Impact of Heart Transplant Allocation Change on Waitlist Mortality and Posttransplant Mortality in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Anjan Tibrewala; Sarah Chuzi; Tingqing Wu; Abigail S Baldridge; Rebecca Harap; Benjamin Bryner; Duc Thinh Pham; Jane E Wilcox

doi:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.124.011621

Impact of Heart Transplant Allocation Change on Waitlist Mortality and Posttransplant Mortality in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Circ Heart Fail. 2024 Oct 17:e011621. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.124.011621. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Anjan Tibrewala¹, Sarah Chuzi¹, Tingqing Wu², Abigail S Baldridge², Rebecca Harap², Benjamin Bryner², Duc Thinh Pham², Jane E Wilcox¹

Affiliations

¹ Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. (A.T., S.C., J.E.W.).
² Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. (T.W., A.S.B., R.H., B.B., D.T.P.).

PMID: 39417231
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.124.011621

Abstract

Background: In October 2018, the US heart transplant (HT) allocation system was revised giving patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) intermediate priority status. Few studies have examined the impact of this policy change on outcomes among patients with LVAD. We sought to determine how the allocation change impacted waitlist and posttransplant mortality in patients with LVAD.

Methods: We retrospectively assessed the United Network for Organ Sharing registry for patients with LVAD who were listed for or underwent HT between October 2016 and October 2021. We evaluated waitlist mortality using competing risks analysis and a multivariable Fine-Gray model, and posttransplant mortality using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and a multivariate proportional hazards model.

Results: We analyzed data from 3835 patients with LVAD listed for HT and 3486 patients with LVAD who underwent HT during the study period. Listing for HT preallocation change was significantly associated with an increased risk of waitlist mortality (Gray P=0.0058) compared with postallocation change. After adjustment for covariates, mortality differences by listing era were attenuated, but LVAD brand was significantly associated with waitlist mortality (HM3 versus HMII; hazard ratio, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.69]; P=0.002; HVAD versus HMII; hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.48-1.30]; P=0.36; overall P=0.004). In contrast, HT postallocation change was associated with increased posttransplant mortality (log-rank P=0.0172) compared with preallocation change. In a multivariable analysis, the association with posttransplant mortality between transplant eras was attenuated, but ischemic time (hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.07-1.26]; P<0.001) and status at time of HT (Status 1-3 versus 4; hazard ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.04-1.61]; P=0.02) were significantly associated with posttransplant mortality.

Conclusions: Among patients with LVAD, lower waitlist mortality postallocation change was likely driven by improved LVAD technology. Higher posttransplant mortality following the allocation change was largely attributable to longer ischemic times and patient acuity.

Keywords: heart failure; heart transplantation; heart-assist devices.