Literature DB >> 18192903

The association of candidate mortality rates with kidney transplant outcomes and center performance evaluations.

Jesse D Schold1, Titte R Srinivas, Richard J Howard, Ian R Jamieson, Herwig-Ulf Meier-Kriesche.   

Abstract

Timely access to transplantation for eligible patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is critical. However, pressures exist to improve efficiencies in transplantation and to achieve high center performance ratings, including the recently submitted "Final Rule" by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This policy may affect the availability of public funding for as many as 10% of kidney transplant centers in the United States. This study examined adult solitary kidney transplant candidates from 1995 to 2005 using a national database. Mortality rates were calculated for candidates at individual centers prior to transplantation. Posttransplant survival and center's standardized mortality ratios were then calculated and compared to rates of candidate mortality. Candidate mortality rates varied substantially across centers (highest quartile with almost 2-fold elevated mortality). Recipients at centers with the highest candidate mortality rates had approximately 1.9 years reduced median graft survival for deceased donor transplants and decreased patient survival even after risk adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio=1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.25-1.41). This association was greater among living transplants (adjusted hazard ratio=1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.31-1.70). For 1-year outcomes, 19% (43/224) of centers met criteria for low performance for either graft loss or patient death in living or deceased donor transplants. Of these, 51% were among centers with the highest candidate mortality as compared to 7% of centers with the lowest candidate mortality. The health status of centers' transplant candidate pool is a significant determinant of outcomes and performance ratings. Centers with a higher risk candidate pool are significantly more likely to be identified for poor performance and could potentially lose public funding. Pressures to enhance outcomes may lead centers to exclude high-risk but otherwise viable transplant candidates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18192903     DOI: 10.1097/01.tp.0000297372.51408.c2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transplantation        ISSN: 0041-1337            Impact factor:   4.939


  17 in total

1.  Donor race does not predict graft failure after liver transplantation.

Authors:  Sumeet K Asrani; Young-Suk Lim; Terry M Therneau; Rachel A Pedersen; Julie Heimbach; W Ray Kim
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Effects of a clinical pathway on quality of care in kidney transplantation: a non-randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Matthias Schwarzbach; Roderich Bönninghoff; Katrin Harrer; Johannes Weiss; Christof Denz; Peter Schnülle; Rainer Birck; Stefan Post; Ulrich Ronellenfitsch
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  Considering potential benefits and consequences of hospital report cards: what are the next steps?

Authors:  Jesse D Schold; Lauren Hersch Nicholas
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  What patients and members of their support networks ask about transplant program data.

Authors:  Cory R Schaffhausen; Marilyn J Bruin; Daryl Chesley; Maureen McBride; Jon J Snyder; Bertram L Kasiske; Ajay K Israni
Journal:  Clin Transplant       Date:  2017-10-23       Impact factor: 2.863

Review 5.  Increasing the pool of deceased donor organs for kidney transplantation.

Authors:  Jesse D Schold; Dorry L Segev
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 28.314

6.  Frailty and mortality in kidney transplant recipients.

Authors:  M A McAdams-DeMarco; A Law; E King; B Orandi; M Salter; N Gupta; E Chow; N Alachkar; N Desai; R Varadhan; J Walston; D L Segev
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 8.086

7.  The Changing Financial Landscape of Renal Transplant Practice: A National Cohort Analysis.

Authors:  D A Axelrod; M A Schnitzler; H Xiao; A S Naik; D L Segev; V R Dharnidharka; D C Brennan; K L Lentine
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2016-10-04       Impact factor: 8.086

8.  The prognostic value of kidney transplant center report cards.

Authors:  J D Schold; L D Buccini; E L G Heaphy; D A Goldfarb; A R Sehgal; J Fung; E D Poggio; M W Kattan
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2013-05-24       Impact factor: 8.086

Review 9.  Program-specific reports: implications and impact on program behavior.

Authors:  Lisa B VanWagner; Anton I Skaro
Journal:  Curr Opin Organ Transplant       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.640

10.  Patient selection and volume in the era surrounding implementation of Medicare conditions of participation for transplant programs.

Authors:  Sarah L White; Dawn M Zinsser; Matthew Paul; Gregory N Levine; Tempie Shearon; Valarie B Ashby; John C Magee; Yi Li; Alan B Leichtman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-05-19       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.