Use of Heavy Drinking Donors in Heart Transplantation is Not Associated With Worse Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Although orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) remains the preferred treatment for end-stage heart failure, there continues to be a critical shortage of organ donors. The goal of this study is to examine outcomes after orthotopic OHT using heavy drinking donors (HDDs) in a large, national database. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was examined for all primary, adult OHT carried out from 2005 to 2012. RESULTS: There were 14,928 total OHT performed during the study period with 2,274 (15.2%) using HDD. Recipients of HDD were older (53.4 vs. 51.9 years, P < 0.001), more likely men (80.7 vs 74.4%, P < 0.001), less likely sex mismatched (21.5 vs 27.5%, P < 0.001), more likely race mismatched (57.4 vs 52.4%, P < 0.001), and had less total HLA mismatches (4.55 vs 4.65, P < 0.001). The HDD were older (37.0 vs 30.5 years, P < 0.001), more likely men (82.2 vs 69.9%, P < 0.001), and more likely to have heavy cigarette use (38.1 vs 13.2%, P < 0.001). Length of stay was not different (20.3 vs 19.7 days, P = 0.02). On multivariate analysis, use of HDD was not associated with mortality at 30 days (hazards ratio [HR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.90-1.39; P = 0.30), 1 year (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83-1.11; P = 0.56), and at 5 years (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.13; P = 0.79). Variables associated with mortality at 5 years included increasing donor age, prolonged ischemic time, worsening recipient creatinine, recipient black race, sex mismatch, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or mechanical ventilation as a bridge to transplantation. CONCLUSION: Heart transplantation can be performed using carefully selected HDDs with good outcomes.

Continuous flow left ventricular assist device technology has influenced wait times and affected donor allocation in cardiac transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Bridge to transplantation patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (cfLVADs) are assigned United Network for Organ Sharing status 1A or 1B priority while awaiting orthotopic heart transplantation. We investigated the influence of cfLVAD on the waitlist times and organ allocation. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was examined from 2005 to 2012 for patients with cfLVAD and pulsatile flow LVAD (pLVAD). These 2 cohorts were compared with patients who did not receive LVAD. RESULTS: Of 16,476 total orthotopic heart transplantations, 3270 (19.8%) were performed on patients with an LVAD as a bridge to transplantation. The cfLVAD group had the longest total waitlist time (259.6 days) compared with the pLVAD (134.6 days) and non-LVAD (121.7 days) groups (P < .001). The cfLVAD group spent more time in status 1A (44.7 days) than did the pLVAD (32.1 days) and non-LVAD (16.4 days) cohorts (P < .001). The median waitlist survival was better for the cfLVAD group (1234.0 days) than in the pLVAD (441.0 days) and non-LVAD (471.0 days) groups (P < .001). The cfLVAD recipients were older, had a greater body mass index, and more often had diabetes than did pLVAD and non-LVAD patients. The cfLVAD cohort received hearts from older, more often male donors, with a greater body mass index. Post-transplant survival was not significantly different among the 3 groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = .12). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being older, less favorable recipients, the cfLVAD patients spent more time in status 1A and had greater waitlist survival. This might allow cfLVAD patients to receive preferred donor hearts, which might allow for better post-transplant survival.

Impact of low donor to recipient weight ratios on cardiac transplantation.

BACKGROUND: International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines for adult heart transplantation (HT) suggest a donor to recipient body weight ratio (WR) of greater than 0.8. For female to male transplants, a WR of greater than 0.9 is recommended. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was examined for adult HT from 1999 to 2011. Controls with a WR of 0.9 or greater (normal donor to recipient weight ratio) were compared with patients with a WR of 0.6 to 0.89 (WRL) and a WR of less than 0.59 (WRVL). The primary measured outcome was survival. RESULTS: Of the 21,928 patients undergoing HT, 14,592 (66.6%) were performed with a normal donor to recipient weight ratio, 7212 (32.9%) were performed with WRL, and 124 (0.6%) were performed with WRVL. In male donor to male recipient, male donor to female recipient, and female donor to female recipient HT, the use of WRL did not influence median survival (P = .3621) and was not associated with increased mortality (P = .7273). In female donor to male recipient HT, WRL was associated with decreased median survival (435 days, P = .0241) and was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio, 1.201; P = .0383). CONCLUSIONS: HT can be safely performed using WRL donors between sex-matched and male to female transplants. However, in female to male transplants, WRL donors are associated with decreased survival. Although clinical circumstances will guide decision making, consensus criteria may be revisited to liberalize the pool of acceptable donors in an era of unprecedented donor shortage.