Use of two recipient lists for adults requiring heart transplantation.

OBJECTIVE An alternate (second) adult recipient list was used to match excluded potential recipients with nonstandard donor hearts that would otherwise be unused. METHODS The only absolute criterion for entering the alternate recipient list was age: 65 years old before 1998 and 70 years old after that. Group I consisted of alternates who underwent transplantation, and group II consisted of 401 contemporaneous recipients. Hearts were first offered to regularly listed patients. At least one of the following donor risks accounted for allocation to an alternate: coronary artery disease, reused transplanted heart, high-risk behavior, hepatitis seropositivity, decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, high inotropic requirement, left ventricular hypertrophy, age older than 55 years plus another risk, and small donor with no other matches. RESULTS Of 102 alternates, 82 were listed were because of age. After a median wait of 107 days, 62 alternates underwent transplantation. Median alternate recipient age was 67 years (vs 54 years, P <.001). Median donor age was 45 years (vs 31 years, P <.001). Survival for alternates at 90 days was 82% (vs 91%, P =.04). Significant recipient predictors of early mortality on multivariable analysis (n = 463) were previous cardiac surgery (odds ratio 2.74, 95% confidence interval 1.37-5.48) and renal dysfunction (odds ratio 1.39, 1.10-176). Alternate listing did not independently predict early or late mortality. Late (>90 days) death rates per 1000 person-months were 4.3 and 3.6 for groups I and II (relative risk 1.2, 0.62-2.36). CONCLUSIONS Use of two adult recipient lists facilitated allocation of unused donor organs. Satisfactory long-term survival supports the use of an alternate recipient list.

[1]  G. Fonarow,et al.  Use of hearts transplanted from donors with atraumatic intracranial bleeds. , 2001, The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation.

[2]  J. Kobashigawa,et al.  Expanding the heart donor base , 2000 .

[3]  D. Renlund,et al.  New UNOS rules: historical background and implications for transplantation management. United Network for Organ Sharing. , 1999, The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation.

[4]  M. Goormastic,et al.  Outcome ofDe Novohepatitis C virus infection in heart transplant recipients , 1999, Hepatology.

[5]  D. Bresnahan,et al.  An analysis of the effect of age on survival after heart transplant. , 1999, The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation.

[6]  J. Young Age before beauty: the use of "older" donor hearts for cardiac transplantation. , 1999, The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation.

[7]  L. Miller,et al.  Heart transplant coronary artery disease detected by coronary angiography: a multiinstitutional study of preoperative donor and recipient risk factors. Cardiac Transplant Research Database. , 1998, The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation.

[8]  V. Jeevanandam,et al.  Standard criteria for an acceptable donor heart are restricting heart transplantation. , 1996, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[9]  L. Yeatman,et al.  Effect of pravastatin on outcomes after cardiac transplantation. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  R. Leyh,et al.  Cardiovascular dynamics and dimensions after bicaval and standard cardiac transplantation. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[11]  C. Porter,et al.  Matching the heart donor and heart transplant recipient. Clues for successful expansion of the donor pool: a multivariable, multiinstitutional report. The Cardiac Transplant Research Database Group. , 1994, The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation.

[12]  A. Caplan,et al.  Task force 3: Recipient guidelines/prioritization , 1993 .

[13]  J. Child,et al.  Cardiac preservation in patients undergoing transplantation. A clinical trial comparing University of Wisconsin solution and Stanford solution. , 1991, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[14]  J R Wilson,et al.  Value of Peak Exercise Oxygen Consumption for Optimal Timing of Cardiac Transplantation in Ambulatory Patients With Heart Failure , 1991, Circulation.

[15]  M. Hammond,et al.  A working formulation for the standardization of nomenclature in the diagnosis of heart and lung rejection: Heart Rejection Study Group. The International Society for Heart Transplantation. , 1990, The Journal of heart transplantation.

[16]  O. Frazier,et al.  Extension of donor criteria in cardiac transplantation: surgical risk versus supply-side economics. , 1990, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[17]  A. Menkis,et al.  Cardiac allograft ischemic time. Relation to graft survival and cardiac function. , 1989, Circulation.