Search

Objectives: We investigated sex‐based differences in eligibility for and outcomes after receipt of advanced heart failure (HF) therapies. Background: Although women are more likely to die from HF than men, registry data suggest that women are less likely to receive heart transplant (HT) or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) for largely unknown reasons. Methods: We performed a single‐center retrospective cohort study of patients evaluated for advanced HF therapies from 2012 to 2016. Logistic regression was used to determine the association of sex with eligibility for HT/LVAD. Competing risks and Kaplan‐Meier analysis were used to examine survival. Results: Of 569 patients (31% women) evaluated, 223 (39.2%) were listed for HT and 81 (14.2%) received destination (DT) LVAD. Women were less likely to be listed for HT (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21‐0.61; P <.0001), based on allosensitization (P <.0001) and obesity (P =.02). Women were more likely to receive DT LVAD (adjusted OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.23‐4.29; P =.01). Survival was similar between men and women regardless of whether they received HT and DT LVAD or were ineligible for therapy. Conclusion: Women are less likely to be HT candidates, but more likely to receive DT LVAD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2018 Revised United Network for Organ Sharing Heart Allocation System (HAS) was proposed to reclassify status 1A candidates into groups of decreasing acuity; however, it does not take into account factors such as body mass index (BMI) and blood group which influence waitlist (WL) outcomes. We sought to validate patient prioritization in the new HAS at our center. We retrospectively evaluated patients listed for heart transplantation (n = 214) at Emory University Hospital from 2011 to 2017. Patients were reclassified into the 6‐tier HAS. Multistate modeling and competing risk analysis were used to compare outcomes of transplantation and WL death/deterioration between new tiers. Additionally, a stratified sensitivity analysis by BMI and blood group was performed. Compared with tier 4 patients, there was progressively increasing hazard of WL death/deterioration in tier 3 (HR: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.37‐4.63, P =.003) and tier 2 (HR: 5.03, 95% CI: 1.99‐12.70, P <.001), without a difference in transplantation outcome. When stratified by BMI and blood group, this hierarchical association was not valid in patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 and non‐O blood groups in our cohort. Therefore, the 2018 HAS accurately prioritizes the sickest patients in our cohort. Factors such as BMI and blood group influence this relationship and iterate that the system can be further refined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective It remains unclear whether left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in non-inotrope dependent patients is of clinical benefit. This study sought to evaluate cause of death in patients listed for heart transplant (HT) to determine the relative risks and benefits of implanting LVAD into patients who are less sick than those included in the original clinical trials. Methods We examined death as the primary outcome in 23,098 patients listed for HT from 2006 to 2014 using proportional subdistribution hazards modeling. Cause of death was examined as a secondary outcome using χ2 tests. Results 1859 (8.1%) patients were removed from the wait list for death, including 229 (2.7%) status 1A, 349 (4.6%) status 1B, 246 (13.2%) status 2, and 1035 (26.0%) status 7 patients (P < 0.0001). Status 2 patients who received LVAD while listed had a higher risk of death compared to those who did not (adjusted HR 1.68; 95% CI 1.09–2.59; P = 0.02), while there was no increased risk of death in status 1A (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.68–1.51; P = 0.9) and status 1B (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.65–1.23; P = 0.5) who received LVAD. Status 2 patients who received LVAD were more likely to die cerebrovascular causes (0.6% vs. 0.1%, P = 0.009) and organ failure (70.6% vs. 29.4%, P = 0.003). Conclusions LVAD implantation in status 2 patients listed for HT is associated with a higher risk of death. More research is needed to determine the impact LVAD implantation will have on mortality in patients with ambulatory, non-inotrope dependent HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Contemporary epidemiology of chronic graft failure (GF) after heart transplantation (HT) is not well described. Moreover, differences in the epidemiology of GF based on race/ethnicity remain poorly understood, despite clear evidence of inferior survival of ethnic minorities after HT. Methods The incidence of GF and the population-attributable risk (PAR) of independent risk factors for GF were assessed in 15,255 patients (76% men; mean age 52 ± 12 years) who underwent primary HT from 2004 to 2012. Results During a median follow-up of 4.7 years (interquartile range, 2.3–7.1 years), GF developed in 2,926 patients (19.2%), corresponding to an incidence rate of 39.8/1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 38.4–41.3). Blacks were more likely to develop GF than Hispanics or whites, with incidence rates of 55.1, 42.2, and 36.5/1,000 person-years, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, black race was associated with a higher risk of GF (hazard ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2–1.6; p < 0.001). Blacks and Hispanics were more likely to have risk factors for GF, including low education, public insurance, allosensitization, higher human leukocyte antigen mismatch, non-adherence, and history of rejection requiring hospitalization (all p < 0.001). Rejection requiring hospitalization carried the highest population-attributable risk in all groups, with the highest fraction in blacks (25.8%) compared with whites (18.6%) and Hispanics (15.6%). Socioeconomic and donor risk factors conferred relatively less risk of GF. Conclusions Black HT recipients have the highest risk of GF, with immunologic factors conferring the greatest proportion of that risk. Racial differences in risk factors for GF after HT require further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study sought to investigate post-transplantation outcomes as a function of race and panel reactive antibody (PRA). Background: PRA screening is used to determine the presence of pre-formed antibodies to population-wide human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) in patients being evaluated for heart transplantation (HT). Racial/ethnic differences in long-term survival after HT have been described. However, whether there are significant racial/ethnic differences in PRA among adults awaiting HT is poorly characterized. Methods: We identified patients age ≥18 years in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation database with race/ethnicity of white, black, Hispanic, or Asian and listed for HT between 2000 and 2012 (N = 19,704). A PRA value of ≥10% was used to define clinically meaningful sensitization. Results: Blacks had a higher peak PRA than did all other groups and were more likely to be sensitized. Black HT recipients were more likely to experience graft failure than were Hispanic, white, and Asian recipients (31% vs. 27%, 26%, and 21%, respectively; p < 0.001). The median follow-up was 1,207 days (interquartile range: 373 to 2,364 days), with a trend toward a shorter median time to graft failure in the Asian group than in the black, Hispanic, and white groups (p = 0.065). Sensitized blacks had the lowest rate of allograft survival, whereas nonsensitized Asians had the highest survival. Using Cox proportional regression to adjust for other clinical variables, black race (HR: 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2 to 1.5), Hispanic ethnicity (HR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.5), and sensitization (HR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.4) remained predictors of higher rates of graft failure. Conclusions: Race/ethnicity and level of sensitization are important predictors of graft survival. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]