Abstract
Background While heart transplantation is increasingly performed in the United States for elderly patients, survival outcomes have primarily been analyzed in single-center studies. The few existing long-term studies have indicated no difference in HTx outcomes between patients ≥70 years and 60-69 years age, but these studies only assessed to 5-years post-transplant and included data from the 1980-90s, introducing significant variance due to poorer outcomes in that era. We analyzed the UNOS database from 1987-2020, stratified by timeframe at 2000, to derive a more representative comparison of modern HTx survival outcomes.
Methods All UNOS HTx recipients over 18 years of age (n=66,186) were divided into 3 cohorts: 18-59, 60-69 and ≥70 years old. Demographic data as well as perioperative factors were evaluated for significance using Chi-Squared and H-Tests as appropriate. Kaplan-Meier Curve and cox regressions with log-rank tests were used to assess 5 through 10 year survival outcomes.
Results 45,748 were 18-59 years old, 19,129 were 60-69 years old and 1,309 were ≥70 year old. The distribution of most demographic and perioperative factors significantly differed between cohorts. Pairwise survival analysis involving the 18-59 cohort always indicated significance. While there was no significance between the two older cohorts in the earlier timeframe, there was significance in the later timeframe from 6-10 years post-HTx (p<0.05). Cox regressions confirmed results.
Conclusions The results indicate that since 2000, recipients 60-69 years of age have better 6 through 10-year post-transplant survival than older recipients, a relationship previously obscured by worse outcomes in early data.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Temple University IRB
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.