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

Status 2 upgrade indication impacts posttransplant mortality in patients bridged with intraaortic balloon pump in the new heart allocation system

To evaluate outcomes of patients undergoing heart transplants (HTs) using an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) under exception status. Adult patients supported by an IABP who underwent HT between November 18, 2018, and December 31, 2020, as documented in the United Network for Organ Sharing, were included. Patients were stratified according to requests for exception status. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to look for differences in survival between groups. A total of 1284 patients were included; 492 (38.3%) were transplanted with an IABP under exception status. Exception status patients had higher body mass index, were more likely to be Black, and had longer waitlist times. Exception status patients received organs from younger donors, had a shorter ischemic time, and had a higher frequency of sex mismatch. The 1-year posttransplant survival was 93% for the nonexception and 88% for the exception IABP patients (hazard ratio: 1.85 [95% confidence interval: 1.12-2.86, P = .006]). The most common reason for requesting an exception status was inability to meet blood pressure criteria for extension (37% of patients). The most common reason for an extension request for an exception status was right ventricular dysfunction (24%). IABP patients transplanted under exception status have an increased 1-year mortality rate posttransplant compared with those without exception status.

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.

New UNOS allocation system associated with no added benefit in waitlist outcomes and worse post-transplant survival in heart-kidney patients

BACKGROUND

The 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart transplant policy change (PC) sought to improve waitlist risk stratification to decrease waitlist mortality and promote geographically broader sharing for high-acuity patients awaiting heart transplantation. Our analysis sought to determine the effect of the UNOS PC on outcomes in patients waiting for, or who have received, a heart-kidney transplantation.

METHODS

We analyzed adult (≥18 years old), first-time, heart-only and heart-kidney transplant candidates and recipients from the UNOS Registry. Patients were divided into pre-PC (PRE: October 18, 2016-May 30, 2018) and post-PC (POST: October 18, 2018-May 30, 2020) groups for comparison. Competing risks analysis (subdistribution and cause-specific hazards analyses) was performed to assess for differences in waitlist death/deterioration or heart transplantation. One-year post-transplant survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox analyses. We included an interaction term (policy era × heart ± kidney) in our analyses to evaluate the effect of PC on outcomes in heart-kidney patients.

RESULTS

One-year post-transplant survival was similar (p = 0.83) for PRE heart-kidney and heart-only recipients, but worse (p < 0.001) for POST heart-kidney vs heart-only recipients. There was a policy-era interaction between heart-kidney and heart-only recipients (HR 1.92[1.04,3.55], p = 0.038) indicating a detrimental effect of policy on 1-year survival in POST vs PRE heart-kidney recipients. No added beneficial effect of PC on waitlist outcomes in heart-kidney vs heart-only candidates was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no added policy-era benefit on waitlist outcomes for heart-kidney candidates when compared to heart-only candidates. POST heart-kidney recipients experienced worse 1-year survival compared to PRE heart-kidney recipients with no policy effect on heart-only recipients.

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.

Association of high-priority exceptions with waitlist mortality among heart transplant candidates

BACKGROUND

The US heart allocation system ranks candidates using six categorical status levels. Transplant programs can request exceptions to increase a candidate's status level if they believe their candidate has the same medical urgency as candidates who meet the standard criteria for that level. We aimed to determine if exception candidates have the same medical urgency as standard candidates.

METHODS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we constructed a longitudinal waitlist history dataset of adult heart-only transplant candidates listed between October 18, 2018 and December 1, 2021. We estimated the association between exceptions and waitlist mortality with a mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards model that treated status and exceptions as time-dependent covariates.

RESULTS

Out of 12,458 candidates listed during the study period, 2273 (18.2%) received an exception at listing and 1957 (15.7%) received an exception after listing. After controlling for status, exception candidates had approximately half the risk of waitlist mortality as standard candidates (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.41, 0.73], p < .001). Exceptions were associated with a 51% lower risk of waitlist mortality among Status 1 candidates (HR 0.49, 95% CI [0.27, 0.91], p = .023) and a 61% lower risk among Status 2 candidates (HR 0.39, 95% CI [0.24, 0.62], p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Under the new heart allocation policy, exception candidates had significantly lower waitlist mortality than standard candidates, including exceptions for the highest priority statuses. These results suggest that candidates with exceptions, on average, have a lower level of medical urgency than candidates who meet standard criteria.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support Use and Clinical Outcomes of Simultaneous Heart/Kidney Transplant Recipients in the Pre- and Post-heart Allocation Policy Change Eras

BACKGROUND

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices (intra-aortic balloon pump; Impella 2.5, CP, 5.0; venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) increased significantly across the United States for heart transplant candidates after the allocation policy change. Whether this practice change also affected simultaneous heart-kidney (SHK) candidates and recipient survival is understudied.

METHODS

We used the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database to identify adult SHK recipients between January 2010 and March 2022. The population was stratified into pre- and post-heart allocation change cohorts. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to compare 1-y survival rates. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate the effect of allocation period on patient survival. Recipient outcomes bridged with eligible tMCS devices were compared in the post-heart allocation era. In a separate analysis, SHK waitlist mortality was evaluated between the allocation eras.

RESULTS

A total of 1548 SHK recipients were identified, and 1102 were included in the final cohort (534 pre-allocation and 568 post-allocation change). tMCS utilization increased from 17.9% to 51.6% after the allocation change, with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use rising most significantly. However, 1-y post-SHK survival remained unchanged in the full cohort (log-rank P  = 0.154) and those supported with any of the eligible tMCS devices. In a separate analysis (using a larger cohort of all SHK listings), SHK waitlist mortality at 1 y was significantly lower in the current allocation era ( P  = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the remarkable increase in tMCS use in SHK candidates after the heart allocation change, 1 y posttransplant survival remained unchanged. Further studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-ups are needed to confirm these findings.

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.

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.