Premium
Interplay between donor and recipient factors impacts outcomes after pediatric heart transplantation: An analysis from the united network for organ sharing database
Author(s) -
Das Bibhuti,
Trivedi Jaimin R.,
Sinha Pranava,
Ramakrishnan Karthik,
Alsoufi Bahaaldin,
Deshpande Shriprasad R.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
pediatric transplantation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.457
H-Index - 69
eISSN - 1399-3046
pISSN - 1397-3142
DOI - 10.1111/petr.13912
Subject(s) - medicine , transplantation , heart transplantation , ejection fraction , cumulative risk , united network for organ sharing , database , surgery , pediatrics , heart failure , liver transplantation , computer science
Abstract Background Donor utilization rates continue to be low for pHT, however, efforts to expand the donor acceptance criteria have shown mixed results in single‐institution studies in pediatric and adult transplantation. Purpose of this study is to assess impact of individual and cumulative donor risk factors on transplant outcomes as well as the interplay between donor and recipient risk factors as it relates to transplant outcomes. Method We analyzed pHT UNOS data (2008‐2018) to compare the recipient characteristics, donor characteristics, and outcomes based on donor ejection fraction of less than 50% (low EF) and or ischemic time of greater than 4 hours (prolonged IT). Results A total of 4345 pHT were performed of which 1309 (30.1%) were with prolonged IT and 122 (2.8%) in low EF. Additionally, 58 (1.3%) were performed with both low EF and prolonged IT (combined risk). Rest (2856 patients, 65.7%) was considered low risk. Recipients of combined risk were more likely to be younger, have post‐surgical congenital heart disease, be on ECMO or ventilator but less likely on VAD (all P < .01) compared with any other group. Waitlist time was significantly lower for low EF (mean 39 days, 15‐109) or combined risk group (36 days, range 15‐80) compared with other groups (60 days, range 23‐125) ( P = .01). 1‐year mortality was 8% in low‐risk group, 12% in prolonged IT, 14% in reduced EF, and 28% in combined risk patients ( P < .01). Number of treated rejections in one year were significantly higher in prolonged IT and combined risk group compared to other groups ( P < .01). When stratified by recipient risk, there was no difference in outcomes for low risk, prolonged IT, or low EF groups; however, there were significant survival differences for high‐risk recipient versus low‐risk recipient in each donor group. Conclusion Lower EF donors performed similar to prolonged IT donor, but were uncommonly used. Acceptance of risk was common in recipients deemed higher risk for waitlist mortality and led to shorter wait times. Caution should be used in accepting combined risk transplants. The recipient risk factors have significant impact on outcomes across all donor risk groups and further analysis will help balance the waitlist mortality with post‐transplant outcomes.