Elective or emergency heart transplantation: Cost comparison in a single center

Heart transplantation as a rescue strategy for patients with refractory electrical storm

AIMS

Heart transplantation (HT) can be proposed as a therapeutic strategy for patients with severe refractory electrical storm (ES). Data in the literature are scarce and based on case reports. We aimed at determining the characteristics and survival of patients transplanted for refractory ES.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients registered on HT waiting list during the following days after ES and eventually transplanted, from 2010 to 2021, were retrospectively included in 11 French centres. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Forty-five patients were included [82% men; 55.0 (47.8-59.3) years old; 42.2% and 26.7% non-ischaemic dilated or ischaemic cardiomyopathies, respectively]. Among them, 42 (93.3%) received amiodarone, 29 received (64.4%) beta blockers, 19 (42.2%) required deep sedation, 22 had (48.9%) mechanical circulatory support, and 9 (20.0%) had radiofrequency catheter ablation. Twenty-two patients (62%) were in cardiogenic shock. Inscription on wait list and transplantation occurred 3.0 (1.0-5.0) days and 9.0 (4.0-14.0) days after ES onset, respectively. After transplantation, 20 patients (44.4%) needed immediate haemodynamic support by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). In-hospital mortality rate was 28.9%. Predictors of in-hospital mortality were serum creatinine/urea levels, need for immediate post-operative ECMO support, post-operative complications, and surgical re-interventions. One-year survival was 68.9%.

CONCLUSION

Electrical storm is a rare indication of HT but may be lifesaving in those patients presenting intractable arrhythmias despite usual care. Most patients can be safely discharged from hospital, although post-operative mortality remains substantial in this context of emergency transplantation. Larger studies are warranted to precisely determine those patients at higher risk of in-hospital mortality.

Heart Transplantation, Either Alone or Combined With Liver and Kidney, a Viable Treatment Option for Selected Patients With Severe Cardiac Amyloidosis

Heart transplantation in cardiac amyloidosis (CA) patients is possible and generally considered for transplantation if other organs are not affected. In this study, we aimed to describe and assess outcome in patients following heart transplantations at our CA referral center.

Methods

We assessed all CA patients that had heart transplantations at our center between 2005 and 2018. Patients with New York Heart Association status 3 out of 4, with poor short-term prognosis due to heart failure, despite treatment, and without multiple myeloma, systemic disease, severe neuropathic/digestive comorbidities, cancer, or worsening infections were eligible for transplantation. Hearts were transplanted by bicaval technique. Standard induction and immunosuppressive therapies were used. Survival outcome of CA patients after transplantation was compared with recipients with nonamyloid pathologies in France.

Results

Between 2005 and 2018, 23 CA patients had heart transplants: 17 (74%) had light chain (light chain amyloidosis [AL]) and 6 (26%) had hereditary transthyretin (hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis [ATTRv]) CA. Also, 13 (57%) were male, and the mean age at diagnosis was 56.5 y (range, 47.7-62.8). Among AL patients, 13 had heart-only and 5 had heart-kidney transplantations. Among ATTRv patients, 1 had heart-only and 5 had heart-liver transplantations. The 1-y survival rate after transplantation was 78%, 70% with AL, and 100% with ATTRv. At 2 y, 74% were alive: 65% with AL and 100% with ATTRv.

Conclusion

After heart transplantation, French CA and nonamyloid patients have similar survival outcomes. Among CA patients, ATTRv patients have better prognosis than those with AL, possibly due to the combined heart-liver transplantation. Selected CA patients should be considered for heart transplantations.

Elective versus nonelective brain tumor resections: a 5-year propensity score matching cost comparison analysis

OBJECTIVE

Elective surgical cases generally have lower costs, higher profit margins, and better outcomes than nonelective cases. Investigating the differences in cost and profit between elective and nonelective cases would help hospitals in planning strategies to withstand financial losses due to potential pandemics. The authors sought to evaluate the exact cost and profit margin differences between elective and nonelective supratentorial tumor resections at a single institution.

METHODS

The authors collected economic analysis data in all patients who underwent supratentorial tumor resection at their institution between January 2014 and December 2018. The patients were grouped into elective and nonelective cases. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for heterogeneity of baseline characteristics between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were 143 elective cases and 232 nonelective cases over the 5 years. Patients in the majority of elective cases had private insurance and in the majority of nonelective cases the patients had Medicare/Medicaid (p < 0.01). The total charges were significantly lower for elective cases ($168,800.12) compared to nonelective cases ($254,839.30, p < 0.01). The profit margins were almost 6 times higher for elective than for nonelective cases ($13,025.28 vs $2,128.01, p = 0.04). After propensity score matching, there was still a significant difference between total charges and total cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective supratentorial tumor resections were associated with significantly lower costs with shorter lengths of stay while also being roughly 6 times more profitable than nonelective cases. These findings may help future planning for hospital strategies to survive financial losses during future pandemics that require widespread cancellation of elective cases.

High Lung Transplant Center Volume Is Associated With Increased Survival in Hospitalized Patients

BACKGROUND

The lung allocation score (LAS) was designed to optimize the use of pulmonary allografts based on anticipated pretransplant survival and posttransplant outcome. Hospital admission status, not included in the LAS, has not been comprehensively investigated with regard to organ allocation. The objective of this study was to determine whether pretransplant hospital admission status was independently associated with posttransplant mortality and whether high center volume was associated with improved survival in that cohort.

METHODS

All consecutive adult lung transplants provided by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients were retrospectively reviewed (from 2007 to 2017). Group stratification was performed based on admission status at the time of transplantation. A Cox proportional hazard regression was used to determine independent associations with posttransplant mortality.

RESULTS

During the study period, 3747 of 18,416 recipients (20%) were admitted to the hospital at the time of transplantation. Compared with nonadmitted recipients, LAS were significantly higher and waitlist times significantly shorter. Admitted recipients had higher rates of prolonged mechanical ventilation, higher rates of posttransplant dialysis, and longer posttransplant lengths of stay. Pretransplant admission to a low-volume center conferred significantly worse survival compared with nonadmitted patients, and high-volume centers were independently associated with improved survival compared with low-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital admission status is associated with increased posttransplant mortality independent of the LAS and the factors from which it is calculated. However, adjusted survival analysis demonstrates that admission to a high-volume center appears to be independently associated with improved survival compared with low-volume centers.

Utilizing the index for mortality prediction after cardiac transplantation risk score to predict hospital resource consumption

OBJECTIVE

The index for mortality prediction after cardiac transplantation (IMPACT) risk score incorporates 12 preoperative recipient-specific variables, and has been validated as an accurate predictor of short- and long-term mortality after orthotopic heart transplantation (OHTx). We believe it can also be used to predict hospital costs, and we hypothesize that higher preoperative IMPACT risk scores are associated with increased hospital resource consumption.

METHODS

All OHTx patients ≥18 years of age at our institution were reviewed from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2014. Total index hospitalization costs post-transplant were extracted and presented in 2014 consumer price index inflation-adjusted US dollars. Patients were stratified into quartiles (Q) according to IMPACT risk scores. Logarithmic transformation normalized cost data, and linear regression assessed for correlation. A comparison of cost between Q of IMPACT risk score was performed using rank-sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-six (n = 356) OHTx were performed during the study period. The median IMPACT score for the cohort was five (interquartile range [IQR] 3-6). Eight (2.2%) patients died within 30-days and 1-year Kaplan-Meier survival was 88.3%. The median length of stay (LOS) was 16 (IQR 14-24) days. The median hospital cost for index admission was $222 200 (IQR:$169 200-$313 700). Median LOS was longer in Q4 vs Q1 (18 days vs 15 days, P = .01) and index hospital costs in Q4 were significantly higher compared to Q1 patients ($280 400 vs $205 000, P < .01). There was a significant positive correlation between IMPACT risk score and cost (regression coefficient .04, P < .01).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study in adult cardiac transplantation to identify a positive correlation between hospital cost and recipient risk using the IMPACT risk score. Cost and resource consumption for the index admission after OHTx were significantly higher in the highest IMPACT risk Q compared with patients in the lowest Q.