Literature DB >> 28650358

The Volume-outcome Relationship in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation and Implications for Regionalization.

Andrew S Barbas1, Martin J Dib2, Aparna S Rege1, Deepak S Vikraman1, Debra L Sudan1, Stuart J Knechtle1, John E Scarborough2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the volume-outcome relationship in kidney transplantation by examining graft and patient outcomes using standardized risk adjustment (observed-to-expected outcomes). A secondary objective was to examine the geographic proximity of low, medium, and high-volume kidney transplant centers in the United States. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The significant survival benefit of kidney transplantation in the context of a severe shortage of donor organs mandates strategies to optimize outcomes. Unlike for other solid organ transplants, the relationship between surgical volume and kidney transplant outcomes has not been clearly established.
METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was used to examine national outcomes for adults undergoing deceased donor kidney transplantation from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2013 (15-year study period). Observed-to-expected rates of graft loss and patient death were compared for low, medium, and high-volume centers. The geographic proximity of low-volume centers to higher volume centers was determined to assess the impact of regionalization on patient travel burden.
RESULTS: A total of 206,179 procedures were analyzed. Compared with low-volume centers, high-volume centers had significantly lower observed-to-expected rates of 1-month graft loss (0.93 vs 1.18, P<0.001), 1-year graft loss (0.97 vs 1.12, P<0.001), 1-month patient death (0.90 vs 1.29, P=0.005), and 1-year patient death (0.95 vs 1.15, P=0.001). Low-volume centers were frequently in close proximity to higher volume centers, with a median distance of 7 miles (interquartile range: 2 to 75).
CONCLUSIONS: A robust volume-outcome relationship was observed for deceased donor kidney transplantation, and low-volume centers are frequently in close proximity to higher volume centers. Increased regionalization could improve outcomes, but should be considered carefully in light of the potential negative impact on transplant volume and access to care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28650358     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002351

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  3 in total

1.  Association of Kidney Transplant Center Volume With 3-Year Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Sonnenberg; Jordana B Cohen; Jesse Y Hsu; Vishnu S Potluri; Matthew H Levine; Peter L Abt; Peter P Reese
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 8.860

2.  Effect of Institutional Kidney Transplantation Case-Volume on Post-Transplant Graft Failure: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Hye Won Oh; Eun Jin Jang; Ga Hee Kim; Seokha Yoo; Hannah Lee; Tae Yoon Lim; Hansol Kim; Ho Geol Ryu
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 2.153

3.  Obese living kidney donors: a comparison of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy.

Authors:  Kosei Takagi; Hendrikus J A N Kimenai; Jan N M IJzermans; Robert C Minnee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 4.584

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.