Literature DB >> 23447450

Offer patterns of nationally placed livers by donation service area.

Jennifer C Lai1, Sandy Feng, Eric Vittinghoff, John P Roberts.   

Abstract

We previously reported that national liver distribution is highly concentrated in 6 US centers, and this raises the possibility of expedited placement. Therefore, we evaluated all national offers of nationally placed livers (n=1625) to adult wait-list candidates from February 2005 to January 2010. We developed a model to predict national utilization pathways; pathways exceeding the best-fit linear unbiased predictions by ≥3 standard errors were defined as preferred. All 51 donation service areas (DSAs) placed 1 or more livers nationally, but the percentage per DSA ranged from 1% to 36%. Of 2830 possible national DSA-center pathways, 87% were used. Five hundred eighty livers (36%) were accepted on the first national offer. Four DSAs accounted for 47% of first-national-offer livers, and 44% of these were accepted by a single center. In comparison with first-offer livers using nonpreferred pathways, first offers along a preferred pathway were offered to fewer status 1 candidates (19% versus 61%) and had lower median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores (22 versus 36, P<0.001). In conclusion, DSA placement patterns of national livers vary widely, with 4 DSAs exporting a high proportion of national livers on the first national offer to non-status 1 candidates with MELD scores less than their local transplant MELD scores. Although this practice may facilitate liver placement, it raises the possibility of expedience trumping patient need. Here we propose changes to the national liver distribution system that will help to balance equity, efficiency, and transparency.
Copyright © 2013 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23447450      PMCID: PMC3689315          DOI: 10.1002/lt.23604

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


  4 in total

1.  Truth and consequences: the challenge of greater transparency in liver distribution and utilization.

Authors:  K Washburn; K Olthoff
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 8.086

2.  Patient, center and geographic characteristics of nationally placed livers.

Authors:  J C Lai; J P Roberts; E Vittinghoff; N A Terrault; S Feng
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2012-02-02       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.  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

  4 in total
  3 in total

1.  Share 35 changes in center-level liver acceptance practices.

Authors:  David S Goldberg; Matthew Levine; Seth Karp; Richard Gilroy; Peter L Abt
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 5.799

2.  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

3.  Sex-based disparities in delisting for being "too sick" for liver transplantation.

Authors:  Giuseppe Cullaro; Monika Sarkar; Jennifer C Lai
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 8.086

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.