Dataset Information

Performance Changes Following the Revision of Organ Allocation System of Lung Transplant: Analysis of Korean Network for Organ Sharing Data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is currently a lack of data on the impact of the recent revision of the domestic lung allocation system on transplant performance.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of transplant candidates and transplant patients registered in Korean Network for Organ Sharing between July 2015 and July 2019. Study periods were classified according to the introduction of the revised lung allocation system as follows: period 1 from July 2015 to June 2017 and period 2 from August 2017 to July 2019.

Results

During the study period, a total of 627 patients were on the waiting list, of which 398 lung transplantations were performed. Total waiting list size increased by 98.6%, from 210 in period 1 to 417 in period 2. The number of transplant patients also increased by 32.7%, from 171 in period 1 to 227 in period 2. The number of donors decreased from 1,042 to 878, whereas the usage rate, i.e., the number of lung donors used for transplantation among the total number of reported lung donors, increased from 16.4% to 25.9%. The proportion of patients with high urgent status at transplantation increased from 45% to 60.4%, whereas those with urgent status decreased from 46.8% to 35.7% (P = 0.006). The use of marginal donor lungs increased from 29.8% to 53.7% (P < 0.001). To adjust urgency status and marginal donor usage between two groups, we conducted a propensity score matching analysis. No significant differences were detected in 1-year survival rates between the two periods after propensity score matching. As well, no significant difference was observed in mortality on the waiting list between the two periods.

Conclusion

The recent revision of the lung allocation system in Korea did not change the performance of lung transplant in terms of waiting list mortality and 1-year survival. The rapid increase in the volume of waiting list between the two periods increased the waiting time, transplantation of high-urgency patients, and use of marginal lung donors.

SUBMITTER: Yeo HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8007421 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSurvival of patients on left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has improved. We examined the differences in risk of adverse outcomes between LVAD-supported and medically managed candidates on the heart transplant waiting list.Methods and resultsWe analyzed mortality and morbidity in 33,073 heart transplant candidates registered on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) waiting list between 1999 and 2011. Five groups were selected: patients without LVADs in urgency status 1A, 1B, and 2; patients with pulsatile-flow LVADs; and patients with continuous-flow LVADs. Outcomes in patients requiring biventricular assist devices, total artificial heart, and temporary VADs were also analyzed. Two eras were defined on the basis of the approval date of the first continuous-flow LVAD for bridge to transplantation in the United States (2008). Mortality was lower in the current compared with the first era (2.1%/mo versus 2.9%/mo; P<0.0001). In the first era, mortality of pulsatile-flow LVAD patients was higher than in status 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; P<0.0001) and similar to that in status 1B patients (HR, 1.04; P=0.61). In the current era, patients with continuous-flow LVADs had mortality similar to that of status 2 (HR, 0.80; P=0.12) and lower mortality compared with status 1A and 1B patients (HR, 0.24 and 0.47; P<0.0001 for both comparisons). However, status upgrade for LVAD-related complications occurred frequently (28%) and increased the mortality risk (HR, 1.75; P=0.001). Mortality was highest in patients with biventricular assist devices (HR, 5.00; P<0.0001) and temporary VADs (HR, 7.72; P<0.0001).ConclusionsMortality and morbidity on the heart transplant waiting list have decreased. Candidates supported with contemporary continuous-flow LVADs have favorable waiting list outcomes; however, they worsen significantly once a serious LVAD-related complication occurs. Transplant candidates requiring temporary and biventricular support have the highest risk of adverse outcomes. These results may help to guide optimal allocation of donor hearts.

Project description:ImportanceThe new United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) donor heart allocation system gives priority to patients supported with nondischargeable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices while awaiting heart transplant. Whether there has been a change in temporary MCS use in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) since the implementation of this policy is unknown.ObjectivesTo examine whether the UNOS donor heart allocation system revision in October 2018 was associated with changes in temporary MCS use in CICUs and whether temporary MCS use differed between US transplant centers and US nontransplant centers and Canadian centers.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study, 14 centers from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN), a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America, contributed 2-month snapshots of consecutive medical CICU admissions between September 1, 2017, and September 1, 2018 (prerevision period), and October 1, 2018, and September 1, 2019 (postrevision period). CICUs were classified as US transplant centers (n = 7) or other CICUs (US nontransplant centers or Canadian centers; n = 7).ExposureRevision to the UNOS donor heart allocation system.Main outcomes and measuresTreatment with temporary MCS (intra-aortic balloon pump, microaxial intracardiac ventricular assist device, percutaneous centrifugal ventricular assist device, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or surgically implanted, nondischargeable MCS device) during hospital admission.ResultsA total of 384 admissions for acute, decompensated, heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (ADHF-CS) were included, among which 248 (64.6%) were to US transplant centers; 126 admissions (51%) were in the prerevision period and 122 (49%) were in the postrevision period. The mean (SD) patient age was 61.2 (14.6) years; 246 patients (64.1%) were male. The proportion of admissions with ADHF-CS managed with temporary MCS at US transplant centers significantly increased from 25.4% (32 of 126 admissions) before to 42.6% (52 of 122 admissions) after the UNOS allocation system changes (P = .004). In other CICUs, the proportion did not significantly change (24.5% [13 of 53 admissions] to 24.1% [20 of 83 admissions]; P = .95). After multivariable adjustment, patients admitted to US transplant centers in the postrevision period were more likely to receive temporary MCS compared with those admitted in the prerevision period (adjusted odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.13-4.24; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn the year after implementation of the new UNOS donor heart allocation system, temporary MCS use in patients admitted with ADHF-CS increased in US transplant centers but not in other CICUs. Whether this shift in practice will affect outcomes of patients with ADHF-CS or organ distribution should be evaluated.