Veli K Topkara1, Kevin J Clerkin1, Justin A Fried1, Jan Griffin1, Jayant Raikhelkar1, Sun Hi Lee1, Farhana Latif1, Marlena Habal1, Evelyn Horn2, Maryjane A Farr1, Koji Takada3, Yoshifumi Naka3, Ulrich P Jorde4, Gabriel Sayer1,2, Nir Uriel2. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine (V.K.T., K.J.C., J.A.F., J.G., J.R., S.H.L., F.L., M.H., M.A.F., G.S., N.U.), Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY (E.H., G.S., N.U.). 3. Division of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery (K.T., Y.N.), Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY (U.P.J.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the goals of the revised 6-tiered US adult heart allocation policy was to improve risk stratification of patients to lower exception status utilization for transplant listing. We sought to define the characteristics and outcomes of waitlisted patients using exception status and to examine region- and center-level differences in utilization of exception status in the new heart allocation system. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database included adult waitlisted patients for heart transplant between October 18, 2018, and June 30, 2020, in the United States, stratified by use of exception status versus standard criteria. RESULTS: Out of 6351 patients, 1907 (30.0%) were waitlisted under exception status. Patients using exception status were more likely to have a nonischemic cause of heart failure, blood type O, United Network for Organ Sharing status 2 at listing and were less likely to have a durable left ventricular assist device at listing. Exception status utilization varied significantly between and within United Network for Organ Sharing regions. Listing by exception criteria was associated with a significantly higher incidence of heart transplantation compared with listing by standard criteria (hazard ratio, 1.25 [1.15-1.38], P<0.001), without increased risk of death or delisting for worsening clinical status (hazard ratio, 0.83 [0.65-1.05], P=0.12) after multivariable adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: The status tiers of the new heart allocation system may not fully capture medical urgency and complexity of waitlisted patients as assessed by transplant physicians and review committees and may limit the ability to develop a heart allocation score.
BACKGROUND: One of the goals of the revised 6-tiered US adult heart allocation policy was to improve risk stratification of patients to lower exception status utilization for transplant listing. We sought to define the characteristics and outcomes of waitlisted patients using exception status and to examine region- and center-level differences in utilization of exception status in the new heart allocation system. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database included adult waitlisted patients for heart transplant between October 18, 2018, and June 30, 2020, in the United States, stratified by use of exception status versus standard criteria. RESULTS: Out of 6351 patients, 1907 (30.0%) were waitlisted under exception status. Patients using exception status were more likely to have a nonischemic cause of heart failure, blood type O, United Network for Organ Sharing status 2 at listing and were less likely to have a durable left ventricular assist device at listing. Exception status utilization varied significantly between and within United Network for Organ Sharing regions. Listing by exception criteria was associated with a significantly higher incidence of heart transplantation compared with listing by standard criteria (hazard ratio, 1.25 [1.15-1.38], P<0.001), without increased risk of death or delisting for worsening clinical status (hazard ratio, 0.83 [0.65-1.05], P=0.12) after multivariable adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: The status tiers of the new heart allocation system may not fully capture medical urgency and complexity of waitlisted patients as assessed by transplant physicians and review committees and may limit the ability to develop a heart allocation score.
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: Rebecca R Goff; Kimberly Uccellini; Kelsi Lindblad; Shelley Hall; Ryan Davies; Maryjane Farr; Scott Silvestry; Joseph G Rogers Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-06-14 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Eileen M Hsich; Lucy Thuita; Dennis M McNamara; Joseph G Rogers; Maryam Valapour; Lee R Goldberg; Clyde W Yancy; Eugene H Blackstone; Hemant Ishwaran Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Lakshmi Sridharan; Brian Wayda; Lauren K Truby; Farhana Latif; Susan Restaino; Koji Takeda; Hiroo Takayama; Yoshifumi Naka; Paolo C Colombo; Mathew Maurer; Maryjane A Farr; Veli K Topkara Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Lauren K Truby; A Reshad Garan; Raymond C Givens; Koji Takeda; Hiroo Takayama; Pauline N Trinh; Melana Yuzefpolskaya; Maryjane A Farr; Yoshifumi Naka; Paolo C Colombo; Veli K Topkara Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: D M Meyer; J G Rogers; L B Edwards; E R Callahan; S A Webber; M R Johnson; J D Vega; M J Zucker; J C Cleveland Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Sarah Streeter Hutcheson; Victoria Phillips; Rachel Patzer; Andrew Smith; J David Vega; Alanna A Morris Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Kevin J Clerkin; Oluwafeyijimi Salako; Justin A Fried; Jan M Griffin; Jayant Raikhelkar; Rashmi Jain; Susan Restaino; Paolo C Colombo; Koji Takeda; Maryjane A Farr; Gabriel Sayer; Nir Uriel; Veli K Topkara Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 12.035