Section of Cardiac Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut.
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Sep 1;3(9):e2017513. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.17513.
Institution-level strategic changes may be associated with heart transplant volume and outcomes.
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.
Strategic change in donor and recipient selection at Yale New Haven Hospital that occurred in August 2018.
Outcome measures were transplant case volume, donor and recipient characteristics, and 180-day survival.
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%.
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.
重要性:机构层面的战略变化可能与心脏移植量和结果有关。
目的:描述在单个中心实施的显著增加心脏移植量的实践变化,以及相关的患者特征和结果。
设计、地点和参与者:在耶鲁纽黑文医院进行了一项回顾性队列研究,纳入了 107 名于 2014 年 9 月 1 日至 2019 年 8 月 31 日期间接受心脏移植的患者,分为心脏移植项目在患者选择方面进行战略调整之前(2014 年 9 月 1 日至 2018 年 8 月 31 日;调整前时代)和之后(2018 年 9 月 1 日至 2019 年 8 月 31 日;调整后时代)。
暴露:耶鲁纽黑文医院供体和受体选择的战略变化发生在 2018 年 8 月。
主要结果和措施:观察指标包括移植例数、供体和受体特征以及 180 天生存率。
结果:在调整前的 4 年中,共有 49 名患者(每年 12.3 例;20 名女性[40.8%];中位年龄 57 岁[四分位距{IQR},50-63 岁])接受了心脏移植,而在调整后的 1 年中,共有 58 名患者(每年 58 例;19 名女性[32.8%];中位年龄 57 岁[IQR,52-64 岁])接受了心脏移植。在调整后时代,器官供体更容易被接受,接受率为 20.5%(58 例中有 58 例),而调整前时代的接受率为 6.4%(768 例中有 49 例)(P<0.001)。在后调整时代,与前调整时代相比,其他中心先前拒绝的供体心脏接受数量更高(中位数 16.5[IQR,6-38]vs 3[IQR,1-6];P<0.001)。在后调整时代接受的心脏来自年龄较大的供体(中位数 40 岁[IQR,29-48 岁]vs 30 岁[IQR,24-42 岁];P<0.001)。与前调整时代相比,在后调整时代,患者在等待名单上的时间显著缩短(中位数 41 天[IQR,12-289 天]vs 242 天[IQR,135-428 天];P<0.001)。在后调整时代,与前调整时代相比,更多的患者在术前接受了临时循环辅助设备的支持(14[24.1%]vs 0;P<0.001)。180 天的生存率没有显著差异(前调整时代 43[87.8%]例 vs 后调整时代 52[89.7%]例)。在等待名单上的死亡率相似(前调整时代每年 2.8 例死亡 vs 后调整时代每年 3 例死亡)。在可比时期内,其他 4 个区域中心的心脏移植量变化范围为-10%至 68%,而该中心的心脏移植量增加了 374%。
结论和相关性:本研究表明,心脏供体和受体选择的战略变化可能会显著增加心脏移植的数量,同时保持与更保守的患者选择相比短期结果相当。这种方法可以增加目前未使用的供体心脏的分配。