Geographic Distance From Transplant Center Does Not Impact Pediatric Heart Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Many pediatric heart transplant recipients live a significant distance from their transplant center. This results in families either traveling long distances or relying on outside physicians to assume aspects of their care. Distance has been implicated to play a role in congenital heart disease outcomes, but its impact on heart transplantation has not been reported. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of distance on pediatric heart transplant outcomes. METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database was queried for all pediatric heart transplant recipients from large US children's hospitals (1987-2014). Patients were stratified into 4 groups (<20, 20-50, 50-100, and >100 miles) based on distance. Survival curves were generated and compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to adjust for differences between groups. RESULTS: A total of 4768 patients were included in the analysis, of which 1435 (30.1%) were <20 miles, 940 (19.7%) were 20 to 50 miles, 806 (16.9%) were 50 to 100 miles, and 1587 (33.3%) were >100 miles from their transplant center. There was no difference in posttransplant survival based on distance after adjusting for patient age, gender, ethnicity, blood type, diagnosis, listing status, and the need for pretransplant ventricular assist device, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or ventilator support. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in graft survival after pediatric heart transplantation based on patient distance from their transplant center. Our data suggest the current strategy of transitioning some aspects of transplant care to local physicians or management from a distance does not increase posttransplant mortality risk.

Regional variation in the use of 1A status exceptions for pediatric heart transplant candidates: is this equitable?

The use of status exceptions (SE) was recently publicized as a strategy to reduce waitlist times for children awaiting heart transplant (HTx). The aim of this study was to assess SE use across UNOS regions and compare survival in patients listed using a SE to those listed by standard criteria. The OPTN database was queried for all pediatric patients listed for HTx (2000-2014). SE use was compared across UNOS regions. Survival curves were generated and compared using the log-rank test. 1A SE use is uncommon, being utilized in 108 of 4587 pediatric 1A listings (2.4%). There is significant variability in SE use across UNOS regions (0.7%-16.4% of 1A listings, P < .001). Waitlist survival is significantly higher in candidates listed using a 1A SE compared to those listed by standard criteria (P = .001) and is similar to 1B listings. Regional variation in 1A SE use has the potential to introduce bias into a system designed to be equitable. Waitlist survival in patients listed using a SE is similar to those listed status 1B, suggesting these patients may not require 1A status. Careful review of pediatric heart allocation policies is needed to optimize patient outcomes and ensure a fair and unbiased allocation system.