Audrey E Ertel1, Koffi Wima1, Richard S Hoehn1, Daniel E Abbott1, Shimul A Shah2,3. 1. Cincinnati Research in Outcomes and Safety in Surgery (CROSS), Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML 0558, Cincinnati, OH, 45267-0558, USA. 2. Cincinnati Research in Outcomes and Safety in Surgery (CROSS), Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML 0558, Cincinnati, OH, 45267-0558, USA. shimul.shah@uc.edu. 3. Division of Transplant Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML 0558, MSB 2006C, Cincinnati, OH, 45267-0558, USA. shimul.shah@uc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to the current geographic disparities in liver allocation a policy, which endorses broader sharing of allografts, has been proposed. We performed a retrospective cohort study to identify how nationally shared allografts, under the current policy, affect perioperative outcomes and resource utilization following liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: Univariate and multivariate analysis identified how patient characteristics and hospital outcomes were associated with national sharing. This analysis was based on 12,282 deceased donor liver transplants performed between 2007 and 2012 using the scientific registry of transplant recipients linked to the University HealthSystem Consortium database. RESULTS: Compared to locally distributed livers, nationally shared livers are more likely to have a donor risk index >1.8 (64.3 vs. 11.6 %), to be classified as expanded criteria donors (44.6 vs. 24.8 %), and transplanted into healthier recipients. Nationally shared LTs were more likely to be performed at high-volume centers (49.1 vs. 30.6 %), resulted in longer length of stay (11 vs. 9 days), and had higher in-hospital mortality (6.6 vs. 3.3 %). Additionally, nationally shared allografts were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality (OR 1.64, 95 % CI 1.13-2.39) and length of stay (OR 1.12, 95 % CI 1.02-1.21). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that increased national sharing of livers may result in inferior patient outcomes and increased resource utilization.
BACKGROUND: Due to the current geographic disparities in liver allocation a policy, which endorses broader sharing of allografts, has been proposed. We performed a retrospective cohort study to identify how nationally shared allografts, under the current policy, affect perioperative outcomes and resource utilization following liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: Univariate and multivariate analysis identified how patient characteristics and hospital outcomes were associated with national sharing. This analysis was based on 12,282 deceased donor liver transplants performed between 2007 and 2012 using the scientific registry of transplant recipients linked to the University HealthSystem Consortium database. RESULTS: Compared to locally distributed livers, nationally shared livers are more likely to have a donor risk index >1.8 (64.3 vs. 11.6 %), to be classified as expanded criteria donors (44.6 vs. 24.8 %), and transplanted into healthier recipients. Nationally shared LTs were more likely to be performed at high-volume centers (49.1 vs. 30.6 %), resulted in longer length of stay (11 vs. 9 days), and had higher in-hospital mortality (6.6 vs. 3.3 %). Additionally, nationally shared allografts were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality (OR 1.64, 95 % CI 1.13-2.39) and length of stay (OR 1.12, 95 % CI 1.02-1.21). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that increased national sharing of livers may result in inferior patient outcomes and increased resource utilization.
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R Cutler Quillin; Gregory C Wilson; Koffi Wima; Samuel F Hohmann; Jeffrey M Sutton; Joshua J Shaw; Ian M Paquette; E Steve Woodle; Daniel E Abbott; Shimul A Shah Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: P S Kamath; R H Wiesner; M Malinchoc; W Kremers; T M Therneau; C L Kosberg; G D'Amico; E R Dickson; W R Kim Journal: Hepatology Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Gregory C Wilson; R Cutler Quillin; Koffi Wima; Jeffrey M Sutton; Richard S Hoehn; Dennis J Hanseman; Ian M Paquette; Flavio Paterno; E Steve Woodle; Daniel E Abbott; Shimul A Shah Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 3.647
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
Authors: Anand Singla; Jessica Simons; YouFu Li; Nicholas G Csikesz; Sing Chau Ng; Jennifer F Tseng; Shimul A Shah Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-09-03 Impact factor: 22.682