidates using competing risks regression. Donor/recipient ABO compatibility trends were further investigated.

RESULTS

Candidates with blood type O (n = 7509) underwent HTx less frequently than candidates with blood type other than type O (n = 9699) (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.53-0.58) with higher rates of waitlist death/deterioration (sHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.34). Subgroup analyses demonstrated persistence of this trend under the new donor heart allocation system (HTx: sHR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.54-0.62; death/clinical deterioration: sHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.60), especially among those listed at high status (1, 2, or 3) (HTx: sHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.63-0.75; death/deterioration: sHR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.16-2.22). Among those listed at status 3, waitlist death/deterioration was modified by presence of a durable left ventricular assist device (left ventricular assist device: sHR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.58-4.29; no left ventricular assist device: sHR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.28-11.2). Type O donor heart allocation to secondary ABO candidates increased in the new system (14.5% vs 12.0%; P < .01); post-HTx survival remained comparable between recipients with blood type O and non-type O (log-rank P = .07).

CONCLUSIONS

Further logistical considerations are warranted to minimize allocation inequity regarding blood type under the new allocation system.

Current and future options for adult biventricular assistance: a review of literature

In cardiogenic shock various short-term mechanical assistances may be employed, including an Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenator and other non-dischargeable devices. Once hemodynamic stabilization is achieved and the patient evolves towards a persisting biventricular dysfunction or an underlying long-standing end-stage disease is present, aside from Orthotopic Heart Transplantation, a limited number of long-term therapeutic options may be offered. So far, only the Syncardia Total Artificial Heart and the Berlin Heart EXCOR (which is not approved for adult use in the United States unlike in Europe) are available for extensive implantation. In addition to this, the strategy providing two continuous-flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices is still off-label despite its widespread use. Nevertheless, every solution ensures at best a 70% survival rate (reflecting both the severity of the condition and the limits of mechanical support) with patients suffering from heavy complications and a poor quality of life. The aim of the present paper is to summarize the features, implantation techniques, and results of current devices used for adult Biventricular Mechanical Circulatory Support, as well as a glance to future options.

Utilization of the percutaneous left ventricular support as bridge to heart transplantation across the United States: In-depth UNOS database analysis

BACKGROUND

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and Impella device utilization as a bridge to heart transplantation (HTx) have risen exponentially. We aimed to explore the influence of device selection on HTx outcomes, considering regional practice variation.

METHODS

A retrospective longitudinal study was performed on a United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry dataset. We included adult patients listed for HTx between October 2018 and April 2022 as status 2, as justified by requiring IABP or Impella support. The primary end-point was successful bridging to HTx as status 2.

RESULTS

Of 32,806 HTx during the study period, 4178 met inclusion criteria (Impella n = 650, IABP n = 3528). Waitlist mortality increased from a nadir of 16 (in 2019) to a peak of 36 (in 2022) per thousand status 2 listed patients. Impella annual use increased from 8% in 2019 to 19% in 2021. Compared to IABP, Impella patients demonstrated higher medical acuity and lower success rate of transplantation as status 2 (92.1% vs 88.9%, p < 0.001). The IABP:Impella utilization ratio varied widely between regions, ranging from 1.77 to 21.31, with high Impella use in Southern and Western states. However, this difference was not justified by medical acuity, regional transplant volume, or waitlist time and did not correlate with waitlist mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The shift in utilizing Impella as opposed to IABP did not improve waitlist outcomes. Our results suggest that clinical practice patterns beyond mere device selection determine successful bridging to HTx. There is a critical need for objective evidence to guide tMCS utilization and a paradigm shift in the UNOS allocation system to achieve equitable HTx practice across the United States.

The Association of the UNOS Heart Allocation Policy Change With Transplant and Left Ventricular Assist Device Access and Outcomes

In October 2018, the allocation policy for adult orthotopic heart transplant (OHTx) in the United States was changed, with the goal of reducing waitlist mortality and providing broader sharing of donor organs within the United States. This study aimed to assess the association of this policy change with changes in access to OHTx versus left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), overall and in key sociodemographic subgroups, in the United States from 2016 to 2019. We identified all patients receiving OHTx or LVAD between 2016 and 2019 using the National Inpatient Sample. Controlling for medical co-morbidities, prepolicy trends, and within-hospital-year effects, we fit a dynamic logistic regression model to evaluate patient and hospital factors associated with receiving OHTx versus LVAD before versus after policy change. We also examined the frequency of temporary mechanical circulatory support in the same fashion. We identified 2,264 patients who received OHTx and 3,157 who received LVADs during the study period. In its first year of implementation, the United Network for Organ Sharing policy change of 2018 was associated with no overall change utilization of OHTx versus LVAD. In OHTx recipients, the frequency of use of temporary mechanical circulatory support changed from 15.6% in the before period to 42.6% in the after period (p <0.001). Although the policy change was associated with differences in the odds of receiving an OHTx versus LVAD between different regions of the country, there were no significant changes based on age, gender, race/ethnicity, insurance status, or rurality. In conclusion, the United Network for Organ Sharing policy change on access to OHTx was associated with no overall change in OHTx versus LVAD use in its first year of implementation although we observed small changes in relative odds of transplant based on rurality. Shifts in regional allocation were not significant overall, although certain regions appeared to have a relative increase in their use of OHTx.

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.

Extended Support With the Impella 5.5: Transplant, ECMO, and Complications

We report midterm results of Impella 5.5 use with focus placed on bridge-outcomes, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) transition, complications, and risk factors for mortality. A retrospective review of patients implanted with the Impella 5.5 at our medical center was conducted. Forty patients were included with varying bridge strategies. Sixteen (40%) patients were supported for <14 days, 13 (32.5%) for 14-30 days, and 11 (27.5%) for >30 days. Thirty day mortality was 22.5% (9/40). Twenty-five (62.5%) were successfully bridged to transplant or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), while four (10.0%) recovered without the need for any further cardiac support. Five of 11 (60%) patients initially supported with VA-ECMO were either transitioned to durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD; n = 3, 27.3%), transplanted (n = 1, 9.1%), or recovered (n = 1, 9.1%). Of nine patients with >moderate right ventricle (RV) dysfunction, five (55.6%) were successfully bridged to transplant or LVAD. Five (12.5%) patients required interval cannulation to VA-ECMO, often in the setting of RV dysfunction, and all (100%) were successfully transplanted. Lower pulmonary artery (PA) systolic pressure ( P = 0.029), among other factors, was associated with mortality. In summary, the Impella 5.5 may be able to effectively stabilize patients in refractory left ventricular predominant cardiogenic shock for extended durations, allowing time for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and transplant evaluations.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices: practical considerations for all stakeholders

Originally intended for life-saving salvage therapy, the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices has become increasingly widespread in a variety of clinical settings in the contemporary era. Their use as a short-term, prophylactic support vehicle has expanded to include procedures in the catheterization laboratory, electrophysiology suite, operating room and intensive care unit. Accordingly, MCS device design and technology continue to develop at a rapid pace. In this Review, we describe the functionality, indications, management and complications associated with temporary MCS, together with scenario-specific utilization, goal-directed development and bioengineering of future devices. We address various considerations for the use of temporary MCS devices in both prophylactic and rescue scenarios, with input from stakeholders from various cardiovascular specialties, including interventional and heart failure cardiology, electrophysiology, cardiothoracic anaesthesiology, critical care and cardiac surgery.

Addressing sex-based disparities in solid organ transplantation in the United States - a conference report

Solid organ transplantation provides the best treatment for end-stage organ failure, but significant sex-based disparities in transplant access exist. On June 25, 2021, a virtual multidisciplinary conference was convened to address sex-based disparities in transplantation. Common themes contributing to sex-based disparities were noted across kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation, specifically the existence of barriers to referral and wait listing for women, the pitfalls of using serum creatinine, the issue of donor/recipient size mismatch, approaches to frailty and a higher prevalence of allosensitization among women. In addition, actionable solutions to improve access to transplantation were identified, including alterations to the current allocation system, surgical interventions on donor organs, and the incorporation of objective frailty metrics into the evaluation process. Key knowledge gaps and high-priority areas for future investigation were also discussed.

Lack of volume-outcome association in ECMO bridge to heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. As the 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation policy change elevated waitlist status for patients receiving mechanical circulatory support (MCS), we aimed to determine if a center's annual heart transplant volume was associated with ECMO-support duration and posttransplant outcomes.

METHODS

Adults heart transplant candidates between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2021, were isolated in the UNOS database. VA-ECMO use was identified at the time of listing for transplant. Average annual transplant volume was calculated by the center, with stratification as high (≥20 cardiac transplants, high volume center [HVC]) or low (<20 cardiac transplants, low volume center [LVC]) volume centers. Results are reported as mean (interquartile range) or n (%).

RESULTS

In total, 543 patients at HVCs and 275 at LVCs were listed for transplant supported with VA-ECMO. Those listed at HVCs were more likely to be supported by intra-aortic balloon pump (103 [19%] vs. 32 [11.6%], p = .008) and inotropes (267 [49.2%] vs. 106 [38.5%], p = .004) at time of listing. Patients at HVCs received ECMO support for 6 [4-9] days, compared to 8 [4-15] days at low-volume centers (p = .030), and but were cannulated a similar time before listing (2 [1-5] vs. 3 [1-7] days, p = .517). There were no differences in rates of transplant (p = .2126), waitlist mortality (p = .8645), delisting due to clinical deterioration (p = .8419), or recovery (p = .1773) between groups. Among transplanted patients, there were no differences in support duration (6 [4-8] vs. 6 [4-10], p = .187), or time from registration to transplant (5 [2-20] vs. 7 [3-22] days, p = .560). Posttransplant survival did not vary (p = .293).

CONCLUSIONS

LVCs can successfully bridge patients to transplant with VA-ECMO and achieve comparable outcomes to HVCs.

Preoperative Evaluation and Care of Heart Transplant Candidates

Heart transplantation is recommended for patients with advanced heart failure refractory to medical and device therapy, and who do not have absolute contraindications. When patients become eligible for heart transplantation, they undergo comprehensive evaluation and preparation to optimize their posttransplantation outcomes. This review provides an overview of the processes that are employed to enable the candidates to be transplant-ready when donor hearts are available.

A Holistic View of Advanced Heart Failure

Advanced heart failure (HF) may occur at any level of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF). The latter, which is widely utilized for the evaluation of LV systolic performance and treatment guidance of HF patients, is heavily influenced by LV size and geometry. As the accurate evaluation of ventricular systolic function and size is crucial in patients with advanced HF, the LVEF should be supplemented or even replaced by more specific indices of LV function such as the systolic strain and cardiac power output and size such as the LV diastolic diameters and volumes. Conventional treatment (cause eradication, medications, devices) is often poorly tolerated and fails and advanced treatment (mechanical circulatory support [MCS], heart transplantation [HTx]) is required. The effectiveness of MCS is heavily dependent on heart size, whereas HTx which is effective in the vast majority of the cases is limited by the small donor pool. Expanding the MCS indications to include patients with small ventricles as well as the HTx donor pool are major challenges in the management of advanced HF.

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.

Expanding Selection Criteria to Repairable Diseased Hearts to Meet the Demand of Shortage of Donors in Heart Transplantation

Heart transplant surgery is considered the destination therapy for end-stage heart disease. Unfortunately, many patients in the United States of America who are eligible candidates for transplants cannot undergo surgery due to donor shortage. In addition, some donors' hearts are being labeled as unacceptable for transplant surgery because of the rigorous and restricted rules placed on the approval process of using a donor's heart. Over the last few decades, the rising discrepancy between the scarcity of donor hearts and the demand for such organs has led to the discussion of expanding the donor heart selection criteria. A softer view on using marginal hearts for transplants would help those on the waitlist to receive a heart transplant. Marginal hearts that contain the hepatitis c virus (HCV), COVID-19, older age, or repairable heart defects have become viable options to use for a heart transplant. Also, the prioritization based on the new heart allocation system would help efficiently decide which recipients would be the first to get a donor's heart. Recently there has been a consensus to broaden the eligibility of donor's hearts by accepting valvular abnormalities, coronary artery disease, and congenital abnormalities. This review highlights some of those expansions in selection criteria in particular using repairable hearts, which could be fixed in the operating room on the back table before transplantation.

Predicting, Recognizing, and Treating Right Heart Failure in Patients Undergoing Durable LVAD Therapy

Despite advancing technology, right heart failure after left ventricular assist device implantation remains a significant source of morbidity and mortality. With the UNOS allocation policy change, a larger proportion of patients proceeding to LVAD are destination therapy and consist of an overall sicker population. Thus, a comprehensive understanding of right heart failure is critical for ensuring the ongoing success of durable LVADs. The purpose of this review is to describe the effect of LVAD implantation on right heart function, review the diagnostic and predictive criteria related to right heart failure, and discuss the current evidence for management and treatment of post-LVAD right heart failure.

Impact of the heart transplant allocation policy change on inpatient cost of index hospitalization

Background

We sought to determine the financial impact of the United Network for Organ Sharing heart transplant (HT) allocation policy change of October 2018.

Methods

Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample we retrospectively analyzed hospital discharge data between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019. ICD‐10‐CM procedure codes were used to identify hospitalizations of patients undergoing HT as well as the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) during the HT hospitalization. Patients < 18 years old and those with missing data on costs were excluded. The primary outcome was inflation‐adjusted costs. Total costs were inflated to 2019 US dollars.

Results

During the course of the study, temporary MCS increased significantly among 11 380 weighted patients transplanted while mean length of stay (LOS) did not. Mean inflation‐adjusted costs rose about $40k per HT. On univariate analysis, transplantation year, use of temporary MCS and LOS were all significantly associated with increased cost while on multivariate analysis only temporary MCS and LOS were.

Conclusions

The 2018 allocation change has resulted in more expensive inpatient costs for HT correlating with an increase in temporary MCS.

Twelfth Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Report: Readmissions After Left Ventricular Assist Device

The twelfth annual report from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (Intermacs) highlights outcomes for 26 688 continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients over the past decade (2011-2020). In 2020, we observed the largest drop in yearly LVAD implant volumes since the registry's inception, which reflects the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac surgical volumes in the United States. The 2018 heart transplant allocation policy change in the United States continues to affect LVAD implantation volumes and device strategy, with 78.1% of patients now receiving LVAD implants as destination therapy. Despite an older and sicker patient cohort, survival in the recent era (2016-2020) at 1 and 2 years continues to improve at 82.8% and 74.1%. Patient adverse event profile has also improved in the recent era, with significant reductions in stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, infection, and device malfunction/pump thrombosis. Finally, we review the burden of readmissions after LVAD implant and highlight an opportunity to improve patient outcomes by reducing this frequent and vexing problem.

The heart transplant allocation change attenuates but does not eliminate blood group O waitlist outcome disadvantage

Background

Patients with blood group O have historically been disadvantaged in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart transplant allocation system. We sought to determine whether the new UNOS allocation system implemented in 2018 had an impact on waitlist and post‐transplant outcomes among blood groups.

Methods

Using the UNOS database we included all adult patients listed and transplanted with first‐time single‐organ heart transplant between 10/17/15 and 10/1/21. For post‐transplant outcomes, we separately evaluated all adult patients transplanted with the same time‐frame. We used exclusion criteria and censoring to limit biases from changing clinical practices around the allocation change (10/18/2018), and from unequal or inadequate follow‐up. We compared clinical characteristics and outcomes before and after the allocation change among each blood group. Fine‐Gray and Cox regression models were used to estimate the effect of the new allocation system on competing waitlist outcomes‐ transplantation, death‐or‐removal from waitlist‐ and post‐transplant survival, respectively.

Results

Of the 21,565 patients listed for transplantation 14,000 met criteria for waitlist analysis (7,035 in the old system vs. 6,965 in the new), and 7,657 met criteria for post‐transplant analysis (3,519 in the old system vs. 4,138 in the new). Among each blood group, new allocation change was associated with higher transplantation rates lower waitlist days and lower waitlist mortality (except Group AB). However, despite improvements, Group O was still associated with worse waitlist outcomes for each metric compared to non‐O Groups. The new allocation system did not have a significant impact on post‐transplant survival among any blood groups.

Conclusion

Changes in heart transplant allocation have attenuated but not eliminated blood group O disadvantage in access to donor hearts.

Evaluation of donor heart for transplantation

Cardiac transplantation is considered the gold-standard treatment option for patients suffering from end-stage heart failure refractory to maximum medical therapy. A major determinant of graft function and recipient survival is a comprehensive evaluation of the donor allograft. Challenges arise when designing and implementing an evidence-based donor evaluation protocol due to the number of influential donor-specific characteristics and the complex interactions that occur between them. Here, we present our systematic approach to donor evaluation by examining the impact that relevant donor variables have on graft function and recipient outcomes.

Trends in Survival for Pediatric Transplantation

OBJECTIVES

Progress in pediatric transplantation measured in the context of waitlist and posttransplant survival is well documented but falls short of providing a complete perspective for children and their families. An intent-to-treat analysis, in which we measure survival from listing to death regardless of whether a transplant is received, provides a more comprehensive perspective through which progress can be examined.

METHODS

Univariable and multivariable Cox regression was used to analyze factors impacting intent-to-treat survival in 12 984 children listed for heart transplant, 17 519 children listed for liver transplant, and 16 699 children listed for kidney transplant. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to assess change in waitlist, posttransplant, and intent-to-treat survival. Wait times and transplant rates were compared by using χ2 tests.

RESULTS

Intent-to-treat survival steadily improved from 1987 to 2017 in children listed for heart (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-0.97), liver (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.97), and kidney (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99) transplant. Waitlist and posttransplant survival also improved steadily for all 3 organs. For heart transplant, the percentage of patients transplanted within 1 year significantly increased from 1987 to 2017 (60.8% vs 68.7%); however, no significant increase was observed in liver (68.9% vs 72.5%) or kidney (59.2% vs 62.7%) transplant.

CONCLUSIONS

Intent-to-treat survival, which is more representative of the patient perspective than individual metrics alone, steadily improved for heart, liver, and kidney transplant over the study period. Further efforts to maximize the donor pool, improve posttransplant outcomes, and optimize patient care while on the waitlist may contribute to future progress.

Patient selection for heart transplant: balancing risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heart failure incidence continues to rise despite a relatively static number of available donor hearts. Selecting an appropriate heart transplant candidate requires evaluation of numerous factors to balance patient benefit while maximizing the utility of scarce donor hearts. Recent research has provided new insights into refining recipient risk assessment, providing additional tools to further define and balance risk when considering heart transplantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent publications have developed models to assist in risk stratifying potential heart transplant recipients based on cardiac and noncardiac factors. These studies provide additional tools to assist clinicians in balancing individual risk and benefit of heart transplantation in the context of a limited donor organ supply.

SUMMARY

The primary goal of heart transplantation is to improve survival and maximize quality of life. To meet this goal, a careful assessment of patient-specific risks is essential. The optimal approach to patient selection relies on integrating recent prognostication models with a multifactorial assessment of established clinical characteristics, comorbidities and psychosocial factors.

Trends, risk factors, and outcomes of post-operative stroke after heart transplantation: an analysis of the UNOS database

BACKGROUND

Post-operative stroke increases morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery. Data on characteristics and outcomes of stroke after heart transplantation (HTx) are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database from 2009 to 2020 to identify adults who developed stroke after orthotropic HTx. Heart transplant recipients were divided according to the presence or absence of post-operative stroke. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. A total of 25 015 HT recipients were analysed, including 719 (2.9%) patients who suffered a post-operative stroke. The stroke rates increased from 2.1% in 2009 to 3.7% in 2019, and the risk of stroke was higher after the implantation of the new allocation system [odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.06-1.56, P = 0.01]. HTx recipients with post-operative stroke were older (P = 0.008), with higher rates of prior cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (P = 0.004), prior cardiac surgery (P < 0.001), longer waitlist time (P = 0.04), higher rates of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support (P < 0.001), left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) (P < 0.001), mechanical ventilation (P = 0.003), and longer ischaemic time (P < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment for recipient and donor characteristics, age, prior cardiac surgery, CVA, support with LVAD, ECMO, ischaemic time, and mechanical ventilation at the time of HTx were independent predictors of post-operative stroke. Stroke was associated with increased risk of 30 day and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.12-1.99, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Post-operative stroke after HTx is infrequent but associated with higher mortality. Redo sternotomy, LVAD, and ECMO support at HTx are among the risk factors identified.

Concordance of Treatment Effect: An Analysis of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs Database

BACKGROUND

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Intermacs Registry represents a real-world data source of durable, left ventricular assist devices that can address knowledge gaps not informed through randomized clinical trials. We sought to compare survival with contemporary left ventricular assist device technologies using multiple analytic approaches to assess concordance of treatment effects and to validate prior STS Intermacs observations.

METHODS

Patients (aged > 19 years) enrolled into STS Intermacs between August 2017 - June 2019 were stratified by device type (centrifugal device with hybrid levitation [CF-HL] or full magnetic levitation [CF-FML]). The primary outcome was 1-year survival assessed by three statistical methodologies (multivariable regression, propensity score matching, and instrumental variable analysis).

RESULTS

Of 4,448 patients, 2,012 (45.2%) received CF-HL and 2,436 (54.8%) received CF-FML. One-year survival for CF-FML was 88% vs. 79% for CF-HL (overall p < .001), with a hazard ratio for mortality of 3.18 for CF-HL (p<0.0001) after risk adjustment. With propensity score matching (n=1400 each cohort), 1-year survival was 87% for CF-FML vs. 80% for CF-HL, with a hazard ratio of 3.20 for mortality with CF-HL (p<0.0001) after risk adjustment. With an instrumental variable analysis, the probability of receiving CF-HL was associated with a hazard ratio of 3.11 (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Statistical methodology using propensity score matching and instrumental variable analysis increased the robustness of observations derived from real-world data and demonstrates the feasibility of performing comparative effectiveness research using STS Intermacs. These analyses provide additional evidence supporting a survival benefit of CF-FML versus CF-HL.