Binu V John1, Eleanor Love2, Bassam Dahman3, Nargiza Kurbanova4, Venkata Rajesh Konjeti4, Latha Thankam Sundaram5, Yangyang Deng3, Sean Aubuchon2, Douglas Heuman5, Jasmohan S Bajaj6, Hochong Gilles5, Michael Chang7, Rehan Qayyum4, Mohammad S Siddiqui8. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine. Electronic address: binu.john@gmail.com. 2. McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia. 3. Department of Health Behavior and Policy. 4. Department of Hospital Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 6. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mc Guire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia. 8. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver transplantation is the only treatment that increases survival times of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Patients who live farther away from a transplant center are disadvantaged. Health care delivery via telehealth is an effective way to manage patients with decompensated cirrhosis remotely. We investigated the effects of telehealth on the liver transplant evaluation process. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 465 patients who underwent evaluation for liver transplantation at the Richmond Veterans Affairs Medical Center from 2005 through 2017. Of these, 232 patients were evaluated via telehealth, and 233 via in-person evaluation. Using regression models, we evaluated the differential effects of telehealth vs usual care on placement on the liver transplant waitlist. We also investigated the effects of telehealth on time from referral to initial evaluation by a transplant hepatologist, liver transplantation, and mortality. RESULTS: Patients in the telehealth group were evaluated significantly faster than patients evaluated in person, without or with adjustment for potential confounders (21.7 vs 79.5 d; P < .01). Telehealth also was associated with a significantly shorter time on the liver transplant waitlist (138.8 vs 249 d; P < .01). After propensity-matched analysis, telehealth was associated with a reduction in the time from referral to evaluation (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.21; P < .01) and listing (hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40; P < .01), but not to transplantation. In the intent-to-treat analysis of all referred patients, we found no significant difference in pretransplant mortality between patients evaluated via telehealth vs in-person. There was statistically significant interaction between model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)-Na scores and time to evaluation (P = .009) and placement on the transplant waitlist (P = .002), with telehealth offering greater benefits to patients with low MELD-Na scores. CONCLUSIONS: Use of telehealth is associated with a substantial reduction in time from referral to initial evaluation by a hepatologist and placement on the liver transplant waitlist, especially for patients with low MELD scores, with no changes in time to transplantation or pretransplant mortality. More studies are needed, particularly outside of the Veterans Administration Health System, to confirm that telehealth is a safe and effective way to expand access for patients undergoing evaluation for liver transplantation.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver transplantation is the only treatment that increases survival times of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Patients who live farther away from a transplant center are disadvantaged. Health care delivery via telehealth is an effective way to manage patients with decompensated cirrhosis remotely. We investigated the effects of telehealth on the liver transplant evaluation process. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 465 patients who underwent evaluation for liver transplantation at the Richmond Veterans Affairs Medical Center from 2005 through 2017. Of these, 232 patients were evaluated via telehealth, and 233 via in-person evaluation. Using regression models, we evaluated the differential effects of telehealth vs usual care on placement on the liver transplant waitlist. We also investigated the effects of telehealth on time from referral to initial evaluation by a transplant hepatologist, liver transplantation, and mortality. RESULTS:Patients in the telehealth group were evaluated significantly faster than patients evaluated in person, without or with adjustment for potential confounders (21.7 vs 79.5 d; P < .01). Telehealth also was associated with a significantly shorter time on the liver transplant waitlist (138.8 vs 249 d; P < .01). After propensity-matched analysis, telehealth was associated with a reduction in the time from referral to evaluation (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.21; P < .01) and listing (hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40; P < .01), but not to transplantation. In the intent-to-treat analysis of all referred patients, we found no significant difference in pretransplant mortality between patients evaluated via telehealth vs in-person. There was statistically significant interaction between model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)-Na scores and time to evaluation (P = .009) and placement on the transplant waitlist (P = .002), with telehealth offering greater benefits to patients with low MELD-Na scores. CONCLUSIONS: Use of telehealth is associated with a substantial reduction in time from referral to initial evaluation by a hepatologist and placement on the liver transplant waitlist, especially for patients with low MELD scores, with no changes in time to transplantation or pretransplant mortality. More studies are needed, particularly outside of the Veterans Administration Health System, to confirm that telehealth is a safe and effective way to expand access for patients undergoing evaluation for liver transplantation.
Authors: Chandra S Bhati; Stephen J Wigmore; Sriniwas Reddy; David A Mayer; John A C Buckels; Manas Derek; Darius F Mirza Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2009-10-30 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Robert M Merion; Douglas E Schaubel; Dawn M Dykstra; Richard B Freeman; Friedrich K Port; Robert A Wolfe Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Jennifer M Polinski; Tobias Barker; Nancy Gagliano; Andrew Sussman; Troyen A Brennan; William H Shrank Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Claudia Der-Martirosian; Karen Chu; W Neil Steers; Tamar Wyte-Lake; Michelle D Balut; Aram Dobalian; Leonie Heyworth; Neil M Paige; Lucinda Leung Journal: BMC Prim Care Date: 2022-06-18
Authors: Binu V John; Kaley Schwartz; Andrew R Scheinberg; Bassam Dahman; Seth Spector; Yangyang Deng; David Goldberg; Paul Martin; Tamar H Taddei; David E Kaplan Journal: Transplantation Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 5.385
Authors: Philipp A Reuken; Falk Rauchfuss; Stefanie Albers; Utz Settmacher; Christian Trautwein; Tony Bruns; Andreas Stallmach Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-06-27 Impact factor: 9.369