Key result
Actual predicted heart mass improved risk classification by 0.6% (95% CI 0.3-0.8) compared to ideal body weight-adjusted PHM, and undersizing by actual PHM was associated with higher mortality (P<0.01).
Why the study?
Predicted heart mass was neither derived nor evaluated in an obese population.
Does size matching using actual predicted heart mass improve mortality risk assessment compared to ideal body weight-adjusted predicted heart mass in obese heart transplant donors and recipients?
Cohort (n=10,817)
Yes
Does size matching using actual predicted heart mass improve mortality risk assessment compared to ideal body weight-adjusted predicted heart mass in obese heart transplant donors and recipients?
Effect estimate: NRI 0.6% (95% CI 0.3-0.8)
p-value: p=<0.01
Actual predicted heart mass is superior to ideal body weight-adjusted predicted heart mass for size matching and mortality risk assessment in obese heart transplant recipients or donors.
May refine obese donor-recipient size matching; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Introduction Predicted heart mass (PHM) was neither derived nor evaluated in an obese population. Our objective was to evaluate size mismatch using actual body weight or ideal body weight (IBW)‐adjusted PHM on mortality and risk assessment. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult recipients with BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 or recipients of donors with BMI≥30 kg/m 2 from the ISHLT registry. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate 30‐day and 1‐year mortality. The two models were compared using net reclassification index. Results 10,817 HT recipients, age 55 (IQR 46–62) years, 23% female, BMI 31 kg/m 2 (IQR 28–33) were included. Donors were age 34 (IQR 24–44) years, 31% female, and BMI 31 kg/m 2 (IQR 26–34). There was a significant nonlinear association between mortality and actual PHM but not IBW‐adjusted PHM. Undersizing using actual PHM was associated with higher 30‐day and 1‐year mortality ( p < .01), not seen with IBW‐adjusted PHM. Actual PHM better risk classified .6% (95% CI .3–.8) patients compared to IBW‐adjusted PHM. Conclusion Actual PHM can be used for size matching when assessing mortality risk in obese recipients or recipients of obese donors. There is no advantage to re‐calculating PHM using IBW to define candidate risk at the time of organ allocation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aleksova et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Heart transplant in obese donors or recipients (n=10,817). Actual predicted heart mass (PHM) vs. Ideal body weight (IBW)-adjusted PHM was evaluated on 30-day and 1-year mortality and risk classification (NRI 0.6%, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p=<0.01). Actual predicted heart mass improved risk classification by 0.6% (95% CI 0.3-0.8) compared to ideal body weight-adjusted PHM, and undersizing by actual PHM was associated with higher mortality (P<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: