Which Donor and Recipient Risk Factors Matter in Heart Transplantation? Results From a Survey of 53 Centers Across Five Countries.

INTRODUCTION

Consensus regarding what defines acceptable heart transplant (HT) donors or recipients is lacking. This survey analyzed how risk factors guide donor and recipient selection, and how practices vary across systems.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted among adult HT centers in the US and Eurotransplant (ET) region. We aimed to represent at least 50% of the total adult HT volumes in both regions. Centers were stratified by their HT volumes. To compensate for non-responders, a safety margin was included, and centers accounting for at least 75% of the total HT volumes were contacted. Centers were queried on relative thresholds and absolute cutoffs for continuous risk factors. For other factors, their influence on donor heart acceptance or the likelihood of listing recipients was assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty-three centers from five countries participated: 39 US (accounting for 51.0% of the US HT volume), and 14 ET centers (65.0%) from four countries. ET centers more liberally considered advanced age donor hearts (threshold 64.5 [60.0-70.0] vs. 50.0 [50.0-55.0] years, p < 0.001), and hearts with abnormal echocardiography or coronary findings. Diabetes, smoking, and hypertension were rated by a quarter to more than half of US and ET centers as moderately or heavily influencing donor heart acceptance. ET centers more liberally listed candidates with chronic kidney disease (GFR 30.0 [21.5-32.5] vs. 35.0 [30.0-40.0] mL/min/1.73m, p < 0.001). US centers, conversely, allowed for higher candidate ages (71.5 [70.0-74.0] vs. 68.0 [65.0-70.0] years, p < 0.001), and more likely (76.9%) listed candidates on ECMO support (42.9% of ET centers to less likely list, p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Selection practices differed distinctly between the US and ET. Further, practices appear to be driven by caution and are more conservative than current guidelines. Strengthening the evidence base to objectify and optimize donor and candidate selection could help alleviate the unmet need for donor hearts.