Hong Y, Couper CD, Iyanna N, Hess NR, Ziegler LA, Abdullah M, Mathier MA, Hickey GW, Keebler ME, Silvestry SC, and Kaczorowski D
Background: This study evaluates the clinical trends and impact of hepatitis C virus-positive (HCV+) donors on waitlist and posttransplant outcomes after heart transplantation., Methods: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried to identify adult waitlisted and transplanted patients from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2022. In the waitlist analysis, the candidates were stratified into 2 cohorts based on whether they were willing to accept HCV+ donor offers. Waitlist outcomes included 1-y cumulative incidences of transplantation and death/delisting. In the posttransplant analysis, the recipients were stratified into 2 cohorts with and without HCV nucleic acid test (NAT)-positive donors. Outcomes included 1- and 4-y posttransplant survival. Propensity score-matching was performed. Risk adjustment was performed using multivariable Cox regression., Results: During the study period, the number of centers using HCV NAT+ donors increased from 1 to 65 centers, along with the number of transplants. In the waitlist analysis, 26 648 waitlisted candidates were analyzed, and 4535 candidates (17%) were approved to accept HCV+ donors. Approval to accept HCV+ donors was associated with a higher likelihood of transplantation and a lower likelihood of death/delisting within 1 y of waitlisting. In the posttransplant analysis, 21 131 recipients were analyzed, and 997 recipients (4.7%) received HCV NAT+ hearts. The 1- and 4-y posttransplant survival were comparable between the recipients of HCV NAT+ and NAT- donors. Furthermore, the similar 1- and 4-y posttransplant survival persisted in the propensity score-matched comparison and multivariable Cox regression analysis., Conclusions: Utilization of HCV+ donors is rising. Heart transplants using HCV+ donors are associated with improved waitlist and comparable posttransplant outcomes., Competing Interests: D.K. received consultant and speaking fees for Medtronic and Abiomed. S.C.S. received consultant fees for Abiomed, Abbott, Medtronic, and Carmat. The other authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)