Parsia A Vagefi1, Sandy Feng2, Jennifer L Dodge2, James F Markmann3, John P Roberts2. 1. Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: pvagefi@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 3. Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Geographic disparity in access to liver transplantation (LT) exists. This study sought to examine Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-era multiply listed (ML) LT candidate (ie, candidates who list at 2 or more LT centers to receive a liver transplant). STUDY DESIGN: Data on adult, primary, non-status 1 LT candidates (n = 59,557) listed from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2011 were extracted from the United Network for Organ Sharing's Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files. Comparisons of ML vs singly listed LT candidates were performed, with additional analysis performed at the donor service area (DSA) and regional level, as well as assessment of the donor population used. RESULTS: There were 1,358 (2.3%) ML candidates during the 7-year study period. Multiply listed candidates compared with singly listed candidates were more often male, white, blood type O, nondiabetic, college educated, and privately insured. The odds of pursuing ML increased considerably as time on the waitlist increased. Of the ML candidates, 918 (67.6%) went on to receive a liver transplant (ML-LT), 767 (83.6%) at the secondary listing DSA, which was a median of 588 miles (range 229 to 1095 miles) from the primary listing DSA. When compared with the primary listing DSA, the secondary listing DSA had significantly lower match Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores, as well as shorter wait times. Regional analysis demonstrated significantly higher odds for pursuing ML from LT candidates located within regions 1, 5, and 9. CONCLUSIONS: A small and distinctive cohort of LT candidates pursue ML, indicating willingness and means to travel to receive a liver transplant. Efforts toward equalizing LT access across regional disparities are warranted, and can help obviate the need for ML.
BACKGROUND: Geographic disparity in access to liver transplantation (LT) exists. This study sought to examine Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-era multiply listed (ML) LT candidate (ie, candidates who list at 2 or more LT centers to receive a liver transplant). STUDY DESIGN: Data on adult, primary, non-status 1 LT candidates (n = 59,557) listed from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2011 were extracted from the United Network for Organ Sharing's Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files. Comparisons of ML vs singly listed LT candidates were performed, with additional analysis performed at the donor service area (DSA) and regional level, as well as assessment of the donor population used. RESULTS: There were 1,358 (2.3%) ML candidates during the 7-year study period. Multiply listed candidates compared with singly listed candidates were more often male, white, blood type O, nondiabetic, college educated, and privately insured. The odds of pursuing ML increased considerably as time on the waitlist increased. Of the ML candidates, 918 (67.6%) went on to receive a liver transplant (ML-LT), 767 (83.6%) at the secondary listing DSA, which was a median of 588 miles (range 229 to 1095 miles) from the primary listing DSA. When compared with the primary listing DSA, the secondary listing DSA had significantly lower match Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores, as well as shorter wait times. Regional analysis demonstrated significantly higher odds for pursuing ML from LT candidates located within regions 1, 5, and 9. CONCLUSIONS: A small and distinctive cohort of LT candidates pursue ML, indicating willingness and means to travel to receive a liver transplant. Efforts toward equalizing LT access across regional disparities are warranted, and can help obviate the need for ML.
Authors: Robert M Merion; Mary K Guidinger; John M Newmann; Mary D Ellison; Friedrich K Port; Robert A Wolfe Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: John F Renz; Cindy Kin; Milan Kinkhabwala; Dominique Jan; Rhaghu Varadarajan; Michael Goldstein; Robert Brown; Jean C Emond Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Robert M Merion; Douglas E Schaubel; Dawn M Dykstra; Richard B Freeman; Friedrich K Port; Robert A Wolfe Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Nino Dzebisashvili; Allan B Massie; Krista L Lentine; Mark A Schnitzler; Dorry Segev; Janet Tuttle-Newhall; Sommer Gentry; Richard Freeman; David A Axelrod Journal: Transplantation Date: 2013-01-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Jeffrey B Halldorson; Harry J Paarsch; Jennifer L Dodge; Alberto M Segre; Jennifer Lai; John Paul Roberts Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Christine E Haugen; Tanveen Ishaque; Abel Sapirstein; Alexander Cauneac; Dorry L Segev; Sommer Gentry Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Raymond C Givens; Todd Dardas; Kevin J Clerkin; Susan Restaino; P Christian Schulze; Donna M Mancini Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Kristopher P Croome; David D Lee; Justin M Burns; Dana K Perry; Andrew P Keaveny; C Burcin Taner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hillary J Braun; Jennifer L Dodge; Joshua D Grab; Marisa E Schwab; Iris H Liu; Alexa C Glencer; Peter G Stock; Ryutaro Hirose; John P Roberts; Nancy L Ascher Journal: Transplantation Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 5.385