Comparison of listing strategies for allosensitized heart transplant candidates requiring transplant at high urgency: a decision model analysis.

Allosensitized children who require a negative prospective crossmatch have a high risk of death awaiting heart transplantation. Accepting the first suitable organ offer, regardless of the possibility of a positive crossmatch, would improve waitlist outcomes but it is unclear whether it would result in improved survival at all times after listing, including posttransplant. We created a Markov decision model to compare survival after listing with a requirement for a negative prospective donor cell crossmatch (WAIT) versus acceptance of the first suitable offer (TAKE). Model parameters were derived from registry data on status 1A (highest urgency) pediatric heart transplant listings. We assumed no possibility of a positive crossmatch in the WAIT strategy and a base-case probability of a positive crossmatch in the TAKE strategy of 47%, as estimated from cohort data. Under base-case assumptions, TAKE showed an incremental survival benefit of 1.4 years over WAIT. In multiple sensitivity analyses, including variation of the probability of a positive crossmatch from 10% to 100%, TAKE was consistently favored. While model input data were less well suited to comparing survival when awaiting transplantation across a negative virtual crossmatch, our analysis suggests that taking the first suitable organ offer under these circumstances is also favored.

Cost-effectiveness of pediatric heart transplantation across a positive crossmatch for high waitlist urgency candidates.

Allosensitized children listed with a requirement for a negative prospective crossmatch have high mortality. Previously, we found that listing with the intent to accept the first suitable organ offer, regardless of the possibility of a positive crossmatch (TAKE strategy), results in a survival advantage from the time of listing compared to awaiting transplantation across a negative crossmatch (WAIT). The cost-effectiveness of these strategies is unknown. We used Markov modeling to compare cost-effectiveness between these waitlist strategies for allosensitized children listed urgently for heart transplantation. We used registry data to estimate costs and waitlist/posttransplant outcomes. We assumed patients remained in hospital after listing, no positive crossmatches for WAIT, and a base-case probability of a positive crossmatch of 47% for TAKE. Accepting the first suitable organ offer cost less ($405 904 vs. $534 035) and gained more quality-adjusted life years (3.71 vs. 2.79). In sensitivity analyses, including substitution of waitlist data from children with unacceptable antigens specified during listing, TAKE remained cost-saving or cost-effective. Our findings suggest acceptance of the first suitable organ offer for urgently listed allosensitized pediatric heart transplant candidates is cost-effective and transplantation should not be denied because of allosensitization status alone.