Is it time for a cardiac allocation score? First results from the Eurotransplant pilot study on a survival benefit-based heart allocation

被引:65
作者
Smits, Jacqueline M. [1 ]
de Vries, Erwin [1 ]
De Pauw, Michel [2 ]
Zuckermann, Andreas [3 ]
Rahmel, Axel [1 ]
Meiser, Bruno [4 ]
Laufer, Guenther [3 ]
Reichenspurner, Hermann [5 ]
Strueber, Martin [6 ]
机构
[1] Eurotransplant Int Fdn, NL-2301 CH Leiden, Netherlands
[2] Univ Hosp, Ghent, Belgium
[3] Univ Hosp Vienna, Vienna, Austria
[4] Univ Munich, Dept Thorac Surg, Hosp Grosshadern, Munich, Germany
[5] Univ Hosp Eppendolf, Dept Thorac Surg, Hamburg, Germany
[6] Univ Heart Ctr, Dept Thorac Surg, Leipzig, Germany
关键词
Eurotransplant; heart transplantation; Cardiac Allocation Score; waiting list mortality; transplant outcomes; heart allocation; VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICES; RISK; MORTALITY; PREDICTORS; SUPPORT; URGENT; INDEX; DONOR;
D O I
10.1016/j.healun.2013.03.015
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
100201 [内科学];
摘要
BACKGROUND: Patients awaiting heart transplantation in Eurotransplant are prioritized by waiting time and medical urgency. To reduce mortality, the introduction of post-transplant survival in an allocation model based on the concept of survival benefit might be more appropriate. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic accuracy of the Heart Failure Survival Score (HFSS), the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) model, and the Index for Mortality Prediction After Cardiac Transplantation (IMPACT) score for predicting mortality. METHODS: The HFSS, SHFM, the adapted SHFM, and the INTERMACS model were evaluated for predicting waiting list mortality among heart transplant candidates, and the IMPACT score was tested for predicting post-transplant mortality in separate Cox regression models. Included were the 448 adult heart transplant candidates listed for an urgent status between October 2010 and June 2011 in Eurotransplant. A Cardiac Allocation Score (CAS) was calculated based on the estimated survival times as predicted by the scores. All analyses were performed for the total cohort and separately for ventricular assist device (VAD) and non-VAD patients. RESULTS: Mortality on the waiting list could significantly be predicted in the non-VAD cohort by HFSS (p = 0.005) and SHFM (p < 0.0001) and after transplant by IMPACT (p <0.0001). None of the tested scores could predict mortality among VAD-supported patients. CONCLUSIONS: In non-VAD patients, the HFSS, SHFM, and IMPACT provide accurate risk stratification. Further studies will reveal whether these models should be considered as the basis for a new heart allocation policy in Eurotransplant. (C) 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:873 / 880
页数:8
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]
Development and prospective validation of a clinical index to predict survival in ambulatory patients referred for cardiac transplant evaluation [J].
Aaronson, KD ;
Schwartz, JS ;
Chen, TM ;
Wong, KL ;
Goin, JE ;
Mancini, DM .
CIRCULATION, 1997, 95 (12) :2660-2667
[2]
Predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized for heart failure - Insights from the Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF) [J].
Abraham, William T. ;
Fonarow, Gregg C. ;
Albert, Nancy M. ;
Stough, Wendy Gattis ;
Gheorghiade, Mihai ;
Greenberg, Barry H. ;
O'Connor, Christopher M. ;
Sun, Jie Lena ;
Yancy, Clyde W. ;
Young, James B. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2008, 52 (05) :347-356
[3]
Transplant Registrants With Implanted Left Ventricular Assist Devices Have Insufficient Risk to Justify Elective Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Status 1A Time [J].
Dardas, Todd ;
Mokadam, Nahush A. ;
Pagani, Francis ;
Aaronson, Keith ;
Levy, Wayne C. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2012, 60 (01) :36-43
[4]
Selecting patients for heart transplantation: Comparison of the Heart Failure Survival Score (HFSS) and the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) [J].
Goda, Ayumi ;
Williams, Paula ;
Mancini, Donna ;
Lund, Lars H. .
JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION, 2011, 30 (11) :1236-1243
[5]
Prognostic Indicators Useful for Clinical Care? [J].
Gottlieb, Stephen S. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2009, 53 (04) :343-344
[6]
Harrell FE, 1996, STAT MED, V15, P361, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO
[7]
2-4
[8]
Who Is the High-Risk Recipient? Predicting Mortality After Heart Transplant Using Pretransplant Donor and Recipient Risk Factors [J].
Hong, Kimberly N. ;
Iribarne, Alexander ;
Worku, Berhane ;
Takayama, Hiroo ;
Gelijns, Annetine C. ;
Naka, Yoshifumi ;
Jeevanandam, Val ;
Russo, Mark J. .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2011, 92 (02) :520-527
[9]
Utility of the Seattle Heart Failure Model in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure [J].
Kalogeropoulos, Andreas P. ;
Georgiopoulou, Vasiliki V. ;
Giamouzis, Grigorios ;
Smith, Andrew L. ;
Agha, Syed A. ;
Waheed, Sana ;
Laskar, Sonjoy ;
Puskas, John ;
Dunbar, Sandra ;
Vega, David ;
Levy, Wayne C. ;
Butler, Javed .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2009, 53 (04) :334-342
[10]
The Fourth INTERMACS Annual Report: 4,000 implants and counting [J].
Kirklin, James K. ;
Naftel, David C. ;
Kormos, Robert L. ;
Stevenson, Lynne W. ;
Pagani, Francis D. ;
Miller, Marissa A. ;
Baldwin, J. Timothy ;
Young, James B. .
JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION, 2012, 31 (02) :117-126