Hospital volume does not mitigate the impact of area socioeconomic deprivation on heart transplantation outcomes.

Abstract

Background: While structural socioeconomic inequity has been linked with inferior health outcomes, some have postulated reduced access to high-quality care to be the mediator. We assessed whether treatment at high-volume centers (HVC) would mitigate the adverse impact of area deprivation on heart transplantation (HT) outcomes.

Methods: All HT recipients ≥18 years were identified in the 2005-2022 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation was assessed using the previously validated Area Deprivation Index. Recipients with scores in the highest quintile were considered Most Deprived (others: Less Deprived). Hospitals in the highest quartile by cumulative center volume (≥21 transplants/year) were classified as HVC. The primary outcome was post-transplant survival.

Results: Of 38,022 HT recipients, 7,579 (20%) were considered Most Deprived. Following risk adjustment, Most Deprived demonstrated inferior survival at 3 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.21) and 5 years following transplantation (HR 1.13, CI 1.07-1.20). Similarly, Most Deprived faced greater graft failure at 3 (HR 1.14, CI 1.06-1.22) and 5 years (HR 1.13, CI 1.07-1.20). Evaluating patients transplanted at HVC, Most Deprived continued to face greater mortality at 3 (HR 1.10, CI 1.01-1.21) and 5 years (HR 1.10, CI 1.01-1.19). The interaction between Most Deprived status and care at HVC was not significant, such that transplantation at HVC did not ameliorate the survival disparity between Most and Less Deprived.

Conclusions: Area socioeconomic disadvantage is independently associated with inferior survival. Transplantation at HVC did not eliminate this inequity. Future efforts are needed to increase engagement with longitudinal follow-up care and address systemic root causes to improve outcomes.