Amit K Mathur1, Douglas E Schaubel, Hui Zhang, Mary K Guidinger, Robert M Merion. 1. 1 Section of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 2 Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 3 Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 4 Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 5 Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, MI. 6 Address correspondence to: Amit K. Mathur, M.D., M.S., 2922 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, SPC 5300, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5300.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the association between recipient race/ethnicity and sex, donor liver quality, and liver transplant graft survival. METHODS: Adult non-status 1 liver recipients transplanted between March 1, 2002, and December 31, 2008, were identified using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. The factors of interest were recipient race/ethnicity and sex. Donor risk index (DRI) was used as a donor quality measure. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between race/ethnicity and sex in relation to the transplantation of low-quality (high DRI) or high-quality (low DRI) livers. Cox regression was used to assess the association between race/ethnicity and sex and liver graft failure risk, accounting for DRI. RESULTS: Hispanics were 21% more likely to receive low-quality grafts compared to whites (odds ratio [OR]=1.21, P=0.002). Women had greater odds of receiving a low-quality graft compared to men (OR=1.24, P<0.0001). Despite adjustment for donor quality, African American recipients still had higher graft failure rates compared to whites (hazard ratio [HR]=1.28, P<0.001). Hispanics (HR=0.89, P=0.023) had significantly lower graft failure rates compared to whites despite higher odds of receiving a higher DRI graft. Using an interaction model of DRI and race/ethnicity, we found that the impact of DRI on graft failure rates was significantly reduced for African Americans compared to whites (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that while liver graft quality differed significantly by recipient race/ethnicity and sex, donor selection practices do not seem to be the dominant factor responsible for worse liver transplant outcomes for minority recipients.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the association between recipient race/ethnicity and sex, donor liver quality, and liver transplant graft survival. METHODS: Adult non-status 1 liver recipients transplanted between March 1, 2002, and December 31, 2008, were identified using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. The factors of interest were recipient race/ethnicity and sex. Donor risk index (DRI) was used as a donor quality measure. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between race/ethnicity and sex in relation to the transplantation of low-quality (high DRI) or high-quality (low DRI) livers. Cox regression was used to assess the association between race/ethnicity and sex and liver graft failure risk, accounting for DRI. RESULTS: Hispanics were 21% more likely to receive low-quality grafts compared to whites (odds ratio [OR]=1.21, P=0.002). Women had greater odds of receiving a low-quality graft compared to men (OR=1.24, P<0.0001). Despite adjustment for donor quality, African American recipients still had higher graft failure rates compared to whites (hazard ratio [HR]=1.28, P<0.001). Hispanics (HR=0.89, P=0.023) had significantly lower graft failure rates compared to whites despite higher odds of receiving a higher DRI graft. Using an interaction model of DRI and race/ethnicity, we found that the impact of DRI on graft failure rates was significantly reduced for African Americans compared to whites (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that while liver graft quality differed significantly by recipient race/ethnicity and sex, donor selection practices do not seem to be the dominant factor responsible for worse liver transplant outcomes for minority recipients.
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
Authors: Johnny C Hong; Hasan Yersiz; Douglas G Farmer; John P Duffy; R Mark Ghobrial; Bunthoon Nonthasoot; Thomas E Collins; Jonathan R Hiatt; Ronald W Busuttil Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: D E Schaubel; M K Guidinger; S W Biggins; J D Kalbfleisch; E A Pomfret; P Sharma; R M Merion Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Cynthia A Moylan; Carla W Brady; Jeffrey L Johnson; Alastair D Smith; Janet E Tuttle-Newhall; Andrew J Muir Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-11-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Katherine A Fu; Joseph DiNorcia; Linda Sher; Shamsha A Velani; Shahrzad Akhtar; Laura A Kalayjian; Nerses Sanossian Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Styrbjörn Friman; Giuseppe Tisone; Frederik Nevens; Frank Lehner; Walter Santaniello; Wolf O Bechstein; Sergey V Zhuvarel; Helena Isoniemi; Oleg O Rummo; Jürgen Klempnauer; Swapneel Anaokar; Martin Hurst; Gbenga Kazeem; Nasrullah Undre; Pavel Trunečka Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-07-09