Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 4, 2026

Testing the Efficacy of Pharmacological Agents in a Pericardial Target Delivery Model in the Swine
Published on: July 7, 2016
Outpatient inotropic therapy in heart transplant candidates: should its use influence waiting list priority status?
1Department of Medicine, Rush Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, Ill 60612, USA.
Insights
Outpatient inotropic therapy for heart transplant candidates shows similar waiting list mortality but higher morbidity compared to oral agents alone. This suggests a need to re-evaluate priority status for these sicker patients.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Transplantation Medicine
- Critical Care
Background:
- Outpatient intravenous inotropic therapy for heart transplant candidates is controversial.
- The current United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) system does not prioritize outpatient inotropic therapy (UNOS status 2) as it does for inpatient therapy (UNOS status 1).
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare waiting list mortality between UNOS status 2 heart transplant candidates receiving outpatient inotropic therapy and those on oral heart failure agents alone.
- To determine if increased UNOS waiting list priority status is justified for candidates on outpatient inotropic therapy.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of pretransplantation outcomes.
- Comparison of 29 candidates on outpatient inotropic therapy (group 1) with 109 candidates on oral agents alone (group 2), all initially UNOS status 2.
Main Results:
- Waiting list mortality was not significantly different (7% vs 20%, p=.18).
- Group 1 patients experienced greater morbidity, including clinical deterioration to UNOS status 1 (45% vs 11%), more heart failure admissions, longer hospitalizations, and higher rates of receiving intravenous inotropic therapy during hospitalization.
- More group 1 patients underwent transplantation overall (59% vs 33%) and at a higher priority status (UNOS status 1) (76% vs 33%).
Conclusions:
- Heart transplant candidates requiring outpatient inotropic therapy have higher waiting list morbidity but not mortality compared to those on oral agents alone.
- The UNOS system may implicitly account for increased acuity by assigning higher status when necessary.
- Further prospective studies are needed to confirm mortality differences and justify priority status adjustments.
Background:
The use of outpatient intravenous inotropic therapy in heart transplant candidates is contentious. In addition to concerns about morbidity and mortality rates, the current United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation system presently grants no waiting list priority status benefit to candidates who receive intravenous inotropic therapy in the outpatient setting (UNOS status 2), whereas identical therapy given in an intensive care unit setting does increase priority status (UNOS status 1). The goal of this study was to determine whether an increase in UNOS waiting list priority status is justified in heart transplant candidates receiving outpatient intravenous inotropic therapy by comparing the waiting list mortality of UNOS status 2 candidates on such therapy with that of UNOS status 2 candidates maintained on oral heart failure agents alone.
Methods:
This is a retrospective analysis of the pretransplantation outcomes of heart transplant candidates initially listed as UNOS status 2, comparing 29 candidates receiving intravenous outpatient inotropic therapy (group 1) to 109 candidates maintained on oral heart failure agents alone (group 2).
Results:
The waiting list mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (group 1=7% vs group 2=20%, p=.18); however, group 1 patients had greater morbidity rates while awaiting transplantation than group 2 patients. A greater percentage of group 1 than group 2 patients clinically deteriorated to UNOS status 1 while awaiting transplantation (45% vs 11%), resulting in more group 1 patients undergoing transplantation overall, (59% vs 33%, p=.01) and more group 1 than group 2 patients undergoing transplantation at a higher priority status, UNOS status 1 (76% vs 33%, p=.003). Group 1 patients had more pretransplantation heart failure admissions (1.2 vs 0.6 admissions/total waiting period, p=.02) and longer hospital stays (26+/-39 vs 8.8+/-16 days, p=.03), spent a greater percentage of their total waiting time hospitalized (7% vs 2%, p=.003), and were more likely than group 2 patients to receive intravenous inotropic therapy during hospitalization (70% vs 25%, p=.001).
Conclusion:
This study suggests that heart transplant candidates who require maintenance outpatient intravenous inotropic therapy represent a subgroup of UNOS status 2 candidates with greater waiting list morbidity, but no greater waiting list mortality than candidates who can be maintained on oral heart failure agents alone. However, the current UNOS heart allocation system provides for this increased illness acuity by assigning a higher priority status when necessary. A larger, prospective study is necessary to determine whether a true difference in waiting list mortality rates exists and if an increase in priority status is justified for UNOS status 2 candidates requiring maintenance inotropic therapy.
More Related Videos
08:49Cardiac Loading using Passive Left Atrial Pressurization and Passive Afterload for Graft Assessment
Published on: August 2, 2024
08:15Innovative Strategies for Organ Preservation in Heart Transplantation: Uniform Cooling Preservation and Ex-situ Normothermic Perfusion
Published on: November 28, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure Drugs: Inotropic Agents
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Kidney Transplant I: Introduction
Kidney Transplant II: Surgical Procedure
Kidney Transplant III: Nursing Management