Search

BACKGROUND: In 2018, an algorithm-based allocation system for heart transplantation (HT) was implemented in France. Its effect on access to HT of patients with rare causes of heart failure (HF) has not been assessed. METHODS: In this national study, including adults listed for HT between 2018 and 2020, we analyzed waitlist and posttransplant outcomes of candidates with rare causes of HF (restrictive cardiomyopathy [RCM], hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and congenital heart disease). The primary end point was death on the waitlist or delisting for clinical deterioration. Secondary end points included access to HT and posttransplant mortality. The cumulative incidence of waitlist mortality estimated with competing risk analysis and incidence of transplantation were compared between diagnosis groups. The association of HF cause with outcomes was determined by Fine-Gray or Cox models. RESULTS: Overall, 1604 candidates were listed for HT. At 1 year postlisting, 175 patients met the primary end point and 1040 underwent HT. Candidates listed for rare causes of HF significantly differed in baseline characteristics and had more frequent score exceptions compared with other cardiomyopathies (31.3%, 32.0%, 36.4%, and 16.7% for patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, RCM, congenital heart disease, and other cardiomyopathies). The cumulative incidence of death on the waitlist and probability of HT were similar between diagnosis groups (P =0.17 and 0.40, respectively). The adjusted risk of death or delisting for clinical deterioration did not significantly differ between candidates with rare and common causes of HF (subdistribution hazard ratio (HR): hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.19–1.38]; P =0.18; RCM, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.42–2.58]; P =0.94; congenital heart disease, 1.82 [95% CI, 0.78–4.26]; P =0.17). Similarly, the access to HT did not significantly differ between causes of HF (hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.92–1.51]; P =0.19; RCM: HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.90–1.58]; P =0.23; congenital heart disease: HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.53–1.09]; P =0.14). RCM was an independent risk factor for 1-year posttransplant mortality (HR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.06–4.24]; P =0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows equitable waitlist outcomes among HT candidates whatever the indication for transplantation with the new French allocation scheme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluate 18-FDG positron emission tomography (PET) diagnostic capabilities for cancer screening in heart transplant patients. We conducted an anonymized retrospective observational study of heart transplant patients followed in the University Hospital of Montpellier, France. We analyzed 303 18-FDG PET from 158 patients. We compared demographic and clinical characteristics through uni- and multivariate analysis: in the cancer-free group, comparisons were made between the PET false positive (FP) group versus true negative (TN), and in the cancer group, comparisons were made between the PET false negative (FN) group versus true positive (TP). Out of the 303 exams, we found 245 TN, 26 TP, 26 FP and 6 FN. The sensitivity rate was calculated at 81%, the specificity rate at 90%, the positive predictive value at 50%, and the negative predictive value at 97%. The multivariate analysis showed an association between FP diagnosis and graft-PET delay (P value = .046, OR = 5.14, 95% CI [1.18-32.4]) and creatine reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 10 mg/L (P value = .042, OR = 4.21, 95% CI [1.02-17.2]). The estimated probability of FP by logit regression was 0.48 with 95% CI [0.21-0.77] when graft-PET delay ≥ 6 years and CRP ≥ 10 mg/L. No significative statistical link was found for the demographic or clinical characteristics in the FN group of patients with cancer, except for sex (all FN were men). 18-FDG PET performed very well in the follow-up of heart transplant patients for neoplasia screening, with better specificity than sensitivity. However, the study showed that almost 50% of FP can be predicted by considering only the graft-PET delay and CRP., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)