Literature DB >> 23086897

Center competition and outcomes following liver transplantation.

Jeffrey B Halldorson1, Harry J Paarsch, Jennifer L Dodge, Alberto M Segre, Jennifer Lai, John Paul Roberts.   

Abstract

In the United States, livers for transplantation are distributed within donation service areas (DSAs). In DSAs with multiple transplant centers, competition among centers for organs and recipients may affect recipient selection and outcomes in comparison with DSAs with only 1 center. The objective of this study was to determine whether competition within a DSA is associated with posttransplant outcomes and variations in patients wait-listed within the DSA. United Network for Organ Sharing data for 38,385 adult cadaveric liver transplant recipients undergoing transplantation between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2009 were analyzed to assess differences in liver recipients and donors and in posttransplant survival by competition among centers. The main outcome measures that were studied were patient characteristics, actual and risk-adjusted graft and patient survival rates after transplantation, organ quality as quantified by the donor risk index (DRI), wait-listed patients per million population by DSA, and competition as quantified by the Hirschman-Herfindahl index (HHI). Centers were stratified by HHI levels as no competition or as low, medium (or mid), or high competition. In comparison with DSAs without competition, the low-, mid-, and high-competition DSAs (1) performed transplantation for patients with a higher risk of graft failure [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.24, HR = 1.26, and HR = 1.34 (P < 0.001 for each)] and a higher risk of death [HR = 1.21, HR = 1.23, and HR = 1.34 (P < 0.001 for each)] and for a higher proportion of sicker patients as quantified by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score [10.0% versus 14.8%, 20.1%, and 28.2% with a match MELD score of 31-40 (P < 0.001 for each comparison)], (2) were more likely to use organs in the highest risk quartile as quantified by the DRI [18.3% versus 27.6%, 20.4%, and 31.7% (P ≤ 0.001 for each)], and (3) listed more patients per million population [18 (median) versus 34 (P = not significant), 37 (P = 0.005), and 45 (P = 0.0075)]. Significant variability in patient selection for transplantation is associated with market variables characterizing competition among centers. These findings suggest both positive and negative effects of competition among health care providers.
Copyright © 2012 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23086897      PMCID: PMC4141491          DOI: 10.1002/lt.23561

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Liver Transpl        ISSN: 1527-6465            Impact factor:   5.799


  7 in total

1.  The model for end-stage liver disease allocation system for liver transplantation saves lives, but increases morbidity and cost: a prospective outcome analysis.

Authors:  Philipp Dutkowski; Christian E Oberkofler; Markus Béchir; Beat Müllhaupt; Andreas Geier; Dimitri A Raptis; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 5.799

2.  Variation in organ quality between liver transplant centers.

Authors:  M L Volk; H A Reichert; A S F Lok; R A Hayward
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 8.086

3.  The interaction among donor characteristics, severity of liver disease, and the cost of liver transplantation.

Authors:  Paolo R Salvalaggio; Nino Dzebisashvili; Kara E MacLeod; Krista L Lentine; Adrian Gheorghian; Mark A Schnitzler; Samuel Hohmann; Dorry L Segev; Sommer E Gentry; David A Axelrod
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 5.799

4.  Cost of a quality-adjusted life year in liver transplantation: the influence of the indication and the model for end-stage liver disease score.

Authors:  Fredrik Åberg; Suvi Mäklin; Pirjo Räsänen; Risto P Roine; Harri Sintonen; Anna-Maria Koivusalo; Krister Höckerstedt; Helena Isoniemi
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 5.799

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

Review 6.  Improving liver allocation: MELD and PELD.

Authors:  Richard B Freeman; Russell H Wiesner; John P Roberts; Suzanne McDiarmid; Dawn M Dykstra; Robert M Merion
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 8.086

7.  The economic impact of the utilization of liver allografts with high donor risk index.

Authors:  D A Axelrod; M Schnitzler; P R Salvalaggio; J Swindle; M M Abecassis
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 8.086

  7 in total
  10 in total

1.  Analysis of Liver Offers to Pediatric Candidates on the Transplant Wait List.

Authors:  Evelyn K Hsu; Michele L Shaffer; Lucy Gao; Christopher Sonnenday; Michael L Volk; John Bucuvalas; Jennifer C Lai
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  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

Review 3.  [Deceased donor liver transplantation].

Authors:  D Seehofer; W Schöning; P Neuhaus
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 0.955

4.  D-MELD risk capping improves post-transplant and overall mortality under markov microsimulation.

Authors:  Jeffrey B Halldorson; Robert L Carithers; Renuka Bhattacharya; Ramasamy Bakthavatsalam; Iris W Liou; Andre A Dick; Jorge D Reyes; James D Perkins
Journal:  World J Transplant       Date:  2014-09-24

5.  Decision support for organ offers in liver transplantation.

Authors:  Michael L Volk; Nathan Goodrich; Jennifer C Lai; Christopher Sonnenday; Kerby Shedden
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 5.799

Review 6.  Organisational structure of liver transplantation in the UK.

Authors:  James Neuberger
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 7.  Liver transplantation: past, present and future.

Authors:  Ali Zarrinpar; Ronald W Busuttil
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 46.802

8.  Impact of the center on graft failure after liver transplantation.

Authors:  Sumeet K Asrani; W Ray Kim; Erick B Edwards; Joseph J Larson; Gabriel Thabut; Walter K Kremers; Terry M Therneau; Julie Heimbach
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 5.799

9.  Center volume, competition, and outcome in German liver transplant centers.

Authors:  Markus Guba
Journal:  Transplant Res       Date:  2014-02-10

10.  Competitive Market Analysis of Transplant Centers and Discrepancy of Wait-Listing of Recipients for Kidney Transplantation.

Authors:  P S Cho; R F Saidi; C J Cutie; D S C Ko
Journal:  Int J Organ Transplant Med       Date:  2015-11-01
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.