Disparities in donor heart acceptance between the USA and Europe: clinical implications.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Given limited evidence and lack of consensus on donor acceptance for heart transplant (HT), selection practices vary widely across HT centres in the USA. Similar variation likely exists on a broader scale-across countries and HT systems-but remains largely unexplored. This study characterized differences in heart donor populations and selection practices between the USA and Eurotransplant-a consortium of eight European countries-and their implications for system-wide outcomes. METHODS: Characteristics of adult reported heart donors and their utilization (the percentage of reported donors accepted for HT) were compared between Eurotransplant (n = 8714) and the USA (n = 60 882) from 2010 to 2020. Predictors of donor acceptance were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Additional analyses estimated the impact of achieving Eurotransplant-level utilization in the USA amongst donors of matched quality, using probability of acceptance as a marker of quality. RESULTS: Eurotransplant reported donors were older with more cardiovascular risk factors but with higher utilization than in the USA (70% vs. 44%). Donor age, smoking history, and diabetes mellitus predicted non-acceptance in the USA and, by a lesser magnitude, in Eurotransplant; donor obesity and hypertension predicted non-acceptance in the USA only. Achieving Eurotransplant-level utilization amongst the top 30%-50% of donors (by quality) would produce an additional 506-930 US HTs annually. CONCLUSIONS: Eurotransplant countries exhibit more liberal donor heart acceptance practices than the USA. Adopting similar acceptance practices could help alleviate the scarcity of donor hearts and reduce waitlist morbidity in the USA.

New French heart allocation system: Comparison with Eurotransplant and US allocation systems.

Graft allocation rules for heart transplantation are necessary because of the shortage of heart donors, resulting in high waitlist mortality. The Agence de la biomédecine is the agency in charge of the organ allocation system in France. Assessment of the 2004 urgency-based allocation system identified challenging limitations. A new system based on a score ranking all candidates was implemented in January 2018. In the revised system, medical urgency is defined according to candidate characteristics rather than the treatment modalities, and an interplay between urgency, donor-recipient matching, and geographic sharing was introduced. In this article, we describe in detail the new allocation system and compare these allocation rules to Eurotransplant and US allocation policies.

Pediatric heart allocation and transplantation in Eurotransplant.

Pediatric heart allocation in Eurotransplant (ET) has evolved over the past decades to better serve patients and improve utilization. Pediatric heart transplants (HT) account for 6% of the annual transplant volume in ET. Death rates on the pediatric heart transplant waiting list have decreased over the years, from 25% in 1997 to 18% in 2011. Within the first year after listing, 32% of all infants (<12 months), 20% of all children aged 1-10 years, and 15% of all children aged 11-15 years died without having received a heart transplant. Survival after transplantation improved over the years, and in almost a decade, the 1-year survival went from 83% to 89%, and the 3-year rates increased from 81% to 85%. Improved medical management of heart failure patients and the availability of mechanical support for children have significantly improved the prospects for children on the heart transplant waiting list.

Conventional vs. tablet computer-based patient education following lung transplantation--a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Accurate immunosuppression is of critical importance in preventing rejection, while avoiding toxicity following lung transplantation. The mainstay immunosuppressants are calcineurin inhibitors, which require regular monitoring due to interactions with other medications and diet. Adherence to immunosuppression and patient knowledge is vital and can be improved through patient education. Education using tablet-computers was investigated. OBJECTIVE: To compare tablet-PC education and conventional education in improving immunosuppression trough levels in target range 6 months after a single education. Secondary parameters were ratio of immunosuppression level measurements divided by per protocol recommended measurements, time and patient satisfaction regarding education. DESIGN: Single-centre, open labelled randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients >6 months after lung-transplantation with <50% of calcineurin inhibitor trough levels in target range. INTERVENTION: Tablet-pc education versus personal, nurse-led education. MEASUREMENTS: Calcineurin inhibitor levels in target range 6 months after education, level variability, interval adherence, knowledge and adherence was studied. As outcome parameter, renal function was measured and adverse events registered. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were 1:1 randomised for either intervention. Levels of immunosuppression 6 months after education were equal (tablet-PC 58% vs. conventional 48%, p = 0.27), both groups improved in achieving a CNI trough level within target range by either education method (delta tablet-PC 29% vs. conventional 20%). In all patients, level variability decreased (-20.4%), whereas interval adherence remained unchanged. Knowledge about immunosuppression improved by 7% and compliance tests demonstrated universal improvements with no significant difference between groups. CONCLUSION: Education is a simple, effective tool in improving adherence to immunosuppression. Tablet-PC education was non-inferior to conventional education. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01398488 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01398488? term=gottlieb+tablet+pc+education&rank=1.

Is it time for a cardiac allocation score? First results from the Eurotransplant pilot study on a survival benefit-based heart allocation.

BACKGROUND: Patients awaiting heart transplantation in Eurotransplant are prioritized by waiting time and medical urgency. To reduce mortality, the introduction of post-transplant survival in an allocation model based on the concept of survival benefit might be more appropriate. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic accuracy of the heart failure survival score (HFSS), the Seattle heart failure model (SHFM), the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) model, and the index for mortality prediction after cardiac transplantation (IMPACT) score for predicting mortality. METHODS: The HFSS, SHFM, the adapted SHFM, and the INTERMACS model were evaluated for predicting waiting list mortality among heart transplant candidates, and the IMPACT score was tested for predicting post-transplant mortality in separate Cox regression models. Included were the 448 adult heart transplant candidates listed for an urgent status between October 2010 and June 2011 in Eurotransplant. A cardiac allocation score (CAS) was calculated based on the estimated survival times as predicted by the scores. All analyses were performed for the total cohort and separately for ventricular assist device (VAD) and non-VAD patients. RESULTS: Mortality on the waiting list could significantly be predicted in the non-VAD cohort by HFSS (p = 0.005) and SHFM (p < 0.0001) and after transplant by IMPACT (p < 0.0001). None of the tested scores could predict mortality among VAD-supported patients. CONCLUSIONS: In non-VAD patients, the HFSS, SHFM, and IMPACT provide accurate risk stratification. Further studies will reveal whether these models should be considered as the basis for a new heart allocation policy in Eurotransplant.

Evaluation of the lung allocation score in highly urgent and urgent lung transplant candidates in Eurotransplant.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to investigate the impact of the lung allocation score (LAS) on mortality among highly urgent (HU) and urgent (U) lung transplant (LTx) candidates in Eurotransplant (ET) and to identify useful additional parameters (LASplus). METHODS: All adult LTx candidates for whom a first request for HU or U status was made in 2008 in ET were included (N = 317). Patients were followed until LTx, death on the waiting list (WL), delisting, or closure date (i.e., January 10, 2010). The relationship between the LAS/LASplus and waiting list, post-transplant, and overall mortality was assessed with a multivariate regression model. The LAS and LASplus were decomposed into their basic waitlist and post-transplant components. RESULTS: Waiting list mortality rate was 22% and 1-year post-transplant mortality rate was 34%. The waitlist component of the LASplus was significantly associated with waiting list mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.91, p = 0.021), whereas the LAS was not (p = 0.063). The post-transplant components of both scores were significantly associated with 1-year post-transplant mortality (LAS: HR 2.69, p = 0.005; LASplus: HR 2.55, p = 0.004). Both scores strongly predicted overall mortality (LAS: HR 1.65, p = 0.008; LASplus: HR 1.72, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: LAS accurately predicts overall mortality in critically ill transplant candidates and should therefore be considered as the basis for a new lung allocation policy in ET. An adjustment of the original LAS may be indicated to accurately predict waiting list mortality.

Kidney donation and transplantation in Eurotransplant 2006-2007: minimizing discard rates by using a rescue allocation policy.

CONTEXT: All organ exchange organizations are challenged to maximize the utilization rate of all donors. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the benefit of a rescue allocation policy and to study the impact of donor factors on the risk of kidney discard. DESIGN AND SETTING: All 4057 donors with kidneys offered for allocation to Eurotransplant between 2006 and 2007 were included. Allocation was patient-oriented, based on a point-score system including recipient and donor factors. If an organ offer was rejected 5 times for medical reasons, allocation was switched to rescue allocation (ie, the organ was then offered in a center-oriented way). A logistic regression model was built to test whether donor factors were predictors of rescue allocation or kidney discard. RESULTS: Rescue allocation was used for 665 donors (16.4%); within this group, transplant rate was 54.3%, resulting in a donor discard rate of 304 donors (7.5% of total study group). The multivariate model showed that rescue allocation was used significantly more for kidneys from child donors and donors with a high creatinine level. Moreover, testing positive for hepatitis B surface antigen or antibody to hepatitis C virus was associated with an increased probability of rescue allocation. Kidney discard was significantly associated with donation after cardiac death, donor age, serum creatinine level, history of diabetes, and history of hepatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Rescue allocation is effective in lowering donor discard rates. Even with rescue allocation, several donor factors were significantly associated with a higher discard rate. Use of liberal donor criteria and a rescue allocation policy can reduce kidney discards and thus shorten the waiting list for kidney transplantation.

Maximizing utilization of reported donor lungs in Eurotransplant: impact of the rescue allocation policy on utilization rates.

Lung donor recognition and treatment should be further improved. In 2007 only 22% of all donors in Eurotransplant were actual lung donors. During the past decade, Eurotransplant has increased the utilization of lung donors from 43% in 1999 to 54% in 2007. Increasing the number of lung transplants should be done by maximizing this utilization rate. Eurotransplant has 4 mechanisms in place in order to ensure that the highest degree of effectiveness is achieved with every reported lung donor. The Eurotransplant rescue allocation policy--which is one of these mechanisms--accounted for an additional 16.6% of the total transplant volume.

Waiting for a thoracic transplant in Eurotransplant.

The prospects of patients on the thoracic waiting list are governed by the chance of receiving an organ in time and by the outcome of the transplantation. The former probability is determined by a triad of disease severity, resource size and allocation rules. The aim of this study was to provide an objective description of the distributional effects of the thoracic allocation system in Eurotransplant. It appears that the interpretation of waiting-list outflow indicators is not straightforward and that it is difficult to assess the fairness of an organ allocation system in the framework of changing donor-organ availability. The timing of listing for heart transplantation can substantially be improved; whether this is also true for lung transplantation cannot be determined from the available data. Allocation schemes cannot solve the problem of organ shortage; a shift of attention toward collaboration with procurement professionals is needed.

It takes six to boogie: allocating cadaver kidneys in Eurotransplant.

In March 1996, a new allocation point system for cadaver kidneys, the Eurotransplant (ET) Kidney Allocation System (KAS), was introduced in ET, the first multinational organ exchange organization. The aims of ETKAS were to reduce average and maximum waiting time, to allow patients with rare human leukocyte antigen (HLA) phenotypes or combinations to receive an "optimal" offer, to keep the exchange rates between the participating countries balanced, and finally to keep optimal graft survival, by means of HLA matching. Elderly patients and highly sensitized patients profit in addition from special programs, the ET Senior Program and the Acceptable Mismatch Program, respectively. All kidneys are offered to the pool and are allocated according to the degree of HLA matching, mismatch probability, waiting time, distance from the donor center, and balance between the countries participating in ET. A summary of 6 years' experience with the ETKAS is presented in this article.

The heart-allocation simulation model: a tool for comparison of transplantation allocation policies.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have investigated prognostic factors for the survival of transplant candidates waiting for a donor organ, but little is known about the impact of allocation policies on waiting list outcome. Simulation models would allow a comparison of different policies for allocating donor hearts on pretransplant outcome. METHODS: A model was built for the Eurotransplant waiting list for heart transplantation. Survival and delisting distributions were estimated from the Eurotransplant transplant candidate inflow between 1995 and 2000 (n=7,142). Other characteristics were obtained directly from the transplant candidate inflow of 1999 and 2000 (n=2,097) and the donor organs of 1998 and 1999 (n=1,520). Overall and subgroup waiting list mortality were estimated for allocation policies differing by ABO blood group, border, and clinical profile rules. RESULTS: The model estimated that international organ exchange reduces waiting list mortality in the different countries by 1.9% to 12.4%. An allocation policy incorporating the initial clinical profile of the transplant candidates further reduced waiting list mortality by 1.7%. Changing ABO rules toward identical matching yielded a slightly more equitable survival for the different groups, without an overall effect on mortality. The best possible allocation policy is the policy where organs are allocated to patients that are at highest risk of dying, and withholding organs from patients that would eventually delist because of improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Patients benefit from international organ exchange and by a heart allocation scheme based on clinical profiles. Timely delisting of patients who are-temporarily-too well for transplantation is the best waiting list policy.