Literature DB >> 29316203

Offer acceptance practices and geographic variability in allocation model for end-stage liver disease at transplant.

Andrew Wey1, Joshua Pyke1, David P Schladt1, Sommer E Gentry2,3, Tim Weaver1, Nicholas Salkowski1, Bertram L Kasiske1,4, Ajay K Israni1,4,5, Jon J Snyder1,5.   

Abstract

Offer acceptance practices may cause geographic variability in allocation Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (aMELD) score at transplant and could magnify the effect of donor supply and demand on aMELD variability. To evaluate these issues, offer acceptance practices of liver transplant programs and donation service areas (DSAs) were estimated using offers of livers from donors recovered between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016. Offer acceptance practices were compared with liver yield, local placement of transplanted livers, donor supply and demand, and aMELD at transplant. Offer acceptance was associated with liver yield (odds ratio, 1.32; P < 0.001), local placement of transplanted livers (odds ratio, 1.34; P < 0.001), and aMELD at transplant (average aMELD difference, -1.62; P < 0.001). However, the ratio of donated livers to listed candidates in a DSA (ie, donor-to-candidate ratio) was associated with median aMELD at transplant (r = -0.45; P < 0.001), but not with offer acceptance (r = 0.09; P = 0.50). Additionally, the association between DSA-level donor-to-candidate ratios and aMELD at transplant did not change after adjustment for offer acceptance. The average squared difference in median aMELD at transplant across DSAs was 24.6; removing the effect of donor-to-candidate ratios reduced the average squared differences more than removing the effect of program-level offer acceptance (33% and 15% reduction, respectively). Offer acceptance practices and donor-to-candidate ratios independently contributed to geographic variability in aMELD at transplant. Thus, neither offer acceptance nor donor-to-candidate ratios can explain all of the geographic variability in aMELD at transplant. Liver Transplantation 24 478-487 2018 AASLD.
© 2018 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29316203      PMCID: PMC5869092          DOI: 10.1002/lt.25010

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


  17 in total

1.  Quantifying organ donation rates by donation service area.

Authors:  Akinlolu O Ojo; Richard E Pietroski; Kevin O'Connor; Joshua J McGowan; David M Dickinson
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 8.086

2.  Role of Patient Factors and Practice Patterns in Determining Access to Liver Waitlist.

Authors:  J T Adler; N Dong; J F Markmann; D Schoenfeld; H Yeh
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 8.086

3.  Liver sharing and organ procurement organization performance.

Authors:  Sommer E Gentry; Eric K H Chow; Allan Massie; Xun Luo; David Zaun; Jon J Snyder; Ajay K Israni; Bert Kasiske; Dorry L Segev
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 5.799

4.  Achieving Equity through Reducing Variability in Accepting Deceased Donor Kidney Offers.

Authors:  Sumit Mohan; Mariana C Chiles
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 8.237

Review 5.  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

6.  Noneligible Donors as a Strategy to Decrease the Organ Shortage.

Authors:  K P Croome; D D Lee; A P Keaveny; C B Taner
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 8.086

7.  Impact of center volume on outcomes of increased-risk liver transplants.

Authors:  Deepak K Ozhathil; You Fu Li; Jillian K Smith; Jennifer F Tseng; Reza F Saidi; Adel Bozorgzadeh; Shimul A Shah
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 5.799

8.  Share 35 changes in center-level liver acceptance practices.

Authors:  David S Goldberg; Matthew Levine; Seth Karp; Richard Gilroy; Peter L Abt
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 5.799

9.  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

10.  Early changes in liver distribution following implementation of Share 35.

Authors:  A B Massie; E K H Chow; C E Wickliffe; X Luo; S E Gentry; D C Mulligan; D L Segev
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 8.086

View more
  3 in total

1.  Association of pretransplant and posttransplant program ratings with candidate mortality after listing.

Authors:  Andrew Wey; Sally K Gustafson; Nicholas Salkowski; Bertram L Kasiske; Melissa Skeans; Cory R Schaffhausen; Ajay K Israni; Jon J Snyder
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 8.086

2.  Tool to Aid Patients in Selecting a Liver Transplant Center.

Authors:  Cory R Schaffhausen; Marilyn J Bruin; Sauman Chu; Helen Fu; Warren T McKinney; David Schladt; Jon J Snyder; W Ray Kim; Jack R Lake; Bertram L Kasiske; Ajay K Israni
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 5.799

3.  Seeking new answers to old questions about public reporting of transplant program performance in the United States.

Authors:  Bertram L Kasiske; Andrew Wey; Nicholas Salkowski; David Zaun; Cory R Schaffhausen; Ajay K Israni; Jon J Snyder
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 8.086

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.