Literature DB >> 25556648

Liver sharing and organ procurement organization performance.

Sommer E Gentry1, Eric K H Chow, Allan Massie, Xun Luo, David Zaun, Jon J Snyder, Ajay K Israni, Bert Kasiske, Dorry L Segev.   

Abstract

Whether the liver allocation system shifts organs from better performing organ procurement organizations (OPOs) to poorer performing OPOs has been debated for many years. Models of OPO performance from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients make it possible to study this question in a data-driven manner. We investigated whether each OPO's net liver import was correlated with 2 performance metrics [observed to expected (O:E) liver yield and liver donor conversion ratio] as well as 2 alternative explanations [eligible deaths and incident listings above a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 15]. We found no evidence to support the hypothesis that the allocation system transfers livers from better performing OPOs to centers with poorer performing OPOs. Also, having fewer eligible deaths was not associated with a net import. However, having more incident listings was strongly correlated with the net import, both before and after Share 35. Most importantly, the magnitude of the variation in OPO performance was much lower than the variation in demand: although the poorest performing OPOs differed from the best ones by less than 2-fold in the O:E liver yield, incident listings above a MELD score of 15 varied nearly 14-fold. Although it is imperative that all OPOs achieve the best possible results, the flow of livers is not explained by OPO performance metrics, and instead, it appears to be strongly related to differences in demand.
© 2015 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25556648      PMCID: PMC8270535          DOI: 10.1002/lt.24074

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


  7 in total

1.  Quantifying organ donation rates by donation service area.

Authors:  Akinlolu O Ojo; Richard E Pietroski; Kevin O'Connor; Joshua J McGowan; David M Dickinson
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 8.086

2.  Organ donation and utilization in the United States, 1997-2006.

Authors:  R S Sung; J Galloway; J E Tuttle-Newhall; T Mone; R Laeng; C E Freise; P S Rao
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 8.086

3.  Deceased organ donor characteristics and clinical interventions associated with organ yield.

Authors:  F W Selck; P Deb; E B Grossman
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2008-03-10       Impact factor: 8.086

4.  Foreigners traveling to the U.S. for transplantation may adversely affect organ donation: a national survey.

Authors:  M L Volk; G J W Warren; R R Anspach; M P Couper; R M Merion; P A Ubel
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2010-05-10       Impact factor: 8.086

5.  Geographic inequity in access to livers for transplantation.

Authors:  Heidi Yeh; Elizabeth Smoot; David A Schoenfeld; James F Markmann
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2011-02-27       Impact factor: 4.939

Review 6.  Kidney, pancreas and liver allocation and distribution in the United States.

Authors:  J M Smith; S W Biggins; D G Haselby; W R Kim; J Wedd; K Lamb; B Thompson; D L Segev; S Gustafson; R Kandaswamy; P G Stock; A J Matas; C J Samana; E F Sleeman; D Stewart; A Harper; E Edwards; J J Snyder; B L Kasiske; A K Israni
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2012-11-16       Impact factor: 8.086

7.  Estimating the number of potential organ donors in the United States.

Authors:  Ellen Sheehy; Suzanne L Conrad; Lori E Brigham; Richard Luskin; Phyllis Weber; Mark Eakin; Lawrence Schkade; Lawrence Hunsicker
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-08-14       Impact factor: 91.245

  7 in total
  8 in total

1.  Offer acceptance practices and geographic variability in allocation model for end-stage liver disease at transplant.

Authors:  Andrew Wey; Joshua Pyke; David P Schladt; Sommer E Gentry; Tim Weaver; Nicholas Salkowski; Bertram L Kasiske; Ajay K Israni; Jon J Snyder
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 5.799

2.  Same policy, different impact: Center-level effects of share 35 liver allocation.

Authors:  Douglas R Murken; Allison W Peng; David D Aufhauser; Peter L Abt; David S Goldberg; Matthew H Levine
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 5.799

3.  Eliminating transplant tourism in the United States as a means to decrease wait-list mortality of US residents.

Authors:  David S Goldberg; Thomas D Schiano
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 5.799

4.  Geographic disparities in liver supply/demand ratio within fixed-distance and fixed-population circles.

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

5.  Liver sharing and organ procurement organization performance under redistricted allocation.

Authors:  Sommer E Gentry; Eric K H Chow; Allan Massie; Xun Luo; Eugene Shteyn; Joshua Pyke; David Zaun; Jon J Snyder; Ajay K Israni; Bert Kasiske; Dorry L Segev
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 5.799

6.  Robust Models Support Redistricting Liver Allocation to Reduce Geographic Disparity.

Authors:  Sommer E Gentry; Dorry L Segev; Bertram L Kasiske; David C Mulligan; Ryutaro Hirose
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.939

7.  Evaluating Spatial Associations in Inpatient Deaths Between Organ Procurement Organizations.

Authors:  Joel T Adler; Tanujit Dey
Journal:  Transplant Direct       Date:  2021-02-11

8.  Estimating the effect of focused donor registration efforts on the number of organ donors.

Authors:  James H Cardon; Jordan C Holbrook; Mark H Showalter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.