This Article Full Text Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rodeheffer, R. J. Articles by Bourge, R. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rodeheffer, R. J. Articles by Bourge, R. C.

(Circulation. 1996;94:2883-2889.)
© 1996 American Heart Association, Inc.

Articles

Secular Trends in Cardiac Transplant Recipient and Donor Management in the United States, 1990 to 1994

A Multi-Institutional Study

Richard J. Rodeheffer, MD; David C. Naftel, PhD; Lynne Warner Stevenson, MD; Charles B. Porter, MD; James B. Young, MD; Leslie W. Miller, MD; Joseph L. Kenzora, MD; Garrie J. Haas, MD; James K. Kirklin, MD; Robert C. Bourge, MD; and The Cardiac Transplant Research Database Group*

Mayo Clinic/St Mary's Hospital (R.J.R.), Rochester, Minn; CTRD Center at The University of Alabama at Birmingham (D.C.N., J.K.K., R.C.B.); Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (L.W.S.); Mid-America Heart Institute of St Luke's Hospital (C.B.P.), Kansas City, Mo; Baylor College of Medicine/The Methodist Hospital (J.B.Y.), Houston, Tex; St Louis (Mo) University (L.W.M.); Washington University School of Medicine (J.L.K.), St Louis, Mo; and Ohio State University (G.J.H.), Columbus.

Correspondence to R.J. Rodeheffer, MD, Cardiovascular Division, East-16B, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905.

Background The growth of the US cardiac transplant waiting list has outpaced the increase in donors, resulting in a widening gap between the number of waiting recipients and available donors. These trends have generated concern that longer waiting times may result in more patients deteriorating to urgent status and that transplanting only patients who are in an advanced state of decompensation will reduce posttransplant survival. Furthermore, the shortage of donors may result in extending the guidelines for donor acceptability to a degree that increases graft failure and posttransplant mortality. We measured these secular trends in the Cardiac Transplant Research Database to provide current data on time-dependent changes in US cardiac transplant practice and survival.

Methods and Results At the time of this analysis, the Cardiac Transplant Research Database included all 2749 patients transplanted from January 1, 1990, to June 30, 1994, in the 25 participating transplant centers. During this 4.5-year period, the median waiting time for recipients who received a transplant increased from 2.7 to 3.5 months (P<.0001), and the proportion of recipients whose status was urgent at transplantation increased from 41% to 60% (P<.0001). Donor ischemic time increased from 150 to 166 minutes (P<.0001), and the proportion of donors requiring pressor support increased from 68% to 85% (P<.0001). Despite these changes in practice, the 1-year survival rate remained constant at 84% during this 4.5-year interval. There was no significant difference in 1-year survival rate between urgent status patients (83%) and nonurgent status patients (85%) (P=.08).

Conclusions The widening gap between the number of waiting recipients and the number of donors has resulted in a continuing trend toward transplanting urgent status recipients and to a liberalization of donor acceptance criteria. Despite these changes, posttransplant survival has remained constant.

Key Words: transplantation • survival • heart failure

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Y. S. Tjang, G. J.M.G. van der Heijden, G. Tenderich, D. E. Grobbee, and R. Korfer Survival analysis in heart transplantation: results from an analysis of 1290 cases in a single center Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., May 1, 2008; 33(5): 856 - 861. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Lietz, R. John, D. M. Mancini, and N. M. Edwards Outcomes in cardiac transplant recipients using allografts from older donors versus mortality on the transplant waiting list: Implications for donor selection criteria J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 5, 2004; 43(9): 1553 - 1561. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. F. Lewis, S. W. Tsang, J. C. Fang, G. H. Mudge, J. A. Jarcho, C. M. Flavell, A. Nohria, M. M. Givertz, G. S. Couper, J. G. Byrne, et al. Frequency and impact of delayed decisions regarding heart transplantation on long-term outcomes in patients with advanced heart failure J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 3, 2004; 43(5): 794 - 802. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Scharf, T. Merz, W. Kiowski, E. Oechslin, C. Schalcher, and H. P. Brunner-La Rocca Noninvasive Assessment of Cardiac Pumping Capacity During Exercise Predicts Prognosis in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure Chest, October 1, 2002; 122(4): 1333 - 1339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. L. Dickstein Anesthesia for Heart Transplantation Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, July 1, 1998; 2(2): 131 - 139. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Y. Wang, Y. Naka, H. Liao, M. C. Oz, T. A. Springer, J.-C. Gutierrez-Ramos, and D. J. Pinsky Cardiac Graft Intercellular Adhesion Molecule-1 (ICAM-1) and Interleukin-1 Expression Mediate Primary Isograft Failure and Induction of ICAM-1 in Organs Remote From the Site of Transplantation Circ. Res., April 20, 1998; 82(7): 762 - 772. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]