Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40480732›Full record

Observational studyThe Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation2025

Reasons for donor heart offer refusal in the United States: Results from 14,132 transplant clinician surveys in the Donor Heart Study.

Brian Wayda, Helen Luikart, Yingjie Weng, Shiqi Zhang, Nikole Neidlinger, R Patrick Wood, Javier Nieto, Bruce Nicely, John Belcher, Tahnee Groat and 3 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Brian WaydaDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Helen LuikartDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Yingjie WengQuantitative Sciences Unit, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Shiqi ZhangQuantitative Sciences Unit, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Nikole NeidlingerDepartment of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
R Patrick WoodLifeGift Organ Procurement Organization, Houston, Texas.
Javier NietoLifeGift Organ Procurement Organization, Houston, Texas.
Bruce NicelyGift of Life Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
John BelcherNew England Donor Services, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Tahnee GroatDepartment of Surgery, Division of Trauma, Critical Care, and Acute Care Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Darren MalinoskiDepartment of Surgery, Division of Trauma, Critical Care, and Acute Care Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Jonathan ZaroffDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California.
Kiran K KhushDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. Electronic address: kiran@stanford.edu.

Funding

Evidence Based Evaluation and Acceptance of Donor Hearts for TransplantationR01HL125303 · NHLBI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI KHUSH, KIRAN KAUR · 2015 to 2019
$3.0M
Narrowing the gap between supply and demand in heart transplantationF32HL154750 · NHLBI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI WAYDA, BRIAN · 2022 to 2024
$165k
NHLBI NIH HHS F32 HL154750NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL125303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite a shortage of donors for heart transplant (HT) in the United States, most potential donor hearts are discarded. We evaluated the reasons why and their temporal and geographic variation using a US-wide survey of HT clinicians.

methodsThe Donor Heart Study enrolled 4,333 adult potential heart donors in United States from 2015-2020. Separately by donor, each HT center that refused an offer for that donor was surveyed on their reason(s) for refusal. We measured the prevalence of 28 distinct donor-unrelated reasons for refusal and characterized their temporal and geographic variation.

resultsOf 14,132 surveys collected-each representing a single declined donor offer-donor-specific, recipient, and mismatch issues were cited in 49.3%, 24.3%, and 38.0%, respectively. Among surveys citing only donor-specific issues, the most common were age, coronary artery disease, left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, and LV hypertrophy; other noncardiac issue(s) (e.g., drug use) were the sole reason in 20.6% of surveys citing only donor-specific issues. Donor age as a reason for offer refusal became increasingly prevalent over time, despite no accompanying change in the prevalence of older (50+ year-old) donors. Reasons for offer refusal varied widely by region, in a manner unexplained by regional differences in objective donor characteristics.

conclusionsOur findings highlight the subjective nature of donor heart assessment. Further scrutiny of non-evidence based reasons for refusal could reduce discard of viable donor hearts.

Indexed as

Heart TransplantationTissue and Organ ProcurementTissue DonorsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Statesclinical decision-makingdonor selectionheart transplantationsurveys and questionnairestissue and organ procurement

Identifiers

PMID40480732
PMCPMC12148222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.