A challenge to equity in transplantation: Increased center-level variation in short-term mechanical circulatory support use in the context of the updated U.S. heart transplant allocation policy.

BACKGROUND: The United States National Organ Procurement Transplant Network (OPTN) implemented changes to the adult heart allocation system to reduce waitlist mortality by improving access for those at greater risk of pre-transplant death, including patients on short-term mechanical circulatory support (sMCS). While sMCS increased, it is unknown whether the increase occurred equitably across centers. METHODS: The OPTN database was used to assess changes in use of sMCS at time of transplant in the 12 months before (pre-change) and after (post-change) implementation of the allocation system in October 2018 among 5,477 heart transplant recipients. An interrupted time series analysis comparing use of bridging therapies pre- and post-change was performed. Variability in the proportion of sMCS use at the center level pre- and post-change was determined. RESULTS: In the month pre-change, 9.7% of patients were transplanted with sMCS. There was an immediate increase in sMCS transplant the following month to 32.4% - an absolute and relative increase of 22.7% and 312% (p < 0.001). While sMCS use was stable pre-change (monthly change 0.0%, 95% CI [-0.1%,0.1%]), there was a continuous 1.2%/month increase post-change ([0.6%,1.8%], p < 0.001). Center-level variation in sMCS use increased substantially after implementation, from a median (interquartile range) of 3.85% (10%) pre-change to 35.7% (30.6%) post-change (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of sMCS at time of transplant increased immediately and continued to expand following heart allocation policy changes. Center-level variation in use of sMCS at the time of transplant increased compared to pre-change, which may have negatively impacted equitable access to heart transplantation.

Survival Outcomes After Heart Transplantation: Does Recipient Sex Matter?

BACKGROUND: Currently, women represent <25% of heart transplant recipients. Reasons for this female underrepresentation have been attributed to selection and referral bias and potentially poorer outcomes in female recipients. The aim of this study was to compare long-term posttransplant survival between men and women, when matched for recipient and donor characteristics. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry, we performed descriptive analyses and estimated overall freedom from posttransplant death stratified by sex using Kaplan-Meier survival methods. Male and female recipients were matched according to the Index for Mortality Prediction After Cardiac Transplantation and Donor Risk Index score using 1:1 propensity score matching. The study cohort comprised 34 198 heart transplant recipients (76.3% men, 23.7% women) between 2004 and 2014. Compared with men, women were more likely younger (51 [39-59] versus 55 [46-61] years; P<0.001) and had a different distribution of heart failure etiology (P<0.001). In general, the prevalence of comorbidities was lower in women than in men. Women were less likely to have diabetes mellitus (19.1% versus 26.2%; P<0.001), hypertension (40.7% versus 47.9%; P<0.001), peripheral vascular disease (2.4% versus 3.3%; P=0.002), tobacco use (36.5% versus 52.3%; P<0.001), and prior cardiovascular surgery (38.6% versus 50.7%; P<0.001). Women were more likely to have a history of malignancy (10.5% versus 5.3%; P<0.001), require intravenous inotropes (41.4% versus 37.2%; P<0.001), and were less likely supported by an intra-aortic balloon pump (3.3% versus 3.8%; P=0.03) or durable ventricular assist device (22% versus 31.5%; P<0.001). Transplanted male recipients had a higher Index for Mortality Prediction After Cardiac Transplantation score (5 [2-7] versus 4 [1-6]; P<0.001). When male and female heart transplant recipients were matched for recipient and donor characteristics, there was no significant survival difference (P=0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival does not differ between men and women after cardiac transplantation. Women who survive to heart transplantation appear to have lower risk features than male recipients but receive hearts from higher risk donors.

ABO blood group influences a candidate's likelihood of receiving an HLA zero antigen mismatch kidney.

National sharing of HLA zero-mismatched kidneys has improved long-term graft survival. The distribution of those HLA-matched kidneys by ABO blood group, however, has not been examined. Utilizing the UNOS/OPTN (United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplantation Network) database, we analysed 112 971 kidney waiting list registrations added during 6/3/95-31/12/00, and 8162 HLA zero-mismatched (0 mm) primary kidney transplants in the USA during 1/1/88-31/3/02. We also analyzed A isoagglutinin titer histories for 87 blood group B end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients for whom at least 1 yr of testing was done. Blood group A patients received 40.1% of the HLA-0 mm kidneys while having a 26.5% representation on the national waiting list. Blood group B patients comprised 17.4% of the waiting list, but received only 10.4% of the HLA-0 mm kidneys. Most (89.6%) blood group B patients awaiting kidney transplantation have low levels of A isoagglutinins, making them eligible to receive a blood group A(2) kidney transplant. The national HLA-0 mm kidney allocation sharing system's imbalance by ABO blood group could be partially resolved in the future by allocating HLA-0 mm blood group A(2) kidneys to B patients.