Raymond C Givens1, Todd Dardas2, Kevin J Clerkin3, Susan Restaino3, P Christian Schulze3, Donna M Mancini3. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: rg2751@columbia.edu. 2. Division of Cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the association of multiple listing with waitlist outcomes and post-heart transplant (HT) survival. BACKGROUND: HT candidates in the United States may register at multiple centers. Not all candidates have the resources and mobility needed for multiple listing; thus this policy may advantage wealthier and less sick patients. METHODS: We identified 33,928 adult candidates for a first single-organ HT between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2013 in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. RESULTS: We identified 679 multiple-listed (ML) candidates (2.0%) who were younger (median age, 53 years [interquartile range (IQR): 43 to 60 years] vs. 55 years [IQR: 45 to 61 years]; p < 0.0001), more often white (76.4% vs. 70.7%; p = 0.0010) and privately insured (65.5% vs. 56.3%; p < 0.0001), and lived in zip codes with higher median incomes (US$90,153 [IQR: US$25,471 to US$253,831] vs. US$68,986 [IQR: US$19,471 to US$219,702]; p = 0.0015). Likelihood of ML increased with the primary center's median waiting time. ML candidates had lower initial priority (39.0% 1A or 1B vs. 55.1%; p < 0.0001) and predicted 90-day waitlist mortality (2.9% [IQR: 2.3% to 4.7%] vs. 3.6% [IQR: 2.3% to 6.0]%; p < 0.0001), but were frequently upgraded at secondary centers (58.2% 1A/1B; p < 0.0001 vs. ML primary listing). ML candidates had a higher HT rate (74.4% vs. 70.2%; p = 0.0196) and lower waitlist mortality (8.1% vs. 12.2%; p = 0.0011). Compared with a propensity-matched cohort, the relative ML HT rate was 3.02 (95% confidence interval: 2.59 to 3.52; p < 0.0001). There were no post-HT survival differences. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple listing is a rational response to organ shortage but may advantage patients with the means to participate rather than the most medically needy. The multiple-listing policy should be overturned.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the association of multiple listing with waitlist outcomes and post-heart transplant (HT) survival. BACKGROUND: HT candidates in the United States may register at multiple centers. Not all candidates have the resources and mobility needed for multiple listing; thus this policy may advantage wealthier and less sick patients. METHODS: We identified 33,928 adult candidates for a first single-organ HT between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2013 in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. RESULTS: We identified 679 multiple-listed (ML) candidates (2.0%) who were younger (median age, 53 years [interquartile range (IQR): 43 to 60 years] vs. 55 years [IQR: 45 to 61 years]; p < 0.0001), more often white (76.4% vs. 70.7%; p = 0.0010) and privately insured (65.5% vs. 56.3%; p < 0.0001), and lived in zip codes with higher median incomes (US$90,153 [IQR: US$25,471 to US$253,831] vs. US$68,986 [IQR: US$19,471 to US$219,702]; p = 0.0015). Likelihood of ML increased with the primary center's median waiting time. ML candidates had lower initial priority (39.0% 1A or 1B vs. 55.1%; p < 0.0001) and predicted 90-day waitlist mortality (2.9% [IQR: 2.3% to 4.7%] vs. 3.6% [IQR: 2.3% to 6.0]%; p < 0.0001), but were frequently upgraded at secondary centers (58.2% 1A/1B; p < 0.0001 vs. ML primary listing). ML candidates had a higher HT rate (74.4% vs. 70.2%; p = 0.0196) and lower waitlist mortality (8.1% vs. 12.2%; p = 0.0011). Compared with a propensity-matched cohort, the relative ML HT rate was 3.02 (95% confidence interval: 2.59 to 3.52; p < 0.0001). There were no post-HT survival differences. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple listing is a rational response to organ shortage but may advantage patients with the means to participate rather than the most medically needy. The multiple-listing policy should be overturned.
Authors: Nancy Krieger; Jarvis T Chen; Pamela D Waterman; Mah-Jabeen Soobader; S V Subramanian; Rosa Carson Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2002-09-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Robert M Merion; Mary K Guidinger; John M Newmann; Mary D Ellison; Friedrich K Port; Robert A Wolfe Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Randi E Foraker; Kathryn M Rose; Chirayath M Suchindran; Patricia P Chang; Ann M McNeill; Wayne D Rosamond Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Melissa M Garrido; Amy S Kelley; Julia Paris; Katherine Roza; Diane E Meier; R Sean Morrison; Melissa D Aldridge Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Khalid Mehmood; Afrasim Moin; Talib Hussain; Syed Mohd Danish Rizvi; D V Gowda; Shazi Shakil; M A Kamal Journal: Folia Microbiol (Praha) Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 2.099
Authors: Kevin J Clerkin; Arthur Reshad Garan; Brian Wayda; Raymond C Givens; Melana Yuzefpolskaya; Shunichi Nakagawa; Koji Takeda; Hiroo Takayama; Yoshifumi Naka; Donna M Mancini; Paolo C Colombo; Veli K Topkara Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 8.790