Relationships between 2018 UNOS heart policy and transplant outcomes in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural settings.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) extended the radius for which a heart transplant candidate can match with a donor, and outcomes across population densities are unknown. We sought to determine whether the policy change was associated with differences in heart transplant waitlist time or death post-transplant for patients from rural, micropolitan, and metropolitan settings. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we evaluated U.S. adult patients listed for heart transplant from Janurary 2017 to September 2019 with follow-up through March 2020. Patients were stratified by home zip-codes to either metropolitan, micropolitan, or rural settings. Fine and Gray and Cox models were respectively used to estimate Sub-distribution hazard ratios (SHR) of heart transplant with death or removal from transplant list as a competing event, and HR of death post-transplant within population densities after versus before the UNOS policy change date, October 18, 2018. Analyses were adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and labs. RESULTS: Among 8,747 patients listed for heart transplant, 84.7% were from metropolitan, 8.6% micropolitan, and 6.6% rural settings. The 2018 UNOS policy was associated with earlier receipt of heart transplant for metropolitan [SHR 1.56 (95% CI: 1.46-1.66)] and micropolitan [SHR 1.48 (95% CI: 1.21-1.82)] populations, but not significantly for rural [SHR 1.20 (95% CI: 0.93-1.54)]; however, the interaction between policy and densities was not significant (p = .14). Policy changes were not associated with risk of death post-transplant [metropolitan: HR 1.04 (95% CI: 0.80-1.34); micropolitan: HR 1.10 (95% CI: 0.55-2.23); rural: HR 1.04 (95% CI: 0.52-2.08); interaction p = .99]. CONCLUSIONS: The 2018 UNOS heart transplant policy was associated with earlier receipt of heart transplant and no difference in post-transplant survival within population densities. Additional follow-up is needed to determine whether improvements are sustained.

Provider Perspectives on the Feasibility and Utility of Routine Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Heart Failure: A Qualitative Analysis.

Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) objectively measure health-related quality of life and provide prognostic information. Advances in technology now allow for rapid, patient-friendly PRO assessment and scoring, yet the adoption of PROs in clinic has been slow. We conducted a multicenter qualitative study of diverse providers to describe the barriers and facilitators of routine PRO use in heart failure clinics. Methods and Results Sixty heart failure providers from 5 institutions participated in 8 focus groups to explore provider perspectives on the use of heart failure-specific and generic PROs in clinical practice. A qualitative editing approach was used to analyze the data, whereby a coding dictionary was iteratively developed and applied using the qualitative software program Altas.ti. Three main themes, supporting and impeding PRO use, emerged: (1) data collection; (2) presentation and interpretation; and (3) utility and value. For each construct, we identified perspectives that highlighted both barriers and facilitators. Providers identified burden, survey fatigue, and language/health literacy barriers as potentially impeding data collection. Optimal workflow, PRO frequency and length, use of PRO translations, and assistance of a patient's proxy were suggested as facilitators. Focus group discussions provided insight on how to display PROs to support its interpretability and sharing. Furthermore, the need to educate providers on the utility and value PROs over and above current clinical approaches emerged. Conclusions Overcoming the barriers and supporting facilitators of PRO adoption could potentially lead to more successful adoption of PROs in heart failure clinics.

Pre-operative health status and outcomes after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation.

BACKGROUND: Health status predicts adverse outcomes in heart failure and cardiac surgery patients, but its prognostic value in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement is unknown. METHODS: We examined the association of pre-operative health status, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), with survival and hospitalization after LVAD using the KCCQ score as a continuous variable and stratified by KCCQ score quartile plus missing KCCQ in 1,125 clinical trial participants who received the HeartMate II (Thoratec Corp, Pleasanton, CA) as destination therapy (n = 635) or bridge to transplantation (n = 490). RESULTS: The mean pre-operative KCCQ score was 29.4 ± 18.7 among survivors (n = 719), and 27.1 ± 18.3 (n = 406) in those who died. In time-to-event analysis for all available follow-up using health status as a continuous variable, the pre-operative KCCQ score did not correlate with overall mortality after LVAD implantation (p = 0.178). Small absolute differences were seen between the pre-operative KCCQ quartile and 30-day survival (Q4 95% vs. Q1 89% vs. missing 87%; p = 0.0009 for trend), 180-day survival (Q4 83% vs. Q1 76% vs missing 79%; p = 0.060 for trend), and days hospitalized at 180 days (Q4 29.8 ± 25.6 vs. Q1 34.1 ± 27.1 vs. missing 36.5 ± 29.9 days; p = 0.009 for trend). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that pre-operative health status has limited association with outcomes after LVAD implantation. Although these data require further study in a diverse population, mechanical circulatory support may represent a relatively unique clinical situation, distinct from heart failure and other cardiac surgeries, in which heart failure-specific health status measures may be largely reversed.