Donor and Recipient Age Influence Outcomes Following Orthotopic Heart Transplantation in the 2018 US Heart Allocation System

Nidhi Iyanna,Yeahwa Hong,Nicholas R Hess,Luke A Ziegler,Ander Dorken-Gallastegi,Gavin W Hickey,Mary E Keebler,David J Kaczorowski
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000005194
2024-08-28
Transplantation
Abstract:Background: This study evaluates the interaction of donor and recipient age with outcomes following heart transplantation under the 2018 heart allocation system. Methods: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried to analyze adult primary isolated orthotopic heart transplant recipients and associated donors from August 18, 2018, to June 30, 2021. Both recipient and donor cohorts were grouped according to age: <65 and ≥65 y for recipients and <50 and ≥50 y for donors. The primary outcome was survival. Subanalyses were performed to evaluate the impact of donor age. Results: A total of 7601 recipients and 7601 donors were analyzed. Of these, 1584 recipients (20.8%) were ≥65 y old and 560 donors (7.4%) were ≥50 y old. Compared with recipients <65, recipients ≥65 had decreased 1-y (88.8% versus 92.3%) and 2-y (85.1% versus 88.5%) survival rates (P < 0.001). The association of recipient age ≥65 with lower survival persisted after adjusting for potential cofounders (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.61; P < 0.001). Recipients <65 with donors ≥50 had comparable 1-y and 2-y survival rates to recipients <65 with donors <50 (P =0.997). Conversely, transplantation of older allografts was associated with lower 1-y (84.2% versus 89.4%) and 2-y (79.5% versus 85.8%) survival rates in recipients ≥65 (P = 0.025). Conclusions: Recipient age ≥65 continues to be associated with worse survival following heart transplantation in the 2018 heart allocation system compared with younger recipients. Donors ≥50 may be acceptable among recipients <65 with comparable outcomes. However, careful donor age selection should be considered for recipients ≥65, as the use of younger donor allografts appears to improve posttransplantation survival.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?