Is There Bias in Heart Transplant Selection?

Abstract

<h3>Purpose</h3> Diversity in the United States is a point of keen interest within the communities. In the heart transplant selection committees, most programs believe they have no bias in accepting patients for heart transplantation. However, there may be some inherent biases that are not due to the program's decisions, but rather institutional decisions or limitations. Such limitations may include lack of medical insurance, gender, age or geography that may be present without foreknowledge. Therefore, we assessed our heart transplant selection committee decisions to assess whether there is any inherent, institutional or voluntary bias within committee decisions. <h3>Methods</h3> Between 2016 and 2020 we assessed 296 heart transplant candidates that were presented to the heart transplant selection committee. We assessed for various factors that may be associated with patients declined for transplant for age, gender, race, social support (SIPAT score), health insurance (Medicaid), and state of residence. The standard for comparison included a Caucasian with non-Medicaid health insurance, social support, and ability to travel. <h3>Results</h3> The declined patients compared to the accepted patients were significantly older (64.4 vs 54.6 years) and had a higher SIPAT score (13.7 vs 11.2). There was no difference between groups in % female, % non-Caucasian, % w/non-Medicaid health insurance and % from outside California. (see table) <h3>Conclusion</h3> Inherent bias within a selection committee is difficult to interpret as older patients are held to a higher standard as older age is a risk factor for lower post-transplant survival. Higher SIPAT scores are also known to be a risk for lower survival due to higher psychosocial risk. It is comforting to appreciate that there does not appear to be inherent bias in gender, race, type of health insurance and region. Larger studies are needed.