Christoph Tschuor1, Alberto Ferrarese2, Christoph Kuemmerli1, Philipp Dutkowski1, Patrizia Burra3, Pierre-Alain Clavien4. 1. Department of Surgery & Transplantation, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Multivisceral Transplant Unit - Gastroenterology, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy. 3. Multivisceral Transplant Unit - Gastroenterology, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy. Electronic address: burra@unipd.it. 4. Department of Surgery & Transplantation, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: clavien@access.uzh.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: An optimal allocation system for scarce resources should simultaneously ensure maximal utility, but also equity. The most frequent principles for allocation policies in liver transplantation are therefore criteria that rely on pre-transplant survival (sickest first policy), post-transplant survival (utility), or on their combination (benefit). However, large differences exist between centers and countries for ethical and legislative reasons. The aim of this study was to report the current worldwide practice of liver graft allocation and discuss respective advantages and disadvantages. METHODS: Countries around the world that perform 95 or more deceased donor liver transplantations per year were analyzed for donation and allocation policies, as well as recipient characteristics. RESULTS: Most countries use the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, or variations of it, for organ allocation, while some countries opt for center-based allocation systems based on their specific requirements, and some countries combine both a MELD and center-based approach. Both the MELD and center-specific allocation systems have inherent limitations. For example, most countries or allocation systems address the limitations of the MELD system by adding extra points to recipient's laboratory scores based on clinical information. It is also clear from this study that cancer, as an indication for liver transplantation, requires special attention. CONCLUSION: The sickest first policy is the most reasonable basis for the allocation of liver grafts. While MELD is currently the standard for this model, many adjustments were implemented in most countries. A future globally applicable strategy should combine donor and recipient factors, predicting probability of death on the waiting list, post-transplant survival and morbidity, and perhaps costs. LAY SUMMARY: An optimal allocation system for scarce resources should simultaneously ensure maximal utility, but also equity. While the model for end-stage liver disease is currently the standard for this model, many adjustments were implemented in most countries. A future globally applicable strategy should combine donor and recipient factors predicting probability of death on the waiting list, post-transplant survival and morbidity, and perhaps costs.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: An optimal allocation system for scarce resources should simultaneously ensure maximal utility, but also equity. The most frequent principles for allocation policies in liver transplantation are therefore criteria that rely on pre-transplant survival (sickest first policy), post-transplant survival (utility), or on their combination (benefit). However, large differences exist between centers and countries for ethical and legislative reasons. The aim of this study was to report the current worldwide practice of liver graft allocation and discuss respective advantages and disadvantages. METHODS: Countries around the world that perform 95 or more deceased donor liver transplantations per year were analyzed for donation and allocation policies, as well as recipient characteristics. RESULTS: Most countries use the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, or variations of it, for organ allocation, while some countries opt for center-based allocation systems based on their specific requirements, and some countries combine both a MELD and center-based approach. Both the MELD and center-specific allocation systems have inherent limitations. For example, most countries or allocation systems address the limitations of the MELD system by adding extra points to recipient's laboratory scores based on clinical information. It is also clear from this study that cancer, as an indication for liver transplantation, requires special attention. CONCLUSION: The sickest first policy is the most reasonable basis for the allocation of liver grafts. While MELD is currently the standard for this model, many adjustments were implemented in most countries. A future globally applicable strategy should combine donor and recipient factors, predicting probability of death on the waiting list, post-transplant survival and morbidity, and perhaps costs. LAY SUMMARY: An optimal allocation system for scarce resources should simultaneously ensure maximal utility, but also equity. While the model for end-stage liver disease is currently the standard for this model, many adjustments were implemented in most countries. A future globally applicable strategy should combine donor and recipient factors predicting probability of death on the waiting list, post-transplant survival and morbidity, and perhaps costs.
Authors: Carla F Murillo Perez; Tommy Ivanics; Marco P A W Claasen; Peter Yoon; David Wallace; Nazia Selzner; Gideon M Hirschfield; Bettina E Hansen; Gonzalo Sapisochin Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2022-10-12 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Stephan Listabarth; Daniel König; Gabriela Berlakovich; Petra Munda; Peter Ferenci; Dagmar Kollmann; Georg Gyöeri; Thomas Waldhoer; Magdalena Groemer; Arjan van Enckevort; Benjamin Vyssoki Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Dilmurodjon Eshmuminov; Dustin Becker; Max L Hefti; Matteo Mueller; Catherine Hagedorn; Philipp Dutkowski; Philipp Rudolf von Rohr; Maximilian Halbe; Stephan Segerer; Mark W Tibbitt; Lucia Bautista Borrego; Martin J Schuler; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Alberto Ferrarese; Annamaria Cattelan; Umberto Cillo; Enrico Gringeri; Francesco Paolo Russo; Giacomo Germani; Martina Gambato; Patrizia Burra; Marco Senzolo Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Peter T Dancs; Fuat H Saner; Tamas Benkö; Ernesto P Molmenti; Matthias Büchter; Andreas Paul; Dieter P Hoyer Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-03-04