Literature DB >> 22300591

Patient, center and geographic characteristics of nationally placed livers.

J C Lai1, J P Roberts, E Vittinghoff, N A Terrault, S Feng.   

Abstract

Once a liver offer has been refused locally and regionally, it is offered nationally. We characterized nationally (n = 1567) versus locally (n = 19 893) placed grafts from adult, nonfulminant, deceased donor liver transplants (LT) from 2/1/05 to 1/31/10. Donors of nationally versus locally placed livers differed by age (50 vs. 42 years), positive HCV antibody (11 vs. 2%) and death from stroke (51 vs. 42%) (p < 0.001 for all). Recipients of nationally versus locally placed livers differed by LT-MELD (20 vs. 24), rates of ascites (35 vs. 37%), encephalopathy (12 vs. 15%), hepatocellular (17 vs. 24%) and nonhepatocellular exceptions (6 vs. 11%) (p ≤ 0.03 for all). Six (5%) centers utilized 64% of the nationally placed grafts while 43 (38%) centers accepted zero during the 5-year period; all high volume centers used ≥1. Compared to local distribution, transplantation with a nationally placed liver was associated with a similar adjusted risk of graft (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86-1.14) and patient (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84-1.14; p = 0.77) survival. In conclusion, utilization of nationally placed livers is highly concentrated in very few centers, with no increased adjusted risk of graft loss. These findings provide the foundation for a more informed discussion about changing our current liver allocation and distribution policies. © Copyright 2012 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22300591      PMCID: PMC3689311          DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03962.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Transplant        ISSN: 1600-6135            Impact factor:   8.086


  6 in total

1.  A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data.

Authors:  R L Williams
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Impact of center volume on outcomes of increased-risk liver transplants.

Authors:  Deepak K Ozhathil; You Fu Li; Jillian K Smith; Jennifer F Tseng; Reza F Saidi; Adel Bozorgzadeh; Shimul A Shah
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 5.799

Review 3.  MELD-based liver allocation: who is underserved?

Authors:  Scott W Biggins; Kiran Bambha
Journal:  Semin Liver Dis       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 6.115

Review 4.  A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease.

Authors:  P S Kamath; R H Wiesner; M Malinchoc; W Kremers; T M Therneau; C L Kosberg; G D'Amico; E R Dickson; W R Kim
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 17.425

5.  Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: the concept of a donor risk index.

Authors:  S Feng; N P Goodrich; J L Bragg-Gresham; D M Dykstra; J D Punch; M A DebRoy; S M Greenstein; R M Merion
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 8.086

6.  Longitudinal assessment of mortality risk among candidates for liver transplantation.

Authors:  Robert M Merion; Robert A Wolfe; Dawn M Dykstra; Alan B Leichtman; Brenda Gillespie; Philip J Held
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 5.799

  6 in total
  15 in total

1.  Transplantation: Sharing of donated livers is not equal.

Authors:  Richard B Freeman
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 46.802

2.  Same policy, different impact: Center-level effects of share 35 liver allocation.

Authors:  Douglas R Murken; Allison W Peng; David D Aufhauser; Peter L Abt; David S Goldberg; Matthew H Levine
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 5.799

3.  Multiple listings as a reflection of geographic disparity in liver transplantation.

Authors:  Parsia A Vagefi; Sandy Feng; Jennifer L Dodge; James F Markmann; John P Roberts
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 6.113

4.  Liver transplant center variability in accepting organ offers and its impact on patient survival.

Authors:  David S Goldberg; Benjamin French; James D Lewis; Frank I Scott; Ronac Mamtani; Richard Gilroy; Scott D Halpern; Peter L Abt
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 25.083

5.  Live liver donors' risk thresholds: risking a life to save a life.

Authors:  Michele Molinari; Jacob Matz; Sarah DeCoutere; Karim El-Tawil; Bassam Abu-Wasel; Valerie Keough
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 3.647

6.  Potential role of the donor in hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation.

Authors:  Parsia A Vagefi; Jennifer L Dodge; Francis Y Yao; John P Roberts
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.799

7.  Deceased Pediatric Donor Livers: How Current Policy Drives Allocation and Transplantation.

Authors:  Jin Ge; Evelyn K Hsu; John Bucuvalas; Jennifer C Lai
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2019-02-08       Impact factor: 17.425

8.  Offer patterns of nationally placed livers by donation service area.

Authors:  Jennifer C Lai; Sandy Feng; Eric Vittinghoff; John P Roberts
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2013-03-17       Impact factor: 5.799

9.  Too aggressive or not aggressive enough? Should a metric change center practice?

Authors:  J C Lai; S Feng
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 8.086

10.  Hospital Utilization of Nationally Shared Liver Allografts from 2007 to 2012.

Authors:  Audrey E Ertel; Koffi Wima; Richard S Hoehn; Daniel E Abbott; Shimul A Shah
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.352

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.