BACKGROUND: Cadaveric liver transplantation (5-year survival >80%) represents the standard of care for end-stage liver disease (ESLD). Because the demand for cadaveric organs exceeds their availability, living-donor liver transplantation has gained increasing acceptance. Our aim was to assess the marginal cost-effectiveness of cadaveric and living-donor orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) in adults with ESLD. METHODS: Using a Markov model, outcomes and costs of ESLD treated (1) conservatively, (2) with cadaveric OLT alone, and (3) with cadaveric OLT or living-donor OLT were computed. The model was validated with published data. The case-based scenario consisted of data on all 15 ESLD patients currently on our waiting list (3 women, 12 men; median age, 48 years [range, 33-59 years]) and on the outcome of all OLT performed for ESLD at our institution since 1995 (n=51; actuarial 5-year survival 93%). Living-donor OLT was allowed in 15% during the first year of listing; fulminant hepatic failure and hepatocellular carcinoma were excluded. RESULTS: Cadaveric OLT gained on average 6.2 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient compared with conservative treatment, living-donor OLT, an additional 1.3 QALYs compared with cadaveric OLT alone. Marginal cost-effectiveness of a program with cadaveric OLT alone and a program with cadaveric and living-donor OLT combined were similar (E 22,451 and E 23,530 per QALY gained). Results were sensitive to recipient age and postoperative survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: Offering living-donor OLT in addition to cadaveric OLT improves survival at costs comparable to accepted therapies in medicine. Cadaveric OLT and living-donor OLT are cost-effective.
BACKGROUND: Cadaveric liver transplantation (5-year survival >80%) represents the standard of care for end-stage liver disease (ESLD). Because the demand for cadaveric organs exceeds their availability, living-donor liver transplantation has gained increasing acceptance. Our aim was to assess the marginal cost-effectiveness of cadaveric and living-donor orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) in adults with ESLD. METHODS: Using a Markov model, outcomes and costs of ESLD treated (1) conservatively, (2) with cadaveric OLT alone, and (3) with cadaveric OLT or living-donor OLT were computed. The model was validated with published data. The case-based scenario consisted of data on all 15 ESLD patients currently on our waiting list (3 women, 12 men; median age, 48 years [range, 33-59 years]) and on the outcome of all OLT performed for ESLD at our institution since 1995 (n=51; actuarial 5-year survival 93%). Living-donor OLT was allowed in 15% during the first year of listing; fulminant hepatic failure and hepatocellular carcinoma were excluded. RESULTS: Cadaveric OLT gained on average 6.2 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient compared with conservative treatment, living-donor OLT, an additional 1.3 QALYs compared with cadaveric OLT alone. Marginal cost-effectiveness of a program with cadaveric OLT alone and a program with cadaveric and living-donor OLT combined were similar (E 22,451 and E 23,530 per QALY gained). Results were sensitive to recipient age and postoperative survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: Offering living-donor OLT in addition to cadaveric OLT improves survival at costs comparable to accepted therapies in medicine. Cadaveric OLT and living-donor OLT are cost-effective.
Authors: Gaya Spolverato; Alessandro Vitale; Aslam Ejaz; Yuhree Kim; Shishir K Maithel; David P Cosgrove; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Lisa Mellon; Frank Doyle; Anne Hickey; Kenneth D Ward; Declan G de Freitas; P Aiden McCormick; Oisin O'Connell; Peter Conlon Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-09-12
Authors: Patrick G Northup; Michael M Abecassis; Michael J Englesbe; Jean C Emond; Vanessa D Lee; George J Stukenborg; Lan Tong; Carl L Berg Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Kristina Imeen Ringe; Bastian Paul Ringe; Christian von Falck; Hoen-oh Shin; Thomas Becker; Eva-Doreen Pfister; Frank Wacker; Burckhardt Ringe Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 1.930