Joel T Adler1, Rosh K V Sethi, Heidi Yeh, James F Markmann, Louis L Nguyen. 1. *Center for Surgery and Public Health at Brigham and Women's Hospital †Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital ‡Division of Transplant Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital §Harvard Medical School ¶Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of market competition on patient mortality and graft failure after kidney transplantation. BACKGROUND: Kidneys are initially allocated within 58 donation service areas (DSAs), which have varying numbers of transplant centers. Market competition is generally considered beneficial. METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database was queried and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI), a measure of market competition, was calculated for each DSA from 2003 to 2012. Receipt of low-quality kidneys (Kidney Donor Profile Index ≥ 85) was modeled with multivariable logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards models were created for graft failure and patient mortality. RESULTS: A total of 127,355 adult renal transplants were performed. DSAs were categorized as 7 no (HHI = 1), 17 low (HHI = 0.52-0.97), 17 medium (HHI = 0.33-0.51), or 17 high (HHI = 0.09-0.32) competition. For deceased donor kidney transplantation, increasing market competition was significantly associated with mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 1.11, P = 0.01], graft failure (HR: 1.18, P = 0.0001), and greater use of low-quality kidneys (odds ratio = 1.39, P < 0.0001). This was not true for living donor kidney transplantation (mortality HR: 0.94, P = 0.48; graft failure HR: 0.99, P = 0.89). Competition was associated with longer waitlists (P = 0.04) but not with the number of transplants per capita in a DSA (P = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing market competition is associated with increased patient mortality and graft failure and the use of riskier kidneys. These results may represent more aggressive transplantation and tolerance of greater risk for patients who otherwise have poor alternatives. Market competition should be better studied to ensure optimal outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of market competition on patient mortality and graft failure after kidney transplantation. BACKGROUND: Kidneys are initially allocated within 58 donation service areas (DSAs), which have varying numbers of transplant centers. Market competition is generally considered beneficial. METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database was queried and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI), a measure of market competition, was calculated for each DSA from 2003 to 2012. Receipt of low-quality kidneys (Kidney Donor Profile Index ≥ 85) was modeled with multivariable logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards models were created for graft failure and patient mortality. RESULTS: A total of 127,355 adult renal transplants were performed. DSAs were categorized as 7 no (HHI = 1), 17 low (HHI = 0.52-0.97), 17 medium (HHI = 0.33-0.51), or 17 high (HHI = 0.09-0.32) competition. For deceased donor kidney transplantation, increasing market competition was significantly associated with mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 1.11, P = 0.01], graft failure (HR: 1.18, P = 0.0001), and greater use of low-quality kidneys (odds ratio = 1.39, P < 0.0001). This was not true for living donor kidney transplantation (mortality HR: 0.94, P = 0.48; graft failure HR: 0.99, P = 0.89). Competition was associated with longer waitlists (P = 0.04) but not with the number of transplants per capita in a DSA (P = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing market competition is associated with increased patient mortality and graft failure and the use of riskier kidneys. These results may represent more aggressive transplantation and tolerance of greater risk for patients who otherwise have poor alternatives. Market competition should be better studied to ensure optimal outcomes.
Authors: Andrew J Schoenfeld; Heeren Makanji; Wei Jiang; Tracey Koehlmoos; Christopher M Bono; Adil H Haider Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Louis L Nguyen; Ann D Smith; Rebecca E Scully; Wei Jiang; Peter A Learn; Stuart R Lipsitz; Joel S Weissman; Lorens A Helmchen; Tracey Koehlmoos; Andrew Hoburg; Linda G Kimsey Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Courtenay M Holscher; Mary G Bowring; Christine E Haugen; Sheng Zhou; Allan B Massie; Sommer E Gentry; Dorry L Segev; Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang Journal: Transplantation Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Vikram Kilambi; Kevin Bui; Gordon B Hazen; John J Friedewald; Daniela P Ladner; Bruce Kaplan; Sanjay Mehrotra Journal: Transplantation Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Syed A Husain; Kristen L King; David C Cron; Nikole A Neidlinger; Han Ng; Sumit Mohan; Joel T Adler Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 9.369
Authors: Courtenay M Holscher; M Libby Weaver; James H Black; Christopher J Abularrage; Ying Wei Lum; Thomas Reifsnyder; Devin S Zarkowsky; Caitlin W Hicks Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Chandy Ellimoottil; Zaojun Ye; Apurba K Chakrabarti; Michael J Englesbe; David C Miller; John T Wei; Amit K Mathur Journal: Urology Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Alexander T Hawkins; Lauren R Samuels; Russell L Rothman; Timothy M Geiger; David F Penson; Matthew J Resnick Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 13.787