Observational studyJACC. Heart failure2025
Association of the 2018 U.S. Heart Allocation Policy Change and the Survival Benefit of Heart Transplantation.
Observational study in JACC. Heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Status Exceptions and Misalignment of Medical Urgency in U.S. Pediatric Heart Transplantation.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2018, the U.S. heart allocation policy underwent a major change designed to increase the transplantation of the most medically urgent candidates.
objectivesThis study aims to determine the association between the 2018 policy change and the survival benefit of heart transplantation.
methodsObservational study of the 23,043 U.S. adult heart transplant candidates listed before the policy change (October 2013 to October 2016) and a seasonally matched cohort listed after the policy change (October 2018 to October 2021). The main study outcome was the survival benefit of transplantation as defined by the increase in average days alive within 3 years following transplantation. The authors estimated survival with and without heart transplantation using a mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards model with transplant and status as time-dependent covariates and a random center-level intercept and transplant effect.
resultsOf the 11,022 candidates in the pre-policy cohort and 12,021 candidates in the post-policy cohort across 111 centers, 7,165 (65.0%) in the pre-policy cohort and 8,941 (74.4%) in the post-policy cohort underwent heart transplantation. Absolute 3-year survival benefit among the highest priority status candidates more than doubled after the policy change (327.8 days pre-policy vs 699.8 days post-policy; P < 0.001). All statuses experienced a positive long-run survival benefit of transplantation. The average 3-year survival benefit across all statuses increased from 217.1 days to 241.2 days per donor heart (P < 0.001). Overall, during the first 3 years after implementation, the 2018 heart allocation policy change was associated with an additional 1,645 life-years saved from transplantation (4,259 vs 5,904; P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe 2018 heart allocation policy change has led to better stratification and prioritization of candidates by clinical acuity, resulting in higher survival benefit of transplantation performed. Combined with higher transplantation rates, the 2018 heart allocation policy has saved thousands of life-years and achieved one of its major goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.