Jesse D Schold1, Laura D Buccini2, David A Goldfarb3, Stuart M Flechner3, Emilio D Poggio3, Ashwini R Sehgal4. 1. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; and Center for Reducing Health Disparities, MetroHealth Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio scholdj@ccf.org. 2. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Digestive Disease Institute, and. 3. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; and Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; 4. Center for Reducing Health Disparities, MetroHealth Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the benefits of kidney transplantation, the total number of transplants performed in the United States has stagnated since 2006. Transplant center quality metrics have been associated with a decline in transplant volume among low-performing centers. There are concerns that regulatory oversight may lead to risk aversion and lack of transplantation growth. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A retrospective cohort study of adults (age≥18 years) wait-listed for kidney transplantation in the United States from 2003 to 2010 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was conducted. The primary aim was to investigate whether measured center performance modifies the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis. Center performance was on the basis of the most recent Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients evaluation at the time that patients were placed on the waiting list. The primary outcome was the time-dependent adjusted hazard ratio of death compared with remaining on the transplant waiting list. RESULTS: Among 223,808 waitlisted patients, 59,199 and 32,764 patients received a deceased or living donor transplant, respectively. Median follow-up from listing was 43 months (25th percentile=25 months, 75th percentile=67 months), and there were 43,951 total patient deaths. Deceased donor transplantation was independently associated with lower mortality at each center performance level compared with remaining on the waiting list; adjusted hazard ratio was 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.27) among 11,972 patients listed at high-performing centers, adjusted hazard ratio was 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.33) among 203,797 patients listed at centers performing as expected, and adjusted hazard ratio was 0.40 (95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.45) among 8039 patients listed at low-performing centers. The survival benefit was significantly different by center performance (P value for interaction <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that measured center performance modifies the survival benefit of kidney transplantation, but the benefit of transplantation remains highly significant even at centers with low measured quality. Policies that concurrently emphasize improved center performance with access to transplantation should be prioritized to improve ESRD population outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the benefits of kidney transplantation, the total number of transplants performed in the United States has stagnated since 2006. Transplant center quality metrics have been associated with a decline in transplant volume among low-performing centers. There are concerns that regulatory oversight may lead to risk aversion and lack of transplantation growth. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A retrospective cohort study of adults (age≥18 years) wait-listed for kidney transplantation in the United States from 2003 to 2010 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was conducted. The primary aim was to investigate whether measured center performance modifies the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis. Center performance was on the basis of the most recent Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients evaluation at the time that patients were placed on the waiting list. The primary outcome was the time-dependent adjusted hazard ratio of death compared with remaining on the transplant waiting list. RESULTS: Among 223,808 waitlisted patients, 59,199 and 32,764 patients received a deceased or living donor transplant, respectively. Median follow-up from listing was 43 months (25th percentile=25 months, 75th percentile=67 months), and there were 43,951 total patient deaths. Deceased donor transplantation was independently associated with lower mortality at each center performance level compared with remaining on the waiting list; adjusted hazard ratio was 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.27) among 11,972 patients listed at high-performing centers, adjusted hazard ratio was 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.33) among 203,797 patients listed at centers performing as expected, and adjusted hazard ratio was 0.40 (95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.45) among 8039 patients listed at low-performing centers. The survival benefit was significantly different by center performance (P value for interaction <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that measured center performance modifies the survival benefit of kidney transplantation, but the benefit of transplantation remains highly significant even at centers with low measured quality. Policies that concurrently emphasize improved center performance with access to transplantation should be prioritized to improve ESRD population outcomes.
Authors: R A Wolfe; V B Ashby; E L Milford; A O Ojo; R E Ettenger; L Y Agodoa; P J Held; F K Port Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-12-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Akinlolu O Ojo; Julie A Hanson; Herwig-Ulf Meier-Kriesche; Chike N Okechukwu; Robert A Wolfe; Alan B Leichtman; Lawrence Y Agodoa; Bruce Kaplan; Friedrich K Port Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: J D Schold; L D Buccini; E L G Heaphy; D A Goldfarb; A R Sehgal; J Fung; E D Poggio; M W Kattan Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Shanti Seaman; Diane Brown; Niraj Desai; Mark Sulkowski; Dorry L Segev; Christine M Durand; Jeremy Sugarman Journal: AJOB Empir Bioeth Date: 2019-10-16
Authors: Jesse D Schold; Laura D Buccini; Michael P Phelan; Colleen L Jay; David A Goldfarb; Emilio D Poggio; John R Sedor Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Cynthia R Gross; Maryanne Reilly-Spong; Taehwan Park; Ruizhi Zhao; Olga V Gurvich; Hassan N Ibrahim Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Sheng Zhou; Alvin G Thomas; Dorry L Segev; Lauren H Nicholas Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Alvin G Thomas; Jacqueline Garonzik-Wang; Macey L Henderson; Sarah S Stith; Dorry L Segev; Lauren Hersch Nicholas Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2018-06-10 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: Elizabeth M Sonnenberg; Jordana B Cohen; Jesse Y Hsu; Vishnu S Potluri; Matthew H Levine; Peter L Abt; Peter P Reese Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Jesse D Schold; Joshua J Augustine; Anne M Huml; John O'Toole; John R Sedor; Emilio D Poggio Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Bertram L Kasiske; Andrew Wey; Nicholas Salkowski; David Zaun; Cory R Schaffhausen; Ajay K Israni; Jon J Snyder Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 8.086