Hospital volume does not mitigate the impact of area socioeconomic deprivation on heart transplantation outcomes.

BACKGROUND

While structural socioeconomic inequity has been linked with inferior health outcomes, some have postulated reduced access to high-quality care to be the mediator. We assessed whether treatment at high-volume centers (HVC) would mitigate the adverse impact of area deprivation on heart transplantation (HT) outcomes.

METHODS

All HT recipients ≥18 years were identified in the 2005-2022 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation was assessed using the previously validated Area Deprivation Index. Recipients with scores in the highest quintile were considered Most Deprived (others: Less Deprived). Hospitals in the highest quartile by cumulative center volume (≥21 transplants/year) were classified as HVC. The primary outcome was post-transplant survival.

RESULTS

Of 38,022 HT recipients, 7,579 (20%) were considered Most Deprived. Following risk adjustment, Most Deprived demonstrated inferior survival at 3 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.21) and 5 years following transplantation (HR 1.13, CI 1.07-1.20). Similarly, Most Deprived faced greater graft failure at 3 (HR 1.14, CI 1.06-1.22) and 5 years (HR 1.13, CI 1.07-1.20). Evaluating patients transplanted at HVC, Most Deprived continued to face greater mortality at 3 (HR 1.10, CI 1.01-1.21) and 5 years (HR 1.10, CI 1.01-1.19). The interaction between Most Deprived status and care at HVC was not significant, such that transplantation at HVC did not ameliorate the survival disparity between Most and Less Deprived.

CONCLUSIONS

Area socioeconomic disadvantage is independently associated with inferior survival. Transplantation at HVC did not eliminate this inequity. Future efforts are needed to increase engagement with longitudinal follow-up care and address systemic root causes to improve outcomes.