Abstract
This pre-post cohort study describes changes in practice that markedly increased heart transplant volume at a single center, as well as associated patient characteristics and outcomes.
Importance Institution-level strategic changes may be associated with heart transplant volume and outcomes. Objective To describe changes in practice that markedly increased heart transplant volume at a single center, as well as associated patient characteristics and outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants A pre-post cohort study was conducted of 107 patients who underwent heart transplant between September 1, 2014, and August 31, 2019, at Yale New Haven Hospital before (September 1, 2014, to August 31, 2018; prechange era) and after (September 1, 2018, to August 31, 2019; postchange era) a strategic change in patient selection by the heart transplant program. Exposure Strategic change in donor and recipient selection at Yale New Haven Hospital that occurred in August 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcome measures were transplant case volume, donor and recipient characteristics, and 180-day survival. Results A total of 49 patients (12.3 per year; 20 women [40.8%]; median age, 57 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 50-63 years]) received heart transplants in the 4 years of the prechange era and 58 patients (58 per year; 19 women [32.8%]; median age, 57 years [IQR, 52-64 years]) received heart transplants in the 1 year of the postchange era. Organ offers were more readily accepted in the postchange era, with an offer acceptance rate of 20.5% (58 of 283) compared with 6.4% (49 of 768) in the prechange era (P < .001). In the postchange era, donor hearts were accepted with a higher median number of prior refusals by other centers than in the prechange era (16.5 [IQR, 6-38] vs 3 [IQR, 1-6]; P < .001). Hearts accepted in the postchange era were from older donors than in the prechange era (median age, 40 years [IQR, 29-48 years] vs 30 years [IQR, 24-42 years]; P < .001). Recipients had a significantly shorter time on the waiting list in the postchange era compared with prechange era (median, 41 days [IQR, 12-289 days] vs 242 days [IQR, 135-428 days]; P < .001). More patients were supported on temporary circulatory assist devices preoperatively in the postchange era than the prechange era (14 [24.1%] vs 0; P < .001). Survival rates at 180 days were not significantly different (43 [87.8%] in the prechange era vs 52 [89.7%] in the postchange era). Mortality while on the waiting list was similar (2.8 deaths per year in the prechange era vs 3 deaths per year in the postchange era). During the comparable time period, 4 other regional centers had volume change ranging from -10% to 68%, while this center's volume increased by 374%. Conclusions and Relevance This study suggests that strategic changes in donor heart and recipient selection may significantly increase the number of heart transplants while maintaining short-term outcomes comparable with more conservative patient selection. Such an approach may augment the allocation of currently unused donor hearts.
Question Could a rapid transition from conservative to aggressive selection of donor recipients for heart transplant be achieved safely? Findings In this pre-post cohort study that included 49 heart transplants performed in the prechange era and 58 heart transplants performed in the postchange era before and after patient selection strategy changes in an advanced heart failure program, recipients had a significantly shorter time on the waiting list in the postchange era compared with the prechange era. Survival at 180 days was not significantly different between the eras (88% in the prechange era vs 90% in the postchange era). Meaning Strategic changes in donor heart and recipient selections may substantially increase the number of heart transplants while maintaining short-term outcomes comparable with more conservative patient selection.