Post-transplant survival after normothermic regional perfusion versus direct procurement and perfusion in donation after circulatory determination of death in heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

Since 2019, the annual transplantation rate of hearts donated following circulatory death (DCD) has increased significantly in the United States. The 2 major heart procurement techniques following circulatory death are direct procurement and perfusion (DPP) and normothermic regional perfusion (NRP). Post-transplant survival for heart recipients has not been compared between these 2 techniques.

METHODS

This observational study uses data on adult heart transplants from donors after circulatory death from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We identified comparable transplant cases across procurement types using propensity-score matching and measured the association between procurement technique and 1-year post-transplant survival using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards model stratefied by matching pairs.

RESULTS

Among 318 DCD heart transplants, 216 (68%) were procured via DPP, and 102 (32%) via NRP. Among 22 transplant centers that accepted circulatory-death donors, 3 used NRP exclusively, and 5 used both procurement techniques. After propensity-score matching on recipient and donor factors, there was no significant difference in 1-year post-transplant survival (93.1% for NRP vs 91.1% for DPP, p = 0.79) between procurement techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

NRP and DPP procurements are associated with similar 1-year post-transplant survival. If NRP is ethically permissible and improves outcomes for abdominal organs, it should be the preferred procurement technique for DCD hearts.

Knowledge gaps in heart and lung donation after the circulatory determination of death: Report of a workshop of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

In a workshop sponsored by the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, experts identified current knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the scientific, conceptual, and ethical understanding of organ donation after the circulatory determination of death and its technologies. To minimize organ injury from warm ischemia and produce better recipient outcomes, innovative techniques to perfuse and oxygenate organs postmortem in situ, such as thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion, are being implemented in several medical centers in the US and elsewhere. These technologies have improved organ outcomes but have raised ethical and legal questions. Re-establishing donor circulation postmortem can be viewed as invalidating the condition of permanent cessation of circulation on which the earlier death determination was made and clamping arch vessels to exclude brain circulation can be viewed as inducing brain death. Alternatively, TA-NRP can be viewed as localized in-situ organ perfusion, not whole-body resuscitation, that does not invalidate death determination. Further scientific, conceptual, and ethical studies, such as those identified in this workshop, can inform and help resolve controversies raised by this practice.

Graft Survival of En Bloc Deceased Donor Kidneys Transplants Compared With Single Kidney Transplants

BACKGROUND

The US Kidney Allocation System allocates en bloc deceased donor kidney grafts from donors <18 kg in sequence A along with single kidney transplants (SKTs) from kidney donor profile index (KDPI) top 20% donors. Although en bloc grafts outperform SKT grafts holding donor weight constant, it is unclear if en bloc grafts from the smallest pediatric donors perform the same as top 20% KDPI SKTs.

METHODS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we compared the donor characteristics and graft survival of en bloc grafts from the smallest donors (<8 kg) and from larger donors (≥8 kg) with SKTs by KDPI sequence for transplants performed in 2021.

RESULTS

Larger donor en blocs had similar 1-y survival to sequence A SKTs estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method (96% versus 96%, P = 0.9), but the smallest donor en blocs had significantly shorter 1-y survival than those SKTs (80% versus 96%, P < 0.01). Using transplants from 2010 to 2012, the smallest donor en blocs had similar 10-y survival to sequence A SKTs (69% versus 64%, P = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that future updates of the Kidney Allocation System should include a score specific to pediatric donors to account for these differences in en bloc graft survival.

Association of preadmission insomnia symptoms with objective in-hospital sleep and clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of preadmission insomnia symptoms among hospitalized patients and assess the association of insomnia symptoms with objective in-hospital sleep and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of medicine inpatients (age ≥ 50, no previously diagnosed sleep disorders). Participants answered the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) questionnaire to assess for preadmission insomnia symptoms (scored 0-28; higher scores suggest more insomnia symptoms). Sleep duration and efficiency were measured with actigraphy. Participants self-reported 30-day postdischarge readmissions and emergency department and/or urgent care visits.

RESULTS

Of 568 participants, 49% had ISI scores suggestive of possible undiagnosed insomnia (ISI ≥ 8). Higher ISI scores were associated with shorter sleep duration [β = -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.1 to -1.1, P = .001] and lower sleep efficiency (β = -0.39, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.15, P = .001). When adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and comorbidities, higher ISI scores were associated with longer length of stay (incidence rate ratio 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, P = .011), increased risk of 30-day readmission (odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07, P = .018), and increased risk of 30-day emergency department or urgent care visit (odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.07, P = .043).

CONCLUSIONS

Among medicine inpatients, there was a high prevalence of preadmission insomnia symptoms suggestive of possible undiagnosed insomnia. Participants with higher ISI scores slept less with lower sleep efficiency during hospitalization. Higher ISI scores were associated with longer length of stay, increased risk of a 30-day postdischarge readmission, and increased risk of a 30-day postdischarge emergency department or urgent care visit.

CITATION

Neborak JM, Press VG, Parker WF, et al. Association of preadmission insomnia symptoms with objective in-hospital sleep and clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients. J Clin Sleep Med. 2024;20(5):681-687.

Risk Factors for Hospital Readmission in Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the rates, causes, or risk factors for hospital readmission among patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). We investigated the prevalence, features, and comorbidities of subjects hospitalized with ILD and their subsequent re-hospitalizations in this retrospective study.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of subjects enrolled in the University of Chicago ILD Natural History registry was conducted. Demographic data, comorbidities, and timing and cause of subsequent hospitalizations were collected from the medical record. The primary outcome was time to first readmission via a cause-specific Cox hazards model with a sensitivity analysis with the Fine-Gray cumulative hazard model; the secondary outcome was the number of hospitalizations per subject via a Poisson multivariable model.

RESULTS

Among 1,796 patients with ILD, 443 subjects were hospitalized, with 978 total hospitalizations; 535 readmissions were studied, 282 (53%) for a respiratory indication. For the outcome of time to readmission, Black race was the only subject characteristic associated with an increased hazard of readmission in the Cox model (hazard ratio 1.50, P = .03) while Black race, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and sarcoidosis were associated with increased hazard of readmission in the Fine-Gray model. Black race, female sex, atrial fibrillation, obstructive lung disease, and pulmonary hypertension were associated with an increased number of hospitalizations in the Poisson model.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that hospital readmission from any cause was a common occurrence in subjects with ILD. Further efforts to improve quality of life among these subjects could focus on risk scores for readmission, mitigating racial health disparities, and treatment of comorbidities.

Association of Race and Ethnicity With High Longevity Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation Under the US Kidney Allocation System

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

The US Kidney Allocation System (KAS) prioritizes candidates with ≤20% Estimated Post-Transplant Survival (EPTS) for high longevity kidneys defined by a ≤20% Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI). Use of EPTS in the KAS deprioritizes candidates with older age, diabetes, and longer dialysis durations. We assessed whether this use also disadvantages racial-ethnic minority candidates, who are younger but more likely to have diabetes and longer durations of kidney failure requiring dialysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

& Participants: Adult candidates for and recipients of kidney transplantation represented in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from January 2015 through December 2020.

EXPOSURE

Race and ethnicity.

OUTCOMES

Age-adjusted assignment to ≤20% EPTS, transplantation of a ≤20% KDPI kidney, and post-transplant survival in longevity matched recipients by racial-ethnicity.

ANALYTIC APPROACH

Multivariable logistic regression, Fine-Gray competing risks survival analysis, and Kaplan-Meier and Cox Proportional Hazards methods.

RESULTS

The cohort included 199,444 candidates (7% Asian, 29% Black, 19% Hispanic/Latino, 43% White) listed for deceased donor kidney transplantation. Non-White candidates had significantly higher rates of diabetes, longer dialysis duration, and were younger than White candidates. Adjusted for age, Asian, Black, and Hispanic/Latino candidates had significantly lower odds of having a ETPS score ≤20% (OR 0.86, [0.81, 0.91], 0.52 [0.50, 0.54], and 0.49, [0.47, 0.51]), and were less likely to receive a ≤20% KDPI kidney (subHR 0.70 [0.66, 0.75], 0.89 [0.87, 0.92], and 0.73 [0.71, 0.76]), compared to White candidates. Among recipients with ≤20% EPTS scores transplanted with a ≤20% KDPI deceased donor kidney, Asian and Hispanic recipients had lower post-transplant mortality (HR 0.45 [0.27, 0.77], and 0.63 [0.47, 0.86]) and Black recipients had higher but not statistically significant post-transplant mortality (HR 1.22 [0.99, 1.52]) compared to White recipients.

LIMITATIONS

Provider reported race-ethnicity data and 5-year post transplant follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The US kidney allocation system is less likely to identify racial-ethnic minority candidates as having a ≤20% EPTS score which triggers allocation of high longevity deceased donor kidneys. These findings should inform the OPTN about how to remedy racial/ethnic disparities introduced through KAS's current approach of allocating allografts with longer predicted longevity to recipients with longer estimated post-transplant survival.

Hospital Policy Variation in Addressing Decisions to Withhold and Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatment

BACKGROUND

Sociodemographic disparities in physician decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment exist. Little is known about the content of hospital policies that guide physicians involved in these decisions.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the prevalence of US hospitals with policies that address withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment; how do these policies approach ethically controversial scenarios; and how do these policies address sociodemographic disparities in decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This national cross-sectional survey assessed the content of hospital policies addressing decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. We distributed the survey electronically to American Society for Bioethics and Humanities members between July and August 2023 and descriptively analyzed responses.

RESULTS

Among 93 respondents from hospitals or hospital systems representing all 50 US states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, 92% had policies addressing decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Hospitals varied in their stated guidance, permitting life-sustaining treatment to be withheld or withdrawn in cases of patient or surrogate request (82%), physiologic futility (81%), and potentially inappropriate treatment (64%). Of the 8% of hospitals with policies that addressed patient sociodemographic disparities in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment, these policies provided opposing recommendations to either exclude sociodemographic factors in decision-making or actively acknowledge and incorporate these factors in decision-making. Only 3% of hospitals had policies that recommended collecting and maintaining information about patients for whom life-sustaining treatment was withheld or withdrawn that could be used to identify disparities in decision-making.

INTERPRETATION

Although most surveyed US hospital policies addressed withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, these policies varied widely in criteria and processes. Surveyed policies also rarely addressed sociodemographic disparities in these decisions.

Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders by COVID-19 Status Throughout the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, whether performing CPR on patients with COVID-19 would be effective or increase COVID-19 transmission to health care workers was unclear.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Did the prevalence of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders by COVID-19 status change over the first year of the pandemic as risks such as COVID-19 transmission to health care workers improved?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study assessed DNR orders for all adult patients admitted to ICUs at two academic medical centers in Chicago, IL, between April 2020 and April 2021. DNR orders by COVID-19 status were assessed using risk-adjusted mixed-effects logistic regression and propensity score matching by patient severity of illness.

RESULTS

The study population of 3,070 critically ill patients were 46% Black, 53% male, with median age (interquartile range [IQR]) 63 (50-73) years. Eighteen percent were COVID-19 positive and 27% had a DNR order. Black and Latinx patients had higher absolute rates of DNR orders than White patients (30% vs 29% vs 23%; P = .006). After adjustment for patient characteristics, illness severity, and hospital location, DNR orders were more likely in patients with COVID-19 in the nonpropensity score-matched (n = 3,070; aOR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.64-2.38) and propensity score-matched (n = 1,118; aOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.45-2.52) cohorts. The prevalence of DNR orders remained higher for patients with COVID-19 than patients without COVID-19 during all months of the study period (difference in prevalence over time, P = .751).

INTERPRETATION

In this multihospital study, DNR orders remained persistently higher for patients with COVID-19 vs patients without COVID-19 with similar severity of illness during the first year of the pandemic. The specific reasons why DNR orders remained persistently elevated for patients with COVID-19 should be assessed in future studies, because these changes may continue to affect COVID-19 patient care and outcomes.

Development and Validation of a Risk Score Predicting Death Without Transplant in Adult Heart Transplant Candidates

Importance

The US heart allocation system prioritizes medically urgent candidates with a high risk of dying without transplant. The current therapy-based 6-status system is susceptible to manipulation and has limited rank ordering ability.

Objective

To develop and validate a candidate risk score that incorporates current clinical, laboratory, and hemodynamic data.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A registry-based observational study of adult heart transplant candidates (aged ≥18 years) from the US heart allocation system listed between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, split by center into training (70%) and test (30%) datasets. Adult candidates were listed between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A US candidate risk score (US-CRS) model was developed by adding a predefined set of predictors to the current French Candidate Risk Score (French-CRS) model. Sensitivity analyses were performed, which included intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (VAD) in the definition of short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for the US-CRS. Performance of the US-CRS model, French-CRS model, and 6-status model in the test dataset was evaluated by time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for death without transplant within 6 weeks and overall survival concordance (c-index) with integrated AUC.

Results

A total of 16 905 adult heart transplant candidates were listed (mean [SD] age, 53 [13] years; 73% male; 58% White); 796 patients (4.7%) died without a transplant. The final US-CRS contained time-varying short-term MCS (ventricular assist-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or temporary surgical VAD), the log of bilirubin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, the log of B-type natriuretic peptide, albumin, sodium, and durable left ventricular assist device. In the test dataset, the AUC for death within 6 weeks of listing for the US-CRS model was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83), for the French-CRS model was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.67-0.76), and 6-status model was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.62-0.73). Overall c-index for the US-CRS model was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73-0.80), for the French-CRS model was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.65-0.73), and 6-status model was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71). Classifying IABP and percutaneous VAD as short-term MCS reduced the effect size by 54%.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this registry-based study of US heart transplant candidates, a continuous multivariable allocation score outperformed the 6-status system in rank ordering heart transplant candidates by medical urgency and may be useful for the medical urgency component of heart allocation.

The Accuracy of Nonstandardized MELD/PELD Score Exceptions in the Pediatric Liver Allocation System

BACKGROUND

In the United States, over half of pediatric candidates receive exceptions and status upgrades that increase their allocation model of end-stage liver disease/pediatric end-stage liver disease (MELD/PELD) score above their laboratory MELD/PELD score. We determined whether these "nonstandardized" MELD/PELD exceptions accurately depict true pretransplant mortality risk.

METHODS

Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified pediatric candidates (<18 y of age) with chronic liver failure added to the waitlist between June 2016 and September 2021 and estimated all-cause pretransplant mortality with mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards models that treated allocation MELD/PELD and exception status as time-dependent covariates. We also estimated concordance statistics comparing the performance of laboratory MELD/PELD with allocation MELD/PELD. We then compared the proportion of candidates with exceptions before and after the establishment of the National Liver Review Board.

RESULTS

Out of 2026 pediatric candidates listed during our study period, 403 (19.9%) received an exception within a week of listing and 1182 (58.3%) received an exception before delisting. Candidates prioritized by their laboratory MELD/PELD scores had an almost 9 times greater risk of pretransplant mortality compared with candidates who received the same allocation score from an exception (hazard ratio 8.69; 95% confidence interval, 4.71-16.03; P < 0.001). The laboratory MELD/PELD score without exceptions was more accurate than the allocation MELD/PELD score with exceptions (Harrell's c-index 0.843 versus 0.763). The proportion of patients with an active exception at the time of transplant decreased significantly after the National Liver Review Board was implemented (67.4% versus 43.4%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonstandardized exceptions undermine the rank ordering of pediatric candidates with chronic liver failure.

Pharmacotherapy and pulmonary fibrosis risk after SARS-CoV-2 infection: a prospective nationwide cohort study in the United States

Background

Pulmonary fibrosis is characterized by lung parenchymal destruction and can increase morbidity and mortality. Pulmonary fibrosis commonly occurs following hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 infection. As there are medications that modify pulmonary fibrosis risk, we investigated whether distinct pharmacotherapies (amiodarone, cancer chemotherapy, corticosteroids, and rituximab) are associated with differences in post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis incidence.

Methods

We used the National COVID-19 Cohort Collaboration (N3C) Data Enclave, which aggregates and harmonizes COVID-19 data across the United States, to assess pulmonary fibrosis incidence documented at least 60 days after COVID-19 diagnosis among adults hospitalized between January 1st, 2020 and July 6th, 2022 without pre-existing pulmonary fibrosis. We used propensity scores to match pre-COVID-19 drug-exposed and unexposed cohorts (1:1) based on covariates with known influence on pulmonary fibrosis incidence, and estimated the association of drug exposure with risk for post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis. Sensitivity analyses considered pulmonary fibrosis incidence documented at least 30- or 90-days post-hospitalization and pulmonary fibrosis incidence in the COVID-19-negative N3C population.

Findings

Among 5,923,394 patients with COVID-19, we analyzed 452,951 hospitalized adults, among whom pulmonary fibrosis incidence was 1.1 per 100-person-years. 277,984 hospitalized adults with COVID-19 were included in our primary analysis, among whom all drug exposed cohorts were well-matched to unexposed cohorts (standardized mean differences <0.1). The post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 2.5 (95% CI 1.2-5.1, P = 0.01) for rituximab, 1.6 (95% CI 1.3-2.0, P < 0.0001) for chemotherapy, and 1.2 (95% CI 1.0-1.3, P = 0.02) for corticosteroids. Amiodarone exposure had no significant association with post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis (IRR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.1, P = 0.24). In sensitivity analyses, pre-COVID-19 corticosteroid use was not consistently associated with post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis. In the COVID-19 negative hospitalized population (n = 1,240,461), pulmonary fibrosis incidence was lower overall (0.6 per 100-person-years) and for patients exposed to all four drugs.

Interpretation

Recent rituximab or cancer chemotherapy before COVID-19 infection in hospitalized patients is associated with increased risk for post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis.

Funding

The analyses described in this publication were conducted with data or tools accessed through the NCATS N3C Data Enclave https://covid.cd2h.org and N3C Attribution & Publication Policy v1.2-2020-08-25b supported by NIHK23HL146942, NIHK08HL150291, NIHK23HL148387, NIHUL1TR002389, NCATSU24 TR002306, and a SECURED grant from the Walder Foundation/Center for Healthcare Delivery Science and Innovation, University of Chicago. WFP received a grant from the Greenwall Foundation. This research was possible because of the patients whose information is included within the data and the organizations (https://ncats.nih.gov/n3c/resources/data-contribution/data-transfer-agreement-signatories) and scientists who have contributed to the on-going development of this community resource (https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa196).

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.

Disparities in Unilateral Do Not Resuscitate Order Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVES

A unilateral do-not-resuscitate (UDNR) order is a do-not-resuscitate order placed using clinician judgment which does not require consent from a patient or surrogate. This study assessed how UDNR orders were used during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

We analyzed a retrospective cross-sectional study of UDNR use at two academic medical centers between April 2020 and April 2021.

SETTING

Two academic medical centers in the Chicago metropolitan area.

PATIENTS

Patients admitted to an ICU between April 2020 and April 2021 who received vasopressor or inotropic medications to select for patients with high severity of illness.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The 1,473 patients meeting inclusion criteria were 53% male, median age 64 (interquartile range, 54-73), and 38% died during admission or were discharged to hospice. Clinicians placed do not resuscitate orders for 41% of patients ( n = 604/1,473) and UDNR orders for 3% of patients ( n = 51/1,473). The absolute rate of UDNR orders was higher for patients who were primary Spanish speaking (10% Spanish vs 3% English; p ≤ 0.0001), were Hispanic or Latinx (7% Hispanic/Latinx vs 3% Black vs 2% White; p = 0.003), positive for COVID-19 (9% vs 3%; p ≤ 0.0001), or were intubated (5% vs 1%; p = 0.001). In the base multivariable logistic regression model including age, race/ethnicity, primary language spoken, and hospital location, Black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-4.9) and primary Spanish language (aOR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.1-9.4) had higher odds of UDNR. After adjusting the base model for severity of illness, primary Spanish language remained associated with higher odds of UDNR order (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7-4.7).

CONCLUSIONS

In this multihospital study, UDNR orders were used more often for primary Spanish-speaking patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may be related to communication barriers Spanish-speaking patients and families experience. Further study is needed to assess UDNR use across hospitals and enact interventions to improve potential disparities.

Fair Allocation of Scarce CAR T-Cell Therapies for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

This Viewpoint discusses the unfairness of current CAR T-cell therapy allocation practices and offers alternative methods to more fairly allocate therapy.

The Accuracy of Initial U.S. Heart Transplant Candidate Rankings

BACKGROUND

The U.S. heart allocation system ranks candidates with only 6 treatment-based categorical "statuses" and ignores many objective patient characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the effectiveness of the standard 6-status ranking system and several novel prediction models in identifying the most urgent heart transplant candidates.

METHODS

The primary outcome was death before receipt of a heart transplant. The accuracy of the 6-status system was evaluated using Harrell's C-index and log-rank tests of Kaplan-Meier estimated survival by status for candidates listed postpolicy (November 2018 to March 2020) in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data set. The authors then developed Cox proportional hazards models and random survival forest models using prepolicy data (2010-2017). The predictor variables included age, diagnosis, laboratory measurements, hemodynamics, and supportive treatment at the time of listing. The performance of these models was compared with the candidate's 6-status ranking in the postpolicy data.

RESULTS

Since policy implementation, the 6-status ranking at listing has had moderate ability to rank-order candidates (C-index: 0.67). Statuses 4 and 6 had no significant difference in survival (P = 0.80), and status 5 had lower survival than status 4 (P < 0.001). Novel multivariable prediction models derived with prepolicy data ranked candidates correctly more often than the 6-status rankings (Cox proportional hazards model C-index: 0.76; random survival forest model C-index: 0.74). Objective physiologic measurements, such as glomerular filtration rate, had high variable importance.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment-based 6-status heart allocation system has only moderate ability to rank-order candidates by medical urgency. Predictive models that incorporate physiologic measurements can more effectively rank-order heart transplant candidates by urgency.

Accuracy of models to prognosticate survival after surgery for pancreatic cancer in the era of neoadjuvant therapy

BACKGROUND

Outcomes for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remain difficult to prognosticate. Multiple models attempt to predict survival following the resection of PDAC, but their utility in the neoadjuvant population is unknown. We aimed to assess their accuracy among patients that received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

METHODS

We performed a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of patients who received NAC and underwent resection of PDAC. Two prognostic systems were evaluated: the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Nomogram (MSKCCPAN) and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. Discrimination between predicted and actual disease-specific survival was assessed using the Uno C-statistic and Kaplan-Meier method. Calibration of the MSKCCPAN was assessed using the Brier score.

RESULTS

A total of 448 patients were included. There were 232 (51.8%) females, and the mean age was 64.1 years (±9.5). Most had AJCC Stage I or II disease (77.7%). For the MSKCCPAN, the Uno C-statistic at 12-, 24-, and 36-month time points was 0.62, 0.63, and 0.62, respectively. The AJCC system demonstrated similarly mediocre discrimination. The Brier score for the MSKCCPAN was 0.15 at 12 months, 0.26 at 24 months, and 0.30 at 36 months, demonstrating modest calibration.

CONCLUSIONS

Current survival prediction models and staging systems for patients with PDAC undergoing resection after NAC have limited accuracy.

Dose optimisation and scarce resource allocation: two sides of the same coin

OBJECTIVE

A deep understanding of the relationship between a scarce drug's dose and clinical response is necessary to appropriately distribute a supply-constrained drug along these lines.

SUMMARY OF KEY DATA

The vast majority of drug development and repurposing during the COVID-19 pandemic - an event that has made clear the ever-present scarcity in healthcare systems -has been ignorant of scarcity and dose optimisation's ability to help address it.

CONCLUSIONS

Future pandemic clinical trials systems should obtain dose optimisation data, as these appear necessary to enable appropriate scarce resource allocation according to societal values.

Errors in Converting Principles to Protocols: Where the Bioethics of U.S. Covid-19 Vaccine Allocation Went Wrong

For much of 2021, allocating the scarce supply of Covid-19 vaccines was the world's most pressing bioethical challenge, and similar challenges may recur for novel therapies and future vaccines. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) identified three fundamental ethical principles to guide the process: maximize benefits, promote justice, and mitigate health inequities. We argue that critical components of the recommended protocol were internally inconsistent with these principles. Specifically, the ACIP violated its principles by recommending overly broad health care worker priority in phase 1a, using being at least seventy-five years of age as the only criterion to identify individuals at high risk of death from Covid-19 during phase 1b, failing to recommend place-based vaccine distribution, and implicitly endorsing first-come, first-served allocation. More rigorous empirical work and the development of a complete ethical framework that recognizes trade-offs between principles may have prevented these mistakes and saved lives.

Comparison of Accuracy of Estimation of Cardiac Output by Thermodilution Versus the Fick Method Using Measured Oxygen Uptake

The thermodilution (TD) method is routinely used for the estimation of cardiac output (Q̇_C). However, its accuracy, compared with the gold-standard Fick method, where systemic oxygen uptake (V̇O₂) is directly measured, and Q̇_C calculated from V̇O₂ and the arterio-venous oxygen difference ("direct" Fick), has not been well validated. The present study determined the agreement between TD and Fick methods in consecutive patients who underwent pulmonary artery catheterization for a broad range of clinical conditions. This is a subanalysis of a previous study comparing the indirect versus Fick method based on a prospective, consecutive patient registry of 253 patients who underwent pulmonary artery catheterization for clinical indications at a single center between 1999 and 2005. We included patients that had an estimation of Q̇_C both by the Fick method using measured V̇O₂ by exhaled gas analyses from timed Douglas bag collections and by TD. Cardiac index was classified as low when ≤2.2 L/min/m² or normal when >2.2 L/min/m². The median (25th, 75th percentile) age of the cohort was 59 (50,67) years, and 50% were female. A total of 43.5% had normal left ventricular function by ventriculography, and 25.7% had ischemic heart disease. Median overall Fick and TD Q̇_C were 4.4 (3.5, 5.5) and 4.3 (3.7, 5.2) L/min, respectively (p = 0.04). The median absolute percent error between Fick and TD Q̇_C was 17.5 (7.7, 28.4)%, with a typical error of 0.88 L/min (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 to 0.95). Median absolute percent error was comparable in the low (n = 118) and normal Q̇_CI (n = 135) groups (16.9% vs 18.9%, respectively, p = 0.88). typical error was 0.3 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.33) and 0.49 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.55) L/min/m² in that comparison. Percent error >25% between Fick and TD Q̇_C was observed in over 30% of patients. Overall, Fick and TD Q̇_C modestly correlated (R_s = 0.64, p <0.001), with a nondirectional error introduced by TD Q̇_C [mean bias of 0.21 (-2.2, 2.7) L/min]. There was poor agreement between TD and the gold-standard Fick method, highlighting the limitations of making clinical decisions based on TD.

Predicting survival after surgery for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Testing accuracy of current models

e16286

Background: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains highly morbid, and outcomes are difficult to prognosticate. Multiple models have also been developed to predict survival following surgical resection of PDAC, but their clinical utility remains unclear. This study aims to determine the accuracy of these algorithms for predicting PDAC survival. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis using a de-identified dataset of patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and underwent surgical resection of PDAC at four academic medical centers across the United States between 2010 and 2020. For this analysis the prognostic accuracy of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Nomogram (MSKCCPAN) and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system were evaluated. For the MSKCCPAN, the prognostic index (PI) for each patient was calculated using the nomogram’s underlying Cox model. The PI was then used as input for the model’s survival function, which calculates the probability of DSS at 12-, 24-, and 36-month intervals. For the AJCC staging system, we assessed statistical discrimination between stage and DSS. We evaluated the concordance between predicted and actual DSS of both algorithms using the Uno C-statistic. Results: A total of 303 patients with complete information were included in the study, with 155 (51.2%) female patients and a mean age of 65.0 years (SD, 9.2 years). At the time of surgery, 47 (15.5%) patients had AJCC Stage IA disease, 45 (14.9%) had Stage IB, 49 (16.2%) had Stage IIA, 105 (34.6%) had Stage IIB, and 57 (18.8%) had Stage III. The median follow-up time of the cohort was 37.7 months (IQR, 16.4-70.7). One hundred eleven (36.6%) patients were alive at last follow-up, while 155 (51.2%) patients had died of disease. Thirty-seven (12.2%) patients died of another cause. The Kaplan-Meier estimated 12-, 24-, and 36-month DSS of the cohort was 74.3% (95% CI, 69.1-79.9), 46.6% (95% CI, 40.3-53.9) and 39.3% (95% CI, 32.9-46.9), respectively. The MSKCCPAN-predicted DSS at 12, 24, and 36 months was 78.1% (95% CI, 76.1-80.0), 56.4% (95% CI, 53.7-59.0), and 45.0% (95%0.781 CI, 42.3-47.6). For the MSKCCPAN, the calculated Uno C-statistic was 0.61 at 12 months and 0.62 at both 24 and 36 months. For the AJCC staging system, the Uno C-statistic was 0.61 at 12 months and 0.60 at both 24 months and 36 months. Conclusions: The present analysis suggests that concordance of current predictive models and staging systems with real world survival in patients with PDAC undergoing surgical resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy has limited accuracy. Improving risk stratification of patients with PDAC will afford greater opportunities for tailoring patient selection, precision medicine initiatives, and trial design. There is an urgent need to develop novel models that better prognosticate outcomes following surgical resection of PDAC.

An updated estimate of posttransplant survival after implementation of the new donor heart allocation policy

The Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) implemented a new heart allocation policy on October 18, 2018. Published estimates of lower posttransplant survival under the new policy in cohorts with limited follow-up may be biased by informative censoring. Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate 1-year posttransplant survival for pre-policy (November 1, 2016, to October 31, 2017) and post-policy cohorts (November 1, 2018, to October 31, 2019) with follow-up through March 2, 2021. We adjusted for changes in recipient population over time with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. To demonstrate the effect of inadequate follow-up on post-policy survival estimates, we repeated the analysis but only included follow-up through October 31, 2019. Transplant programs transplanted 2594 patients in the pre-policy cohort and 2761 patients in the post-policy cohort. With follow-up through March 2, 2021, unadjusted 1-year posttransplant survival was 90.6% (89.5%-91.8%) in the pre-policy cohort and 90.8% (89.7%-91.9%) in the post-policy cohort (adjusted HR = 0.93 [0.77-1.12]). Ignoring follow-up after October 31, 2019, the post-policy estimate was biased downward (1-year: 82.2%). When estimated with adequate follow-up, 1-year posttransplant survival under the new heart allocation policy was not significantly different.

Clinician Ethical Perspectives on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Practice

PURPOSE

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an expensive and scarce life sustaining treatment provided to certain critically ill patients. Little is known about the informed consent process for ECMO or clinician viewpoints on ethical complexities related to ECMO in practice.

METHODS

We sent a cross-sectional survey to all departments providing ECMO within 7 United States hospitals in January 2021. One clinician from each department completed the 42-item survey representing their department.

RESULTS

Fourteen departments within 7 hospitals responded (response rate 78%, N = 14/18). The mean time spent consenting patients or surrogate decision-makers for ECMO varied, from 7.5 minutes (95% CI 5-10) for unstable patients to 20 minutes (95% CI 15-30) for stable patients (p = 0.0001). Few clinician respondents (29%) report patients or surrogate decision-makers always possess informed consent for ECMO. Most departments (92%) have absolute exclusion criteria for ECMO such as older age (43%, cutoffs ranging from 60-75 years), active malignancy (36%), and elevated body mass index (29%). A significant minority of departments (29%) do not always offer the option to withdraw ECMO to patients or surrogate decision-makers. For patients who cannot be liberated from ECMO and are ineligible for heart or lung transplant, 36% of departments would recommend the patient be removed from ECMO and 64% would continue ECMO support.

CONCLUSION

Adequate informed consent for ECMO is a major ethical challenge, and the content of these discussions varies. Use of categorical exclusion criteria and withdrawal of ECMO if a patient cannot be liberated from it differ among departments and institutions.

Association of Zip Code Vaccination Rate With COVID-19 Mortality in Chicago, Illinois

Importance

There has been large geographic inequity in vaccination coverage across Chicago, Illinois, with higher vaccination rates in zip codes with residents who predominantly have high incomes and are White.

Objective

To determine the association between inequitable zip code-level vaccination coverage and COVID-19 mortality in Chicago.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used Chicago Department of Public Health vaccination and mortality data and Cook County Medical Examiner mortality data from March 1, 2020, through November 6, 2021, to assess the association of COVID-19 mortality with zip code-level vaccination rates. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2021, to April 13, 2022.

Exposures

Zip code-level first-dose vaccination rates before the Alpha and Delta waves of COVID-19.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was deaths from COVID-19 during the Alpha and Delta waves. The association of a marginal increase in zip code-level vaccination rate with weekly mortality rates was estimated with a mixed-effects Poisson regression model, and the total number of preventable deaths in the least vaccinated quartile of zip codes was estimated with a linear difference-in-difference design.

Results

The study population was 2 686 355 Chicago residents in 52 zip codes (median [IQR] age 34 [32-38] years; 1 378 658 [51%] women; 773 938 Hispanic residents [29%]; 783 916 non-Hispanic Black residents [29%]; 894 555 non-Hispanic White residents [33%]). Among residents in the least vaccinated quartile, 80% were non-Hispanic Black, compared with 8% of residents identifying as non-Hispanic Black in the most vaccinated quartile (P < .001). After controlling for age distribution and recovery from COVID-19, a 10-percentage point increase in zip code-level vaccination 6 weeks before the peak of the Alpha wave was associated with a 39% lower relative risk of death from COVID-19 (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52-0.72]). A 10-percentage point increase in zip code vaccination rate 6 weeks before the peak of the Delta wave was associated with a 24% lower relative risk of death (IRR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66-0.87]). The difference-in-difference estimate was that 119 Alpha wave deaths (72% [95% CI, 63%-81%]) and 108 Delta wave deaths (75% [95% CI, 66%-84%]) might have been prevented in the least vaccinated quartile of zip codes if it had had the vaccination coverage of the most vaccinated quartile.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that low zip code-level vaccination rates in Chicago were associated with more deaths during the Alpha and Delta waves of COVID-19 and that inequitable vaccination coverage exacerbated existing racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 deaths.

Assessing the accuracy of the lung allocation score

BACKGROUND

The United States (US) Lung Allocation Score (LAS) relies on the performance of 2 survival models that estimate waitlist and post-transplant survival. These models were developed using data from 2005 to 2008, and it is unknown if they remain accurate.

METHODS

We performed an observational cohort study of US lung transplantation candidates and recipients greater than 12 years of age between February 19, 2015 and February 19, 2019. We evaluated the LAS waitlist and post-transplant models with the concordance probability estimate and by comparing predicted vs observed 1-year restricted mean survival times by risk decile. We then compared a nonparametric estimate of the observed LAS with the predicted LAS for each percentile of recipients.

RESULTS

The waitlist model ranked candidates (N = 11,539) in the correct risk order 72% of the time (95% CI 71%-73%), and underestimated candidate one-year survival by 136 days for the highest risk decile (p < 0.001). The post-transplant model ranked recipients (N = 9,377) in the correct risk order 57% of the time (95% CI 55-58%), and underestimated recipient one-year survival by 70 days for the highest risk decile (p < 0.001). Overall, the LAS at transplant explained only 56% of the variation in observed outcomes, and was increasingly inaccurate at higher predicted values.

CONCLUSIONS

The waitlist and the post-transplant models that constitute the LAS are inaccurate, limiting the ability of the system to rank candidates on the waitlist in the correct order. The LAS should therefore be updated and the underlying models should be modernized.

Ethics of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation under Conventional and Crisis Standards of Care

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a form of life support for cardiac and/or pulmonary failure with unique ethical challenges compared to other forms of life support. Ethical challenges with ECMO exist when conventional standards of care apply, and are exacerbated during periods of absolute ECMO scarcity when "crisis standards of care" are instituted. When conventional standards of care apply, we propose that it is ethically permissible to withhold placing patients on ECMO for reasons of technical futility or when patients have terminal, short-term prognoses that are untreatable by ECMO. Under crisis standards of care, it is ethically permissible to broaden exclusionary criteria to also withhold ECMO from patients who have a low likelihood of recovery, to maximize the overall number of lives saved. Unilateral withdrawal of ECMO against a patient's preferences is unethical under conventional standards of care, but is ethical under crisis standards of care to increase access to ECMO to others in society. ECMO should only be rationed when true scarcity exists, and allocation protocols should be transparent to the public. When rationing must occur under crisis standards of care, it is imperative that oversight bodies assess for inequities in the allocation of ECMO and make frequent changes to improve any inequities.

Between-center variation in high-priority listing status under the new heart allocation policy

Under the new US heart allocation policy, transplant centers listed significantly more candidates at high priority statuses (Status 1 and 2) with mechanical circulatory support devices than expected. We determined whether the practice change was widespread or concentrated among certain transplant centers. Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we used mixed-effect logistic regression to compare the observed listings of adult, heart-alone transplant candidates post-policy (December 2018 to February 2020) to seasonally matched pre-policy cohort (December 2016 to February 2018). US transplant centers (N = 96) listed similar number of candidates in each policy period (4472 vs. 4498) but listed significantly more at high priority status (25.5% vs. 7.0%, p < .001) than expected. Adjusted for candidate characteristics, 91 of 96 (94.8%) centers listed significantly more candidates at high-priority status than expected, with the unexpected increase varying from 4.8% to 50.4% (interquartile range [IQR]: 14.0%-23.3%). Centers in OPOs with highest Status 1A transplant rate pre-policy were significantly more likely to utilize high-priority status under the new policy (OR: 9.73, p = .01). The new heart allocation policy was associated with widespread and significantly variable changes in transplant center practice that may undermine the effectiveness of the new system.

Variation in COVID-19 Resource Allocation Protocols and Potential Implementation in the Chicago Metropolitan Area

BACKGROUND

Scarce resource allocation policies vary across the United States. Little is known about regional variation in resource allocation protocols and variation in their application. We sought to evaluate how Covid-19 scarce resource allocation policies vary throughout the Chicago metropolitan area and whether there are differences in policy application within hospitals when prioritizing hypothetical patients who need critical care resources.

METHODS

Two cross-sectional surveys were distributed to Chicago metropolitan area hospital representatives and triage officers. Survey responses and categorical variables are described by frequency of occurrence. Intra- and interhospital variation in ranking of hypothetical patients was assessed using Fleiss's Kappa coefficients.

RESULTS

Eight Chicago-area hospitals responded to the survey assessing scarce resource allocation protocols (N = 8/18, response rate 44%). For hospitals willing to describe their ventilator allocation protocol (N = 7), most used the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (N = 6/7, 86%) and medical comorbidities (N = 4/7, 57%) for initial scoring of patients. A majority gave priority in initial scoring to pre-defined groups (N = 5/7, 71%), all discussed withdrawal of mechanical ventilation for adult patients (N = 7/7, 100%), and a minority had exclusion criteria (N = 3/7, 43%). Forty-nine triage officers from nine hospitals responded to the second survey (N = 9/10 hospitals, response rate 90%). Their rankings of hypothetical patients showed only slight agreement amongst all hospitals (Kappa 0.158) and fair agreement within two hospitals with the most respondents (Kappa 0.21 and 0.25). Almost half used tiebreakers to rank patients (N = 23/49, 47%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although most respondents from Chicago-area hospitals described policies for resource allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the substance and application of these protocols varied. There was little agreement when prioritizing hypothetical patients to receive scarce resources, even among people from the same hospital. Variations in resource allocation protocols and their application could lead to inequitable distribution of resources, further exacerbating community distrust and disparities in health.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2021.1983667.

Hospital-Level Variation in Death for Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19

RATIONALE

Variation in hospital mortality has been described for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the factors that explain these differences remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to utilize a large, nationally representative dataset of critically ill adults with COVID-19 to determine which factors explain mortality variability.

METHODS

In this multicenter cohort study, we examined adults hospitalized in intensive care units with COVID-19 at 70 United States hospitals between March and June 2020. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. We examined patient-level and hospital-level variables. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with interhospital variation. The median odds ratio (OR) was calculated to compare outcomes in higher- vs. lower-mortality hospitals. A gradient boosted machine algorithm was developed for individual-level mortality models.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 4,019 patients were included, 1537 (38%) of whom died by 28 days. Mortality varied considerably across hospitals (0-82%). After adjustment for patient- and hospital-level domains, interhospital variation was attenuated (OR decline from 2.06 [95% CI, 1.73-2.37] to 1.22 [95% CI, 1.00-1.38]), with the greatest changes occurring with adjustment for acute physiology, socioeconomic status, and strain. For individual patients, the relative contribution of each domain to mortality risk was: acute physiology (49%), demographics and comorbidities (20%), socioeconomic status (12%), strain (9%), hospital quality (8%), and treatments (3%).

CONCLUSION

There is considerable interhospital variation in mortality for critically ill patients with COVID-19, which is mostly explained by hospital-level socioeconomic status, strain, and acute physiologic differences. Individual mortality is driven mostly by patient-level factors. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

The Use of Slow Codes and Medically Futile Codes in Practice

CONTEXT

Slow codes, which occur when clinicians symbolically appear to conduct advanced cardiac life support but do not provide full resuscitation efforts, are ethically controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the use of slow codes in practice and their association with clinicians' attitudes and moral distress.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey at Rush University and University of Chicago in January 2020. Participants included physician trainees, attending physicians, nurses, and advanced practice providers who care for critically ill patients.

RESULTS

Of the 237 respondents to the survey (31% response rate, n = 237/753), almost half (48%) were internal medicine residents (46% response rate, n = 114/246). Over two-thirds of all respondents (69%) reported caring for a patient where a slow code was performed, with a mean of 1.3 slow codes (SD 1.7) occurring in the past year per participant. A narrow majority of respondents (52%) reported slow codes are ethical if the code is medically futile. Other respondents (46%) reported slow codes are not ethical, with 19% believing no code should be performed and 28% believing a full guideline consistent code should be performed. Most respondents reported moral distress when being required to run (75%), do chest compressions for (80%), or witness (78%) a cardiac resuscitation attempt they believe to be medically futile.

CONCLUSION

Slow codes occur in practice, even though many clinicians ethically disagree with their use. The use of cardiac resuscitation attempts in medically futile situations can cause significant moral distress to medical professionals who agree or are forced to participate in them.

Evaluation of 4Ts score inter-rater agreement in patients undergoing evaluation for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

The American Society of Hematology and American College of Chest Physicians heparin-induced thrombocytopenia guidelines recommend calculation of a pretest probability score prior to performing laboratory testing, and the 4Ts score is commonly used. Inter-rater agreement of the 4Ts score has been evaluated, but limited data are available regarding the reliability of the 4Ts score when performed by nonexpert clinicians. The purpose of this study was to Compare 4Ts scores calculated by medical teams to an expert. A single-center observational study was conducted in patients evaluated for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia over 24 months. The primary outcome was difference in mean 4Ts score calculated by the medical team compared with an expert. Secondary outcomes included inter-rater agreement in risk category assignment and the negative predictive value (NPV) of the 4Ts score. The mean total 4Ts score was significantly higher when calculated by the medical team compared with expert (4.16 ± 1.41 versus 3.42 ± 1.53; P < 0.001). There was slight agreement in risk category assignment (Cohen κ coefficient = 0.164; P = 0.005). The NPV of the 4Ts score was 0.949 (95% confidence interval 0.891-1.000) when calculated by the medical team and 0.927 (95% confidence interval 0.869-0.984) when calculated by expert. Total 4Ts scores calculated by the medical team were significantly higher with only slight inter-rater agreement compared with expert. The NPV of the 4Ts score when calculated by nonexperts may be lower than previously reported. The recommendation to forgo laboratory testing for low 4Ts score patients may need to be revisited.

Accuracy of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score for In-Hospital Mortality by Race and Relevance to Crisis Standards of Care

IMPORTANCE

Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) are guidelines for rationing health care resources during public health emergencies. The CSC adopted by US states ration intensive care unit (ICU) admission using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, which is used to compare expected in-hospital mortality among eligible patients. However, it is unknown if Black and White patients with equivalent SOFA scores have equivalent in-hospital mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether reliance on SOFA is associated with bias against Black patients in CSC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study was conducted using data from the eICU Collaborative Research Database of patients admitted to 233 US ICUs in 2014 to 2015. Included individuals were Black and White adult patients in the ICU, who were followed up to hospital discharge. Data were analyzed from May 2020 through April 2021.

EXPOSURE

SOFA scores at ICU admission.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Hierarchical logistic regression with hospital fixed effects was used to measure the interaction between race and SOFA as a factor associated with in-hospital mortality, as well as the odds of death among Black and White patients with equivalent priority for resource allocation according to the SOFA-based ranking rules of 3 statewide CSC (denoted A, B, and C) under shortage conditions that were severe (ie, only patients with the highest priority would be eligible for allocation), intermediate (ie, patients in the highest 2 tiers would be eligible for allocation), or low (ie, only patients with the lowest priority would be at risk of exclusion).

RESULTS

Among 111 885 ICU encounters representing 95 549 patients, there were 16 688 encounters with Black patients (14.9%) and 51 464 (46.0%) encounters with women and the mean (SD) age was 63.3 (16.9) years. The median (interquartile range) SOFA score was not statistically significantly different between Black and White patients (4 [2-6] for both groups; P = .19), but mortality was lower among Black individuals compared with White individuals with equivalent SOFA scores (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P < .001). This was associated with lower mortality among Black patients compared with White patients prioritized for resource allocation in 3 CSC under shortage conditions that were severe (system A: OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.74; P < .001; system B: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78; P < .001; system C: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.80; P < .001), intermediate (system A: OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.80; P < .001; system B: OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001; system C: OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001), and low (system A: OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001; system C: OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92; P < .001; not applicable for system B, which had fewer tiers). When SOFA-based ranking rules were adjusted for Black patients to simulate equitable allocation based on observed mortality, the proportion upgraded to higher priority ranged from 379 Black patient encounters (2.3%) in low shortage conditions to 2601 Black patient encounters (15.6%) in severe shortage conditions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that SOFA scores were associated with overestimated mortality among Black patients compared with White patients, and this was associated with a structural disadvantage for Black patients in CSC allocation systems. These findings suggest that guidelines should be revised to correct this inequity and alternative methods should be developed for more equitable triage.

Practice Changes at U.S. Transplant Centers After the New Adult Heart Allocation Policy

BACKGROUND

In October 2018, the U.S. heart allocation system expanded the number of priority "status" tiers from 3 to 6 and added cardiogenic shock requirements for some heart transplant candidates listed with specific types of treatments.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the impact of the new policy on the treatment practices of transplant centers.

METHODS

Initial listing data on all adult heart candidates listed from December 1, 2017 to April 30, 2019 were collected from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. The status-qualifying treatments (or exception requests) and hemodynamic values at listing of a post-policy cohort (December 2018 to April 2019) were compared with a seasonally matched pre-policy cohort (December 2017 to April 2018). Candidates in the pre-policy cohort were reclassified into the new priority system statuses by using treatment, diagnosis, and hemodynamics.

RESULTS

Comparing the post-policy cohort (N = 1,567) with the pre-policy cohort (N = 1,606), there were significant increases in listings with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (+1.2%), intra-aortic balloon pumps (+ 4 %), and exceptions (+ 12%). Listings with low-dose inotropes (-18%) and high-dose inotropes (-3%) significantly decreased. The new priority status distribution had more status 2 (+14%) candidates than expected and fewer status 3 (-5%), status 4 (- 4%) and status 6 (-8%) candidates than expected (p values <0.01 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

After implementation of the new heart allocation policy, transplant centers listed more candidates with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, intra-aortic balloon pumps, and exception requests and fewer candidates with inotrope therapy than expected, thus leading to significantly more high-priority status listings than anticipated. If these early trends persist, the new allocation system may not function as intended.

COVID-19 Among African Americans: An Action Plan for Mitigating Disparities

As the COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded across the United States, troubling disparities in mortality have emerged between different racial groups, particularly African Americans and Whites. Media reports, a growing body of COVID-19-related literature, and long-standing knowledge of structural racism and its myriad effects on the African American community provide important lenses for understanding and addressing these disparities.However, troubling gaps in knowledge remain, as does a need to act. Using the best available evidence, we present risk- and place-based recommendations for how to effectively address these disparities in the areas of data collection, COVID-19 exposure and testing, health systems collaboration, human capital repurposing, and scarce resource allocation.Our recommendations are supported by an analysis of relevant bioethical principles and public health practices. Additionally, we provide information on the efforts of Chicago, Illinois' mayoral Racial Equity Rapid Response Team to reduce these disparities in a major urban US setting.

Variation in Ventilator Allocation Guidelines by US State During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, there may be too few ventilators to meet medical demands. It is unknown how many US states have ventilator allocation guidelines and how these state guidelines compare with one another.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the number of publicly available US state guidelines for ventilator allocation and the variation in state recommendations for how ventilator allocation decisions should occur and to assess whether unique criteria exist for pediatric patients.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review evaluated publicly available guidelines about ventilator allocation for all states in the US and in the District of Columbia using department of health websites for each state and internet searches. Documents with any discussion of a process to triage mechanical ventilatory support during a public health emergency were screened for inclusion. Articles were excluded if they did not include specific ventilator allocation recommendations, were in draft status, did not include their state department of health, or were not the most up-to-date guideline. All documents were individually assessed and reassessed by 2 independent reviewers from March 30 to April 2 and May 8 to 10, 2020.

FINDINGS

As of May 10, 2020, 26 states had publicly available ventilator guidelines, and 14 states had pediatric guidelines. Use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score in the initial rank of adult patients was recommended in 15 state guidelines (58%), and assessment of limited life expectancy from underlying conditions or comorbidities was included in 6 state guidelines (23%). Priority was recommended for specific groups in the initial evaluation of patients in 6 states (23%) (ie, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah). Many states recommended exclusion criteria in adult (11 of 26 states [42%]) and pediatric (10 of 14 states [71%]) ventilator allocation. Withdrawal of mechanical ventilation from a patient to give to another if a shortage occurs was discussed in 22 of 26 adult guidelines (85%) and 9 of 14 pediatric guidelines (64%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that although allocation guidelines for mechanical ventilatory support are essential in a public health emergency, only 26 US states provided public guidance on how this allocation should occur. Guidelines among states, including adjacent states, varied significantly and could cause inequity in the allocation of mechanical ventilatory support during a public health emergency, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Bundled Consent in US Intensive Care Units

BACKGROUND

Bundled consent, the practice of obtaining anticipatory consent for a predefined set of intensive care unit procedures, increases the rate of informed consent conversations and incorporation of patients' wishes into medical decision-making without sacrificing patients' or surrogates' understanding. However, the adoption rate for this practice in academic and nonacademic centers in the United States is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the national prevalence of use of bundled consent in adult intensive care units and opinions related to bundled consent.

METHODS

A random sample of US hospitals with medical/surgical intensive care units was selected from the AHA [American Hospital Association] Guide. One intensive care unit provider (bedside nurse, nurse manager, or physician) from each hospital was asked to self-reportuse of per-procedure consent versus bundled consent, consent rate for intensive care unit procedures, and opinions about bundled consent.

RESULTS

Of the 238 hospitals contacted, respondents from 100 (42%) completed the survey; 94% of respondents were nurses. The prevalence of bundled consent use was 15% (95% CI, 9%-24%). Respondents using per-procedure consent were more likely than those using bundled consent to self-report performing invasive procedures without consent. Users of bundled consent unanimously recommended the practice, and 49% of respondents using per-procedure consent reported interest in implementing bundled consent.

RESULTS

Bundled consent use is uncommon in academic and nonacademic intensive care units, most likely because of conflicting evidence about the effect on patients and surrogate decision makers. Future work is needed to determine if patients, family members, and providers prefer bundled consent over per-procedure consent.

Epistemic Authority and Trust in Shared Decision Making About Organ Transplantation

Patient epistemic authority acknowledges respect for a patient's knowledge claims, an important manifestation of patient autonomy that facilitates shared decision making in medicine. Given the scarcity of deceased donor organs, transplantation programs state that patient promises of compliance cannot be taken at face value and exclude candidates deemed untrustworthy. This article argues that transplant programs frequently lack the data to make this utilitarian calculation accurately, with the result that, in practice, the psychosocial evaluation of potential transplant candidates is discriminatory and unfair. Historically excluded candidates, such as patients suffering from alcohol use, have turned out to benefit highly from transplantation. Transplant programs should tend to trust patients when they claim to be good potential organ stewards, thereby respecting patient autonomy, advancing justice, and saving more lives.