Abbas Rana1, Bruce Kaplan, Irbaz B Riaz, Marian Porubsky, Shahid Habib, Horacio Rilo, Angelika C Gruessner, Rainer W G Gruessner. 1. 1 Division of Abdominal Transplantation, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 2 Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS. 3 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 4 Department of Abdominal Transplantation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 5 College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Significant geographic inequities mar the distribution of liver allografts for transplantation. METHODS: We analyzed the effect of geographic inequities on patient outcomes. During our study period (January 1 through December 31, 2010), 11,244 adult candidates were listed for liver transplantation: 5,285 adult liver allografts became available, and 5,471 adult recipients underwent transplantation. We obtained population data from the 2010 United States Census. To determine the effect of regional supply and demand disparities on patient outcomes, we performed linear regression and multivariate Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Our proposed disparity metric, the ratio of listed candidates to liver allografts available varied from 1.3 (region 11) to 3.4 (region 1). When that ratio was used as the explanatory variable, the R(2) values for outcome measures were as follows: 1-year waitlist mortality, 0.23 and 1-year posttransplant survival, 0.27. According to our multivariate analysis, the ratio of listed candidates to liver allografts available had a significant effect on waitlist survival (hazards ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.40) but was not a significant risk factor for posttransplant survival. CONCLUSION: We found significant differences in liver allograft supply and demand--but these differences had only a modest effect on patient outcomes. Redistricting and allocation-sharing schemes should seek to equalize regional supply and demand rather than attempting to equalize patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Significant geographic inequities mar the distribution of liver allografts for transplantation. METHODS: We analyzed the effect of geographic inequities on patient outcomes. During our study period (January 1 through December 31, 2010), 11,244 adult candidates were listed for liver transplantation: 5,285 adult liver allografts became available, and 5,471 adult recipients underwent transplantation. We obtained population data from the 2010 United States Census. To determine the effect of regional supply and demand disparities on patient outcomes, we performed linear regression and multivariate Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Our proposed disparity metric, the ratio of listed candidates to liver allografts available varied from 1.3 (region 11) to 3.4 (region 1). When that ratio was used as the explanatory variable, the R(2) values for outcome measures were as follows: 1-year waitlist mortality, 0.23 and 1-year posttransplant survival, 0.27. According to our multivariate analysis, the ratio of listed candidates to liver allografts available had a significant effect on waitlist survival (hazards ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.40) but was not a significant risk factor for posttransplant survival. CONCLUSION: We found significant differences in liver allograft supply and demand--but these differences had only a modest effect on patient outcomes. Redistricting and allocation-sharing schemes should seek to equalize regional supply and demand rather than attempting to equalize patient outcomes.
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
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: Jayme E Locke; Brittany A Shelton; Kim M Olthoff; Elizabeth A Pomfret; Kimberly A Forde; Deirdre Sawinski; Meagan Gray; Nancy L Ascher Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 14.766
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: Theodore Zhang; Jordan Dunson; Fasiha Kanwal; Nhu Thao Nguyen Galvan; John M Vierling; Christine O'Mahony; John A Goss; Abbas Rana Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 14.766