Key result
Classification in tier 2 of the 2018 Heart Allocation System was associated with a higher hazard of waitlist death or deterioration compared to tier 4 (HR 5.03; 95% CI 1.99-12.70; P<0.001).
Why the study?
The 2018 Revised UNOS Heart Allocation System was proposed to reclassify status 1A candidates into groups of decreasing acuity, but it does not account for factors like BMI and blood group that influence waitlist outcomes.
Does the 2018 Revised UNOS Heart Allocation System accurately prioritize patients for heart transplantation based on waitlist death/deterioration risk?
Cohort (n=214)
No
Does the 2018 Revised UNOS Heart Allocation System accurately prioritize patients for heart transplantation based on waitlist death/deterioration risk?
Hazard Ratio: 5.03 (95% CI 1.99–12.7)
p-value: p=<.001
The 2018 UNOS Heart Allocation System accurately prioritizes the sickest patients, though factors like BMI and blood group may influence this relationship and suggest areas for future refinement.
The 2018 Revised United Network for Organ Sharing Heart Allocation System (HAS) was proposed to reclassify status 1A candidates into groups of decreasing acuity; however, it does not take into account factors such as body mass index (BMI) and blood group which influence waitlist (WL) outcomes. We sought to validate patient prioritization in the new HAS at our center. We retrospectively evaluated patients listed for heart transplantation (n = 214) at Emory University Hospital from 2011 to 2017. Patients were reclassified into the 6‐tier HAS. Multistate modeling and competing risk analysis were used to compare outcomes of transplantation and WL death/deterioration between new tiers. Additionally, a stratified sensitivity analysis by BMI and blood group was performed. Compared with tier 4 patients, there was progressively increasing hazard of WL death/deterioration in tier 3 (HR: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.37‐4.63, P = .003) and tier 2 (HR: 5.03, 95% CI: 1.99‐12.70, P < .001), without a difference in transplantation outcome. When stratified by BMI and blood group, this hierarchical association was not valid in patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 and non‐O blood groups in our cohort. Therefore, the 2018 HAS accurately prioritizes the sickest patients in our cohort. Factors such as BMI and blood group influence this relationship and iterate that the system can be further refined.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nayak et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Heart transplantation candidates (n=214). Tier 2 classification in the 2018 Heart Allocation System vs. Tier 4 classification was evaluated on Waitlist death or deterioration (HR 5.03, 95% CI 1.99-12.70, p=<.001). Classification in tier 2 of the 2018 Heart Allocation System was associated with a higher hazard of waitlist death or deterioration compared to tier 4 (HR 5.03; 95% CI 1.99-12.70; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: