No abstract

Background Racial and ethnic disparities contribute to differences in access and outcomes for patients undergoing heart transplantation. We evaluated contemporary outcomes for heart transplantation stratified by race and ethnicity as well as the new 2018 allocation system. Methods and Results Adult heart recipients from 2011 to 2020 were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing database and stratified into 3 groups: Black, Hispanic, and White. We analyzed recipient and donor characteristics, and outcomes. Among 32 353 patients (25% Black, 9% Hispanic, 66% White), Black and Hispanic patients were younger, more likely to be women and have diabetes mellitus or renal disease (all, P <0.05). Over the study period, the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients listed for transplant increased: 21.7% to 28.2% ( P =0.003) and 7.7% to 9.0% ( P =0.002), respectively. Compared with White patients, Black patients were less likely to undergo transplantation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.87; CI, 0.84–0.90; P <0.001), but had a higher risk of post‐transplant death (aHR, 1.14; CI, 1.04–1.24; P =0.004). There were no differences in transplantation likelihood or post‐transplant mortality between Hispanic and White patients. Following the allocation system change, transplantation rates increased for all groups ( P <0.05). However, Black patients still had a lower likelihood of transplantation than White patients (aHR, 0.90; CI, 0.79–0.99; P =0.024). Conclusions Although the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients listed for cardiac transplantation have increased, significant disparities remain. Compared with White patients, Black patients were less likely to be transplanted, even with the new allocation system, and had a higher risk of post‐transplantation death.

Background: The impact of insurance and socioeconomic status on breast reconstruction modalities when access to care is controlled is unknown. Methods: Records for patients who underwent breast reconstruction at an academic medical center between 2013 and 2017 were reviewed and analyzed using chi-square analysis and logistic regression. Results: One thousand six hundred eighty-three breast reconstructions were analyzed. The commercially insured were more likely to undergo microvascular autologous breast reconstruction (44.4 percent versus 31.3 percent; p < 0.001), with an odds ratio of 2.22, whereas patients with Medicare and Medicaid were significantly more likely to receive tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction, with an odds ratio of 1.42 (41.7 percent versus 47.7 percent; p = 0.013). Comparing all patients with microvascular reconstruction, the commercially insured were more likely to receive a perforator flap (79.7 percent versus 55.3 percent versus 43.9 percent), with an odds ratio of 4.23 (p < 0.001). When stratifying patients by median household income, those in the highest income quartile were most likely to receive a perforator flap (82.1 percent) (p < 0.001), whereas those in the lowest income quartile were most likely to receive a muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap (36.4 percent) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Patients at the same academic medical center had significantly different breast reconstruction modalities when stratified by insurance and household income. Despite similar access to care, differences in insurance types may favor higher rates of perforator flap breast reconstruction among the commercially insured. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.