The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2023
Impact of size matching on survival post-heart transplant in infants: Estimated total cardiac-volume ratio outperforms donor-recipient weight ratio.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dani Alia, Ahmed Hosam F, Guzman-Gomez Amalia, Raees Muhammad A, Zhang Yin, Hossain Md Monir, Szugye Nicholas A, Moore Ryan A, Morales David Ls, Zafar Farhan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cardiac volume-based estimation offers an alternative to donor-recipient weight ratio (DRWR) in pediatric heart transplantation (HT) but has not been correlated to posttransplant outcomes. We sought to determine whether estimated total cardiac volume (eTCV) ratio is associated with HT survival in infants.
METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify infants (aged <1 year) who received HT in 1987-2020. Donor and recipient eTCV were calculated from weight using previously published data. Patient cohort was divided acc ording to the significant range of eTCV ratio; characteristics and survival were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 2845 infants were identified. Hazard ratio with cubic spline showed prognostic relationship of eTCV ratio and DRWR with the overall survival. The cut point method determined an optimal eTCV ratio range predictive of infant survival was 1.05 to 1.85, whereas no range for DRWR was predictive. Overall, 75.6% of patients had an optimal total cardiac volume ratio, while 18.1% were in the lower (LR) and 6.3% in the higher (HR) group. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed better survival for patients within the optimal vs LR (p = 0.0017) and a similar significantly better survival when compared to HR (p = 0.0053). The optimal eTCV ratio group (n = 2,151) had DRWR, ranging from 1.09 to 5; 34.3% had DRWR of 2% to 3%, and 5.0% had DRWR of >3.
CONCLUSIONS: Currently, an upper DRWR limit has not been established in infants. Therefore, determining the optimal eTCV range is important to identify an upper limit that significantly predicts survival benefit. This finding suggests a potential increase in donor pool for infant recipients since over 40% of donors in the optimal eTCV range include DRWR values >2 that are traditionally not considered for candidate listing.
METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify infants (aged <1 year) who received HT in 1987-2020. Donor and recipient eTCV were calculated from weight using previously published data. Patient cohort was divided acc ording to the significant range of eTCV ratio; characteristics and survival were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 2845 infants were identified. Hazard ratio with cubic spline showed prognostic relationship of eTCV ratio and DRWR with the overall survival. The cut point method determined an optimal eTCV ratio range predictive of infant survival was 1.05 to 1.85, whereas no range for DRWR was predictive. Overall, 75.6% of patients had an optimal total cardiac volume ratio, while 18.1% were in the lower (LR) and 6.3% in the higher (HR) group. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed better survival for patients within the optimal vs LR (p = 0.0017) and a similar significantly better survival when compared to HR (p = 0.0053). The optimal eTCV ratio group (n = 2,151) had DRWR, ranging from 1.09 to 5; 34.3% had DRWR of 2% to 3%, and 5.0% had DRWR of >3.
CONCLUSIONS: Currently, an upper DRWR limit has not been established in infants. Therefore, determining the optimal eTCV range is important to identify an upper limit that significantly predicts survival benefit. This finding suggests a potential increase in donor pool for infant recipients since over 40% of donors in the optimal eTCV range include DRWR values >2 that are traditionally not considered for candidate listing.