Literature DB >> 25693474

Early changes in liver distribution following implementation of Share 35.

A B Massie1, E K H Chow, C E Wickliffe, X Luo, S E Gentry, D C Mulligan, D L Segev.   

Abstract

In June 2013, a change to the liver waitlist priority algorithm was implemented. Under Share 35, regional candidates with MELD ≥ 35 receive higher priority than local candidates with MELD < 35. We compared liver distribution and mortality in the first 12 months of Share 35 to an equivalent time period before. Under Share 35, new listings with MELD ≥ 35 increased slightly from 752 (9.2% of listings) to 820 (9.7%, p = 0.3), but the proportion of deceased-donor liver transplants (DDLTs) allocated to recipients with MELD ≥ 35 increased from 23.1% to 30.1% (p < 0.001). The proportion of regional shares increased from 18.9% to 30.4% (p < 0.001). Sharing of exports was less clustered among a handful of centers (Gini coefficient decreased from 0.49 to 0.34), but there was no evidence of change in CIT (p = 0.8). Total adult DDLT volume increased from 4133 to 4369, and adjusted odds of discard decreased by 14% (p = 0.03). Waitlist mortality decreased by 30% among patients with baseline MELD > 30 (SHR = 0.70, p < 0.001) with no change for patients with lower baseline MELD (p = 0.9). Posttransplant length-of-stay (p = 0.2) and posttransplant mortality (p = 0.9) remained unchanged. In the first 12 months, Share 35 was associated with more transplants, fewer discards, and lower waitlist mortality, but not at the expense of CIT or early posttransplant outcomes. © Copyright 2015 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

Entities:  

Keywords:  United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS); epidemiology; ethics and public policy; health services and outcomes research; liver transplantation/hepatology; organ allocation; organ procurement and allocation; social sciences

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25693474      PMCID: PMC6116537          DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Transplant        ISSN: 1600-6135            Impact factor:   8.086


  15 in total

1.  Effective communication of standard errors and confidence intervals.

Authors:  Thomas A Louis; Scott L Zeger
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2008-06-10       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Liver allocation and distribution: possible next steps.

Authors:  Kenneth Washburn; Elizabeth Pomfret; John Roberts
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 5.799

Review 3.  Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients: collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on transplantation in the United States.

Authors:  Susan Leppke; Tabitha Leighton; David Zaun; Shu-Cheng Chen; Melissa Skeans; Ajay K Israni; Jon J Snyder; Bertram L Kasiske
Journal:  Transplant Rev (Orlando)       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 3.943

4.  Hepatocellular carcinoma patients are advantaged in the current liver transplant allocation system.

Authors:  K Washburn; E Edwards; A Harper; R Freeman
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2010-05-10       Impact factor: 8.086

5.  MELD Exceptions and Rates of Waiting List Outcomes.

Authors:  A B Massie; B Caffo; S E Gentry; E C Hall; D A Axelrod; K L Lentine; M A Schnitzler; A Gheorghian; P R Salvalaggio; D L Segev
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2011-09-15       Impact factor: 8.086

6.  Exception point applications for 15 points: an unintended consequence of the share 15 policy.

Authors:  Therese Bittermann; George Makar; David Goldberg
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 5.799

7.  The effects of DonorNet 2007 on kidney distribution equity and efficiency.

Authors:  A B Massie; S L Zeger; R A Montgomery; D L Segev
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2009-05-20       Impact factor: 8.086

8.  Results of the first year of the new liver allocation plan.

Authors:  Richard B Freeman; Russell H Wiesner; Erick Edwards; Ann Harper; Robert Merion; Robert Wolfe
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.799

9.  Center-level utilization of kidney paired donation.

Authors:  A B Massie; S E Gentry; R A Montgomery; A A Bingaman; D L Segev
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 8.086

10.  Impact of the model for end-stage liver disease allocation policy on the use of high-risk organs for liver transplantation.

Authors:  Michael L Volk; Anna S F Lok; Shawn J Pelletier; Peter A Ubel; Rodney A Hayward
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 22.682

View more
  31 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.  Geographic Disparity in Deceased Donor Liver Transplant Rates Following Share 35.

Authors:  Mary G Bowring; Sheng Zhou; Eric K H Chow; Allan B Massie; Dorry L Segev; Sommer E Gentry
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 4.939

4.  Predicting Outcomes on the Liver Transplant Waiting List in the United States: Accounting for Large Regional Variation in Organ Availability and Priority Allocation Points.

Authors:  Allyson Hart; David P Schladt; Jessica Zeglin; Joshua Pyke; W Ray Kim; John R Lake; John P Roberts; Ryutaro Hirose; David C Mulligan; Bertram L Kasiske; Jon J Snyder; Ajay K Israni
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.939

Review 5.  Liver Allocation Policies in the USA: Past, Present, and the Future.

Authors:  Anjana Pillai; Thomas Couri; Michael Charlton
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  End-stage liver disease patients with MELD >40 have higher waitlist mortality compared to Status 1A patients.

Authors:  Joseph Ahn; Taft Bhuket; Sasan Mosadeghi; Catherine Frenette; Benny Liu; Robert J Wong
Journal:  Hepatol Int       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 6.047

7.  Contemporary Issues in Lung Transplant Allocation Practices.

Authors:  Wayne M Tsuang
Journal:  Curr Transplant Rep       Date:  2017-07-21

8.  Race/ethnicity is associated with ABO-nonidentical liver transplantation in the United States.

Authors:  Jin Ge; John P Roberts; Jennifer C Lai
Journal:  Clin Transplant       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 2.863

Review 9.  Advances in liver transplantation allocation systems.

Authors:  Michael L Schilsky; Maryam Moini
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Waitlist Outcomes of Liver Transplant Candidates Who Were Reprioritized Under Share 35.

Authors:  E K H Chow; A B Massie; X Luo; C E Wickliffe; S E Gentry; A M Cameron; D L Segev
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 8.086

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.