Shows expanding donation after circulatory death heart transplants in high-risk recipients with equivalent survival, highlighting broader organ access despite increasing waitlist times.
Objective Previous reports indicate that the majority of donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplants (HTs) were performed in low-priority candidates (status ≥4). We sought to characterize the contemporary practice and outcomes of DCD HTs in high- and low-risk patients. Methods Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, 1581 adult HT recipients (2019-2024) were identified: 966 (61%) high risk (status 1-3) and 615 (39%) low risk (status 4-6). Trends in recipient selection, waitlist time, and posttransplant outcomes were examined. Results High-risk patients were more likely to be younger (56 vs 59 years; P < .001), male (83% vs 75%; P < .001), of Black race (25% vs 18%; P = .003), have hepatic dysfunction (22% vs 15%; P < .001), supported by a left ventricular assist device (42% vs 28%; P < .001), mechanically ventilated (1.4% vs 0%; P = .002), and on vasopressor support (41% vs 16%; P < .001) at time of transplant. They also experienced shorter total waitlist times (20 vs 71 days; P < .001), longer ischemic times (5.3 vs 4.7 hours; P < .001), and greater organ travel distances (359 vs 253 nautical miles; P < .001). Posttransplant survival was similar between groups ( P = .122), although the high-risk group had longer hospital stay (18 vs 16 days; P < .001). A significant increase in the use of DCD HT for high-risk patients was observed, increasing from 33% (of all DCD HTs during 2020) to 75% in 2024. Adjusted (DCD) waitlist time is doubled in high-risk patients (from 9 to 19 days) and increased 3.7-fold in low-risk patients (from 19 to 71 days). Conclusions Over the past 5 years, the practice of DCD HT has evolved, with most transplants now occurring in high-risk candidates, yielding comparable outcomes to lower-risk groups. However, DCD waitlist times have significantly increased, suggesting the need for broader and earlier adoption across all listing statuses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: