Ischemic time and patient outcomes after the 2018 UNOS donor heart allocation system change

Outcomes in Heart Transplant Recipients by Bridge to Transplant Strategy When Using the SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System

The last several years have seen a rise in use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to bridge heart transplant recipients. A controlled hypothermic organ preservation system, the SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System (SCTS), was introduced in 2018 and has grown in utilization with reports of improved posttransplant outcomes. The Global Utilization And Registry Database for Improved heArt preservatioN (GUARDIAN)-Heart registry is an international, multicenter registry assessing outcomes after transplant using the SCTS. This analysis examines outcomes in recipients bridged with various MCS devices in the GUARDIAN-Heart Registry. A total of 422 recipients with donor hearts transported using SCTS were included and identified. Durable ventricular assist devices (VADs) were used exclusively in 179 recipients, temporary VADs or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in 197, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in 14 recipients. Average ischemic times were over 3.5 hours in all cohorts. Severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) posttransplant increased across groups (4.5% VAD, 5.1% temporary support, 21.4% ECMO), whereas intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (18.2 days) and total hospital stay (39.4 days) was longer in the ECMO cohort than the VAD and IABP groups. A comparison of outcomes of MCS bridging in SCTS versus traditional ice revealed significantly lower rates of both moderate/severe right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and severe PGD in the SCTS cohort; however, upon propensity matching only the reductions in moderate/severe RV dysfunction were statistically significant. Use of SCTS in transplant recipients with various bridging strategies results in excellent outcomes.

Deceased Organ Donor Management and Organ Distribution From Organ Procurement Organization-Based Recovery Facilities Versus Acute-Care Hospitals

Introduction: Organ recovery facilities address the logistical challenges of hospital-based deceased organ donor management. While more organs are transplanted from donors in facilities, differences in donor management and donation processes are not fully characterized. Research Question: Does deceased donor management and organ transport distance differ between organ procurement organization (OPO)-based recovery facilities versus hospitals? Design: Retrospective analysis of Organ Procurement and Transplant Network data, including adults after brain death in 10 procurement regions (April 2017-June 2021). The primary outcomes were ischemic times of transplanted hearts, kidneys, livers, and lungs. Secondary outcomes included transport distances (between the facility or hospital and the transplant program) for each transplanted organ. Results: Among 5010 deceased donors, 51.7% underwent recovery in an OPO-based recovery facility. After adjustment for recipient and system factors, mean differences in ischemic times of any transplanted organ were not significantly different between donors in facilities and hospitals. Transplanted hearts recovered from donors in facilities were transported further than hearts from hospital donors (median 255 mi [IQR 27, 475] versus 174 [IQR 42, 365], P = .002); transport distances for livers and kidneys were significantly shorter (P < .001 for both). Conclusion: Organ recovery procedures performed in OPO-based recovery facilities were not associated with differences in ischemic times in transplanted organs from organs recovered in hospitals, but differences in organ transport distances exist. Further work is needed to determine whether other observed differences in donor management and organ distribution meaningfully impact donation and transplantation outcomes.

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.