The impact of the United Network of Organ Sharing allocation change on waitlist trajectories of inpatients listed with inotropic support: A single‐center analysis

• Published in: Clinical transplantation 2023-01, Vol.37 (1), p.e14834-n/a
• Main Authors: Cao, Louie, Kim, Seong Kyu, Schwartz, Brandon, Cole, Robert, Patel, Jignesh, Czer, Lawrence, Esmailian, Fardad, Kobashigawa, Jon A., Hamilton, Michele A., Kittleson, Michelle M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: allocation scheme; Cardiovascular Agents; Heart Failure; Heart Transplantation; Humans; Inpatients; Retrospective Studies; temporary mechanical circulatory support; Time Factors; waiting list; Waiting Lists
• ISSN: 0902-0063; 1399-0012
• DOI: 10.1111/ctr.14834

Background In the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation scheme prior to October 18, 2018, heart transplant (HTx) candidates with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS), or pulmonary artery (PA) catheter inotropic support all received Status 1A priority. In revised scheme, patients with PA catheter and inotropic support are Status 3 after those on ECMO (Status 1) or temporary MCS (Status 2). We examined the impact of the allocation change on HTx candidates listed Status 1A versus Status 3 at a high‐volume transplant center. Methods Between January 2017 and January 2021, 75 patients were listed with a PA catheter and inotropic support prior to the allocation change (Era 1) and 48 were listed after (Era 2). Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared for these 123 patients. Results Heart transplant (HTx) candidates in Era 2 had higher median inotrope doses at listing. There was no significant difference in inpatient wait list days (12 vs. 20 days, P = .15), transition to temporary MCS (33.3% vs. 22.7%, P = .15), or wait list mortality (6.3% vs. 4.0%, P = .68). There was also no significant difference in survival to transplantation (91.7% vs. 94.7%, P = .71). There were no differences in post‐transplant outcomes including 1‐year survival (88.6% vs. 93.0%, P = .38). Conclusion At a high‐volume transplant center, the UNOS allocation change did not result in increased wait list time, use of temporary MCS, or mortality on the waitlist or post‐transplant for candidates on inotropic support with continuous hemodynamic monitoring.