Characteristics And Outcomes After Heart Transplantation Among Non-Native English Speakers

Fabian Vargas,Jaya Batra,Ruben A. Salazar,Ella Magun,Matthew Regan,Farhana Latif,Kevin J. Clerkin,Gabriel Sayer,Nir Uriel,Ersilia M. DeFilippis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.139

IF: 6.592

2024-01-01

Journal of Cardiac Failure

Abstract:Introduction Existing disparities in heart transplantation (HT) are inextricably linked to social determinants of health and cultural factors. Effective communication and understanding are of paramount importance for HT recipients who require livelong adherence to treatment plans and medications. In kidney transplantation, non-native English speaking (NNES) recipients have inferior outcomes compared to native English-speaking (NES) recipients. Whether NNES recipients have inferior outcomes post-HT has not been studied. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted of HT recipients at Columbia University Irving Medical Center from January 2005 through December 2021. Patients who underwent re-transplantation during the study period were only counted once; dual organ transplant recipients were included. Primary language was determined by chart review. Bilingual patients who declined interpreter services were considered to be primarily English-speaking for this analysis. Unadjusted and adjusted survival at 1-year post-HT were compared between NNES and NES patients. Results During the study period, 1076 individuals underwent HT. After excluding patients who underwent re-transplantation, primary language was available for 1056 HT recipients who were included in the analysis. Of these, 98 (9.3%) were NNES. Sixteen languages were spoken among NNES; the most common non-English language spoken was Spanish (n = 68, 70%). NNES recipients were less likely to identify as White (16.3% vs 56.0%, p-value <.001), more likely to have Medicaid as the primary payer (33.7% vs. 13.8%, p-value <.001), and less likely to have attained college (20.4% vs 42.9%, p-value <.001) or graduate-level degrees (3.1% vs. 12.5%, p-value <.001). There were no significant differences in age or sex distribution between groups. NNES recipients were significantly more likely to have an IABP at transplant (14.3% vs 10.1%, p = 0.010) but without significant differences in durable LVAD or ECMO. Even after adjustment for age, sex, race, insurance, and year of transplantation, mortality at 1 year for NNES recipients was not significantly different than for NES recipients (adjusted HR [0.74 (95% CI 0.35-1.57), p-value 0.43]. Conclusions Despite these demographic differences, our study found no significant differences in mortality at 1 year after HT among NNES and NES. Continued availability of interpreter services and educational resources in multiple languages are paramount to improving outcomes.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems