Sex Differences in the Impact of Allosensitization on Waitlist Access and Post-Transplant Outcomes in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease
Joseph, A.; Kearney, K.; Henricks, C.; Morgan, J. L.; Tan, W.; Shafer, K.; Wrobel, C.; Lacelle, C.; Burns, K.; Jawaid, A.; Tapaskar, N.; Solmonson, A.; Nelson, D. B.; Truby, L. K.
Show abstract
Background: Adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients are prone to HLA-antibody formation from multiple surgeries, transfusions, and prosthetic surgical material. Females with ACHD may accrue additional, non-surgical alloantigen exposure. Whether sex modifies the impact of allosensitization on heart transplant (HT) access and outcomes in ACHD remains unknown. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the OPTN/UNOS registry of adults with ACHD listed for first-time HT (2018-2025). Sensitization was defined by calculated panel reactive antibodies (cPRA) at listing. We tested the sex x sensitization (highly sensitized, cPRA >50%) interaction on transplant access using Fine-Gray competing-risks regression, treating transplantation as the event of interest and death or removal from the waitlist as competing events, and on post-transplant survival using multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression, both adjusted for age at listing, mechanical support at listing, and the number of distinct prior cardiac surgery categories. Results: Among 856 candidates (38% female), females were more often highly sensitized than males (23% vs 14%; age-adjusted OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.26-2.61), even after adjusting for surgical burden. Sensitization reduced transplant access in females (84% to 71%; median wait 60 to 110 days, p < 0.001) but not males (79% vs 79%, median wait 88 vs 98 days). In adjusted Fine-Gray models, the subdistribution hazard for transplant was reduced in sensitized females (sHR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.72) with no effect in males (sHR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73-1.26), and the sex x sensitization interaction was significant (interaction sHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94, p = 0.02). Post-transplant mortality was numerically higher in sensitized than non-sensitized candidates in both sexes and the sex x sensitization interaction on 1-year mortality was not significant. The sex-asymmetric effect persisted and was more pronounced in the multiorgan candidates. Conclusions: Allosensitization is not a sex-neutral barrier to transplant in HT candidates with ACHD. Females are more sensitized and have reduced transplant access without differences in 1-year mortality. The female excess in sensitization is not accounted for by surgical burden, and the exposures responsible remain to be defined. These findings warrant a sex-aware listing strategy and further studies.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Impact of Fontan Circulatory Failure on Heart Transplant Survival: A 20 Center Retrospective Cohort Study 94%
- Electrocardiographic Manifestations of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Myocarditis 90%
- Trends in age, sex and racial differences in the incidence of infective endocarditis in Florida and New York 90%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Trends in Mechanical Circulatory Support utilization, Left Ventricular Assist Device implantation and Transplant during Cardiogenic Shock Hospitalizations, after the New Heart Allocation Policy 91%
- Inpatient Outcomes Of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices and Bridging to Transplantation in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy 90%
- Early left ventricular systolic function is a more sensitive predictor of adverse events after heart transplant 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Trends in underlying causes of death in solid organ transplant recipients between 2010 and 2020: Using the CLASS method for determining specific causes of death 93%
- Early but not late convalescent plasma is associated with better survival in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 90%
- Return to work outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients: a protocol for a global scoping review 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.