ArticleJHLT open2023
Are exceptions justified in the current heart allocation system?
Article in JHLT open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: In the current 6-tiered heart allocation system, waitlisted candidates frequently receive an exception to any of the top 4 allocation statuses. Studies have shown varying results regarding the mortality risk of exceptions compared to standard criteria listings in the top 2 statuses. It remains unclear whether exception statuses in the current allocation system are justified. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study on all adults waitlisted for heart transplant between November 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022, contained in the United Network for Organ Sharing database. The waitlist mortality and transplantation rate of all exception status and standard criteria listings were compared and ranked, using status 6 as the reference status, in univariable and multivariable Cox models including status as a time-dependent variable. Results: A total of 17,116 heart waitlist candidates were included in the study. The waitlist mortality rates of exceptions in status 1 and 2 were lower than, but close to, the mortality rates of their standard criteria counterparts: status 1 standard (hazard ratio) HR 43.47 ( Conclusions: Based on waitlist mortality over a longer study period than previous analyses, high-priority exceptions are appropriately placed in the current heart allocation system. The current allocation system requires a large fraction of candidates to seek exceptions, suggesting that we should focus on objective data to risk stratify all heart waitlist candidates, and thereby reduce the need for exceptions.
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.