Literature DB >> 28240804

Share 35 changes in center-level liver acceptance practices.

David S Goldberg1,2,3, Matthew Levine4, Seth Karp5, Richard Gilroy6, Peter L Abt4.   

Abstract

Share 35 was implemented to provide improved access to organs for patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores ≥ 35. However, little is known about the impact of Share 35 on organ offer acceptance rates. We evaluated all liver offers to adult patients who were ultimately transplanted between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2015. The analyses focused on patients ranked in the top 5 positions of a given match run and used multilevel mixed-effects models, clustering on individual wait-list candidate and transplant center. There was a significant interaction between Share 35 era and MELD category (P < 0.001). Comparing offers to MELD score ≥ 35 patients, offers after Share 35 were 36% less likely to be accepted compared with offers to MELD score ≥ 35 patients before Share 35 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.64). There was no clinically meaningful difference in the donor risk index of livers that were declined for patients with an allocation MELD score ≥35 in the pre- versus post-Share 35 era. Organ offer acceptance rates for patients with an allocation MELD ≥ 35 decreased in every region after Share 35; the magnitude of these changes was bigger in regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11, compared with regions 8 and 9 that had regional sharing in place before Share 35. There were significant changes in organ offer acceptance rates at the center level before versus after Share 35, and these changes varied across centers (P < 0.001). In conclusion, in liver transplantation candidates achieving a MELD score ≥ 35, liver acceptance of offers declined significantly after implementation of Share 35. The alterations in behavior at the center level suggest that practice patterns changed as a direct result of Share 35. Changes in organ acceptance under even broader organ sharing (redistricting) would likely be even greater, posing major logistical and operational challenges, while potentially increasing discard rates, thus decreasing the total number of transplants nationally. Liver Transplantation 23 604-613 2017 AASLD.
© 2017 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28240804      PMCID: PMC5462450          DOI: 10.1002/lt.24749

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


  11 in total

1.  Increasing the Number of Organ Transplants in the United States by Optimizing Donor Authorization Rates.

Authors:  D S Goldberg; B French; P L Abt; R K Gilroy
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 8.086

2.  Liver.

Authors:  W R Kim; J R Lake; J M Smith; M A Skeans; D P Schladt; E B Edwards; A M Harper; J L Wainright; J J Snyder; A K Israni; B L Kasiske
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 8.086

3.  Liver transplant center variability in accepting organ offers and its impact on patient survival.

Authors:  David S Goldberg; Benjamin French; James D Lewis; Frank I Scott; Ronac Mamtani; Richard Gilroy; Scott D Halpern; Peter L Abt
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 25.083

4.  Decision support for organ offers in liver transplantation.

Authors:  Michael L Volk; Nathan Goodrich; Jennifer C Lai; Christopher Sonnenday; Kerby Shedden
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 5.799

5.  End-stage liver disease candidates at the highest model for end-stage liver disease scores have higher wait-list mortality than status-1A candidates.

Authors:  Pratima Sharma; Douglas E Schaubel; Qi Gong; Mary Guidinger; Robert M Merion
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 17.425

6.  An examination of liver offers to candidates on the liver transplant wait-list.

Authors:  Jennifer Cindy Lai; Sandy Feng; John Paul Roberts
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 22.682

7.  Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: the concept of a donor risk index.

Authors:  S Feng; N P Goodrich; J L Bragg-Gresham; D M Dykstra; J D Punch; M A DebRoy; S M Greenstein; R M Merion
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 8.086

8.  Offer patterns of nationally placed livers by donation service area.

Authors:  Jennifer C Lai; Sandy Feng; Eric Vittinghoff; John P Roberts
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2013-03-17       Impact factor: 5.799

9.  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

10.  Liver transplantation after share 35: Impact on pretransplant and posttransplant costs and mortality.

Authors:  Clara T Nicolas; Scott L Nyberg; Julie K Heimbach; Kymberly Watt; Harvey S Chen; Matthew A Hathcock; Walter K Kremers
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 5.799

View more
  9 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.  Influence of kidney offer acceptance behavior on metrics of allocation efficiency.

Authors:  Andrew Wey; Nicholas Salkowski; Bertram L Kasiske; Ajay K Israni; Jon J Snyder
Journal:  Clin Transplant       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 2.863

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Deceased Pediatric Donor Livers: How Current Policy Drives Allocation and Transplantation.

Authors:  Jin Ge; Evelyn K Hsu; John Bucuvalas; Jennifer C Lai
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2019-02-08       Impact factor: 17.425

7.  Quantifying the Effect of Transplanting Older Donor Livers Into Younger Recipients: The Need for Donor-recipient Age Matching.

Authors:  Therese Bittermann; David S Goldberg
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.939

8.  Estimated Association Between Organ Availability and Presumed Consent in Solid Organ Transplant.

Authors:  Luke J DeRoos; Wesley J Marrero; Elliot B Tapper; Christopher J Sonnenday; Mariel S Lavieri; David W Hutton; Neehar D Parikh
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-10-02

9.  Use of rapid Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) increases for liver transplant registrant prioritization after MELD-Na and Share 35, an evaluation using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing.

Authors:  Guy N Brock; Kenneth Washburn; Michael R Marvin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.