New UNOS allocation system associated with no added benefit in waitlist outcomes and worse post-transplant survival in heart-kidney patients.

BACKGROUND: The 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart transplant policy change (PC) sought to improve waitlist risk stratification to decrease waitlist mortality and promote geographically broader sharing for high-acuity patients awaiting heart transplantation. Our analysis sought to determine the effect of the UNOS PC on outcomes in patients waiting for, or who have received, a heart-kidney transplantation. METHODS: We analyzed adult (≥18 years old), first-time, heart-only and heart-kidney transplant candidates and recipients from the UNOS Registry. Patients were divided into pre-PC (PRE: October 18, 2016-May 30, 2018) and post-PC (POST: October 18, 2018-May 30, 2020) groups for comparison. Competing risks analysis (subdistribution and cause-specific hazards analyses) was performed to assess for differences in waitlist death/deterioration or heart transplantation. One-year post-transplant survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox analyses. We included an interaction term (policy era × heart ± kidney) in our analyses to evaluate the effect of PC on outcomes in heart-kidney patients. RESULTS: One-year post-transplant survival was similar (p = 0.83) for PRE heart-kidney and heart-only recipients, but worse (p < 0.001) for POST heart-kidney vs heart-only recipients. There was a policy-era interaction between heart-kidney and heart-only recipients (HR 1.92[1.04,3.55], p = 0.038) indicating a detrimental effect of policy on 1-year survival in POST vs PRE heart-kidney recipients. No added beneficial effect of PC on waitlist outcomes in heart-kidney vs heart-only candidates was observed. CONCLUSIONS: There was no added policy-era benefit on waitlist outcomes for heart-kidney candidates when compared to heart-only candidates. POST heart-kidney recipients experienced worse 1-year survival compared to PRE heart-kidney recipients with no policy effect on heart-only recipients.

Effect of the UNOS policy change on rates of rejection, infection, and hospital readmission following heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The 2018 adult heart allocation policy sought to improve waitlist risk stratification, reduce waitlist mortality, and increase organ access. This system prioritized patients at greatest risk for waitlist mortality, especially individuals requiring temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS). Posttransplant complications are significantly higher in patients on tMCS before transplantation, and early posttransplant complications impact long-term mortality. We sought to determine if policy change affected early posttransplant complication rates of rejection, infection, and hospitalization. METHODS: We included all adult, heart-only, single-organ heart transplant recipients from the UNOS registry with pre-policy (PRE) individuals transplanted between November 1, 2016, and October 31, 2017, and post-policy (POST) between November 1, 2018, and October 31, 2019. We used a multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess the effect of policy change on posttransplant rejection, infection, and hospitalization. Two COVID-19 eras (2019-2020, 2020-2021) were included in our analysis. RESULTS: The majority of baseline characteristics were comparable between PRE and POST era recipients. The odds of treated rejection (p = 0.8), hospitalization (p = 0.69), and hospitalization due to rejection (p = 0.76) and infection (p = 0.66) were similar between PRE and POST eras; there was a trend towards reduced odds of rejection (p = 0.08). In both COVID eras, there was a clear reduction in rejection and treated rejection with no effect on hospitalization for rejection or infection. Odds of all-cause hospitalization was increased in both COVID eras. CONCLUSIONS: The UNOS policy change improves access to heart transplantation for higher acuity patients without increasing early posttransplant rates of treated rejection or hospitalization for rejection or infection, factors which portend risk for long-term posttransplant mortality.

Anticoagulation Patterns in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in an Academic Center.

A common dilemma facing physicians treating patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the management of oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy, because there is also an indication for dual antiplatelet therapy in these patients. The purpose of this study was therefore to evaluate anticoagulation patterns in this patient population in an attempt to identify patterns of risk factors that may influence OAC prescribing habits. This retrospective study entailed a review of a total of 4,648 patients from two academic hospitals who underwent PCI between 2008 and 2016. We ultimately included 211 patients who had AF and an indication for OAC. Chart review revealed patients' risk factors, CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, and antithrombotic regimens. Only 105 (49.8%) patients who met the indications for OAC were actually placed on OAC post-PCI. There was no significant relationship between discharge on OAC and HAS-BLED score (t = 0.14; p = 0.44) or CHA2DS2-VASc score (t = 0.76; p = 0.22). Patients younger than 65 years of age were prescribed more triple therapy (56% versus 33%; p < 0.01) or any OAC (69% versus 41%; p < 0.01) on discharge in comparison with patients 65 years of age or older. The older patient group had a significantly higher average CHA2DS2-VASc score (4.4 versus 3.2; p < 0.01) and a higher average HAS-BLED score (2.8 versus 2.4; p < 0.01). Ultimately, this study indicated that less than half of AF patients with an indication for OAC were placed on OAC post-PCI. There was no association between discharge on OAC and CHA2DS2-VASc score, HAS-BLED score, or any other individual risk factor, with the exception of age.

In-hospital statin underutilization among high-risk patients: delayed uptake of the 2013 cholesterol guidelines in a U.S. cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Clinician utilization of the 2013 cholesterol lowering guidelines remains variable and unknown. We sought to examine statin prescribing patterns and compare rates among specialists who treat high-risk cardiovascular patients admitted to the hospital. METHODS: We retrospectively (via chart review) examined four specialty groups: (i) Cardiology, (ii) Cardiovascular or Vascular (CV) Surgery, (iii) Neurology, and (iv) Internal Medicine. Adult patients were included based on a discharge diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, carotid endarterectomy, acute ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or high-risk chest pain. Prescribing patterns were evaluated 6 months and 18 months after the release of the 2013 guidelines. High-intensity statin was defined as atorvastatin 40-80 mg or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg per day. RESULTS: 632 patients were included in our study. The following percentages of patients were discharged on high-intensity statin (6 months; 18 months): (i) Cardiology (80%; 85%), (ii) CV Surgery (52%, 65%), (iii) Neurology (59%; 66%), and (iv) Internal Medicine (45%; 48%). Among the four groups, Cardiology was the most likely to discharge patients on high-intensity statin (p < 0.001) in 2014 and in 2015. Cardiology, CV Surgery, and Neurology significantly increased the percentage of patients on high-intensity statin from pre-admission to time of discharge in both years. CONCLUSION: High-intensity statin therapy is underutilized among high-risk cardiovascular patients admitted to the hospital. Variations exist in prescribing patterns of different specialties who manage high-risk populations. This data can be used to test quality improvement interventions to improve rates of high-intensity statin utilization among high-risk patients prior to hospital discharge.