Discrepancies in access and institutional risk tolerance in heart transplantation: A national open cohort study

Heart Transplant Waitlist Outcomes and Wait Time by Center Volume in the Pre-2018 Allocation Change Era

Although the transplant outcomes of centers are heavily monitored and compared, with a particular link between posttransplant outcomes and center volume demonstrated, little data exist comparing waitlist outcomes. Here, we explored waitlist outcomes by transplant center volume. We performed a retrospective analysis of adults listed for primary heart transplantation (HTx) from 2008 to 2018 using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Transplant centers were split into low (<10 HTx/year), medium (10-30 HTx/year), and high (>30 HTx/year) volume, and waitlist outcomes were compared. Of the 35,190 patients included in our study, 23,726 (67.4%) underwent HTx, 4,915 (14.0%) died or deteriorated before receiving HTx, 1,356 (3.9%) were delisted due to recovery, and 1,336 (3.8%) underwent left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. High-volume centers had higher rates of survival to transplant (71.3% vs. 60.6% for low-volume centers and 64.9% for medium-volume centers), and low rates of death or deterioration (12.6% vs. 14.6% for low-volume centers and 15.1% for medium-volume centers). Listing at a low-volume center was independently associated with death or delisting before HTx (HR 1.18, p = 0.007), whereas listing at a high-volume center (HR 0.86; p < 0.001) and prelisting LVAD (HR 0.67, p < 0.001) were protective. Death or delisting before HTx was lowest for patients listed in higher volume centers.

Trends and Outcomes of Cardiac Transplantation in the Lowest Urgency Candidates

Background Due to discrepancies between donor supply and recipient demand, the cardiac transplantation process aims to prioritize the most medically urgent patients. It remains unknown how recipients with the lowest medical urgency compare to others in the allocation process. We aimed to examine differences in clinical characteristics, organ allocation patterns, and outcomes between cardiac transplantation candidates with the lowest and highest medical urgency. Methods and Results We performed a retrospective analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Patients listed for cardiac transplantation between January 2011 and May 2020 were stratified according to status at time of transplantation. Baseline recipient and donor characteristics, waitlist survival, and post-transplantation outcomes were compared in the years before and after the 2018 allocation system change. Lower urgency patients in the old system were older (58.5 vs. 56 years) and more likely female (54.4% vs. 23.8%) compared to the highest urgency patients, and these trends persisted in the new system (p<0.001, all). Donors for the lowest urgency patients were more likely older, female, or have a history of CMV, hepatitis C, or diabetes (p<0.01, all). The lowest urgency patients had longer waitlist times, and under the new allocation system received organs from shorter distances with decreased ischemic times (178 vs. 269 miles, 3.1 vs 3.5 hours, p<0,001, all). There was no difference in post-transplantation survival (p<0.01, all). Conclusions Patients transplanted as lower urgency receive hearts from donors with additional comorbidities compared to higher urgency patients, but outcomes are similar at one year.

Allograft discard risk index for heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

The numberof patients awaiting heart transplantation (HTx) substantially exceeds the number of donor hearts transplanted each year, yet nearly 65% of eligible donor hearts are discarded rather than transplanted.

METHODS

Deceased organ donors listed within the UNOS Deceased Donor Database between 2010 and 2020 were reviewed. Those greater than 10 years old and consented for heart donation were included and randomly separated into training (n = 48 435) and validation (n = 24 217) cohorts. A discard risk index (DSRI) was created using the results of univariable and multivariable analyses. Discard data were assessed at DSRI value deciles, and stratum-specific likelihood ratio (SSLR) analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival function were used for mortality data.

RESULTS

Factors associated with higher DSRI values included donor age > 45, LVEF, HBV-core antibodies, hypertension, and diabetes. The DSRI C-statistic was .906 in the training cohort and .904 in the validation cohort. The DSRI did not reliably predict 30-day or 1-year mortality after transplantation (C-statistic .539 and .532, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The factors leading to heart allograft discard are not correlated to the same degree with post-transplant outcomes. This suggests that optimizing utilization of certain allografts with slightly higher risk of discard could increase the heart donor pool with limited impact on posttransplant mortality.