Clinical course of patients relisted for orthotopic heart transplantation: A national study

David Rekhtman BS , Amit Iyengar MD, MSE , Nikhil Ganjoo BA , Cindy Song BA , Noah Weingarten MD , Max Shin MD , Michaela Asher MPhil , John DePaolo MD, PhD , Marisa Cevasco MD, MPH , Pavan Atluri MD
{"title":"Clinical course of patients relisted for orthotopic heart transplantation: A national study","authors":"David Rekhtman BS ,&nbsp;Amit Iyengar MD, MSE ,&nbsp;Nikhil Ganjoo BA ,&nbsp;Cindy Song BA ,&nbsp;Noah Weingarten MD ,&nbsp;Max Shin MD ,&nbsp;Michaela Asher MPhil ,&nbsp;John DePaolo MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Marisa Cevasco MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Pavan Atluri MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jhlto.2024.100173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The clinical course in patients relisted for heart transplant at a different transplant center is poorly understood. We sought to describe the baseline characteristics, outcomes, and hospital selection of relisted patients by comparing their clinical status at the time of initial and subsequent listing.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for adults listed for first-time isolated heart transplantation between October 18, 2018 and September 30, 2023. Patients delisted from their original transplant center due to relisting at another center were identified. Upon propensity score matching, waitlist and post-transplant outcomes were compared between single-listing and relisted patients. The same characteristics and center volume at the time of initial listing and subsequent relisting were compared. Center quality based on aggregated 1-year mortality was also assessed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Two hundred and seventeen patients were delisted and subsequently relisted. Upon propensity score matching, no significant differences were found between single-listing and relisted patients with regard to waitlist outcomes (all <em>p</em> &gt; 0.05). On subsequent listing, relisted patients had more severe functional limitations (10% vs 23%, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), higher status (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), and were more likely to be relisted at a higher volume (45% vs 73%, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001) and better-performing transplant center (<em>p</em> = 0.017).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Although waitlist outcomes were similar between single-listing and relisted patients, at the time of relisting, patients were more likely to have severe functional limitations coinciding with higher listing statuses. Further work is needed to determine the underlying motivators for relisting.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100741,"journal":{"name":"JHLT Open","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JHLT Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950133424001228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The clinical course in patients relisted for heart transplant at a different transplant center is poorly understood. We sought to describe the baseline characteristics, outcomes, and hospital selection of relisted patients by comparing their clinical status at the time of initial and subsequent listing.

Methods

The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for adults listed for first-time isolated heart transplantation between October 18, 2018 and September 30, 2023. Patients delisted from their original transplant center due to relisting at another center were identified. Upon propensity score matching, waitlist and post-transplant outcomes were compared between single-listing and relisted patients. The same characteristics and center volume at the time of initial listing and subsequent relisting were compared. Center quality based on aggregated 1-year mortality was also assessed.

Results

Two hundred and seventeen patients were delisted and subsequently relisted. Upon propensity score matching, no significant differences were found between single-listing and relisted patients with regard to waitlist outcomes (all p > 0.05). On subsequent listing, relisted patients had more severe functional limitations (10% vs 23%, p < 0.001), higher status (p < 0.001), and were more likely to be relisted at a higher volume (45% vs 73%, p < 0.001) and better-performing transplant center (p = 0.017).

Conclusions

Although waitlist outcomes were similar between single-listing and relisted patients, at the time of relisting, patients were more likely to have severe functional limitations coinciding with higher listing statuses. Further work is needed to determine the underlying motivators for relisting.
重新列入矫形心脏移植名单的患者的临床过程:一项全国性研究
背景人们对在不同移植中心再次进行心脏移植的患者的临床过程知之甚少。我们试图通过比较初次和再次被列入名单时的临床状态来描述再次被列入名单的患者的基线特征、预后和医院选择。方法查询了器官共享联合网络数据库中在 2018 年 10 月 18 日至 2023 年 9 月 30 日期间首次被列入隔离心脏移植名单的成人。确定了因在其他中心重新登记而从原移植中心除名的患者。经倾向得分匹配后,对单列患者和重新列名患者的候选名单和移植后结果进行了比较。比较了初次挂牌和再次挂牌时相同的特征和中心数量。结果有 217 名患者被除名,随后又被重新列入名单。经倾向得分匹配后发现,单次挂牌和再次挂牌的患者在候诊结果方面无明显差异(所有 p 均为 0.05)。结论虽然单次列表和再次列表患者的等待结果相似,但在再次列表时,患者更有可能出现严重的功能限制,同时列表状态也更高。还需要进一步研究以确定重新列表的根本原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信