William F Parker1, Allen S Anderson2, Donald Hedeker3, Elbert S Huang4, Edward R Garrity4, Mark Siegler4, Matthew M Churpek5. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: william.parker@uchospitals.edu. 2. Center for Heart Failure, Blum Cardiovascular Institute, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current U.S. priority ranking for heart candidates is based on treatment intensity, not objective markers of severity of illness. This system may encourage centers to overtreat candidates. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to describe national variation in the intensity of treatment of adult heart transplantation candidates and identify center-level predictors of potential overtreatment. METHODS: The registrations of all U.S. adult heart transplantation candidates from 2010 to 2015 were collected from the SRTR (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). "Potential overtreatment" was defined as treatment of a candidate who did not meet American Heart Association cardiogenic shock criteria with either high-dose inotropes or an intra-aortic balloon pump. Multilevel logistic regression and propensity score models were used to adjust for candidate variability at each center. Center-level variables associated with potential overtreatment were identified. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2015, 108 centers listed 12,762 adult candidates who were not in cardiogenic shock for heart transplantation. Of these, 1,471 (11.6%) were potentially overtreated with high-dose inotropes or intra-aortic balloon pumps. In the bottom quartile of centers, only 2.1% of candidates were potentially overtreated compared with 27.6% at top quartile centers, an interquartile difference of 25.5% (95% confidence interval: 21% to 30%). Adjusting for candidate differences did not significantly alter the interquartile difference. Local competition with 2 or more centers increased the odds of potential overtreatment by 50% (adjusted odds ratio: 1.50; 95% confidence interval: 1.07 to 2.11). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the treatment practices of adult heart transplantation centers. Competition for transplantable donor hearts is associated with the potential overtreatment of hemodynamically stable candidates. Overtreatment may compromise the fair and efficient allocation of scarce deceased donor hearts.
BACKGROUND: The current U.S. priority ranking for heart candidates is based on treatment intensity, not objective markers of severity of illness. This system may encourage centers to overtreat candidates. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to describe national variation in the intensity of treatment of adult heart transplantation candidates and identify center-level predictors of potential overtreatment. METHODS: The registrations of all U.S. adult heart transplantation candidates from 2010 to 2015 were collected from the SRTR (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). "Potential overtreatment" was defined as treatment of a candidate who did not meet American Heart Association cardiogenic shock criteria with either high-dose inotropes or an intra-aortic balloon pump. Multilevel logistic regression and propensity score models were used to adjust for candidate variability at each center. Center-level variables associated with potential overtreatment were identified. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2015, 108 centers listed 12,762 adult candidates who were not in cardiogenic shock for heart transplantation. Of these, 1,471 (11.6%) were potentially overtreated with high-dose inotropes or intra-aortic balloon pumps. In the bottom quartile of centers, only 2.1% of candidates were potentially overtreated compared with 27.6% at top quartile centers, an interquartile difference of 25.5% (95% confidence interval: 21% to 30%). Adjusting for candidate differences did not significantly alter the interquartile difference. Local competition with 2 or more centers increased the odds of potential overtreatment by 50% (adjusted odds ratio: 1.50; 95% confidence interval: 1.07 to 2.11). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the treatment practices of adult heart transplantation centers. Competition for transplantable donor hearts is associated with the potential overtreatment of hemodynamically stable candidates. Overtreatment may compromise the fair and efficient allocation of scarce deceased donor hearts.
Authors: David M Shahian; David F Torchiana; Richard J Shemin; James D Rawn; Sharon-Lise T Normand Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Mark H Drazner; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen A Geraci; Tamara Horwich; James L Januzzi; Maryl R Johnson; Edward K Kasper; Wayne C Levy; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; John J V McMurray; Judith E Mitchell; Pamela N Peterson; Barbara Riegel; Flora Sam; Lynne W Stevenson; W H Wilson Tang; Emily J Tsai; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Miriam J Johnson; J Martin Bland; Patricia M Davidson; Phillip J Newton; Stephen G Oxberry; Amy P Abernethy; David C Currow Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Nikhil Narang; Jennifer T Thibodeau; Benjamin D Levine; M Odette Gore; Colby R Ayers; Richard A Lange; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Aslan T Turer; James A de Lemos; Darren K McGuire Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: M Packer; J R Carver; R J Rodeheffer; R J Ivanhoe; R DiBianco; S M Zeldis; G H Hendrix; W J Bommer; U Elkayam; M L Kukin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-11-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William F Parker; Kevin Chung; Allen S Anderson; Mark Siegler; Elbert S Huang; Matthew M Churpek Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: William F Parker; Allen S Anderson; Elbert S Huang; Edward R Garrity; Matthew M Churpek Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: William F Parker; Allen S Anderson; Robert D Gibbons; Edward R Garrity; Lainie F Ross; Elbert S Huang; Matthew M Churpek Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gege Ran; Kevin Chung; Allen S Anderson; Robert D Gibbons; Nikhil Narang; Matthew M Churpek; William F Parker Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 8.086