ArticleESC heart failure2020
The impact of insurance type on listing status and wait-list mortality of patients with left ventricular assist devices as bridge to transplantation.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsAdequate health insurance coverage is necessary for heart transplantation (HT) candidates. Prior studies have suggested inferior outcomes post HT with public health insurance. We sought to evaluate the effects of insurance type on transplantation rates, listing status and mortality prior to HT. METHODS AND
resultsPatients ≥18 years old with a left ventricular assist device implanted and listed with 1A status were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry between January 2010 and December 2017, with follow-up through March 2018. Patients were grouped based on the type of insurance private/self-pay (PV), Medicare (MC), and Medicaid (MA) at the time of listing. We conducted multivariable competing risks regression analysis on listing status and mortality on the waiting list, stratified by insurance type at the time of listing. We identified 2604 patients listed in status 1A (PV: 51.4%, MC: 32.1%, and MA: 16.5%). MA patients were younger (43.5 vs. 56.4 for MC vs. 51.5 for PV, P < 0.001) and less frequently White (P < 0.001). The cumulative incidence of HT did not differ among the three insurance types (PV: 74.8%, MC 76.3%, and MA 71.1%, P = 0.14). The cumulative mortality on the waiting list prior to HT was not different among groups (PV: 29.3%, MC 26.3%, and MA 21.8%, P = 0.94). Μore patients with MA were removed from the list because of improvement of their condition (MA 40.3% vs. MC 28.3% and PV 32.8%).
conclusionsWe did not detect any disparities in listing status and mortality among different insurance types.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.