Adrian M Whelan1, Kirsten L Johansen2,3, Sandeep Brar4, Charles E McCulloch4, Deborah B Adey2, Garrett R Roll5, Barbara Grimes4, Elaine Ku2,4,6. 1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California Adrian.whelan@ucsf.edu. 2. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California. 3. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California. 5. Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California. 6. Division of Pediatric Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transplant candidates may gain an advantage by traveling to receive care at a transplant center that may have more favorable characteristics than their local center. Factors associated with longer travel distance for transplant care and whether the excess travel distance (ETD) is associated with access to transplantation or with graft failure are unknown. METHODS: This study of adults in the United States wait-listed for kidney transplantation in 1995-2015 used ETD, defined as distance a patient traveled beyond the nearest transplant center for initial waiting list registration. We used linear regression to examine patient and center characteristics associated with ETD and Fine-Gray models to examine the association between ETD (modeled as a spline) and time to deceased or living donor transplantation or graft failure. RESULTS: Of 373,365 patients, 11% had an ETD≥50 miles. Traveling excess distance was more likely among patients who were of non-Black race or those whose nearest transplant center had lower annual living donor transplant volume. At an ETD of 50 miles, we observed a lower likelihood of deceased donor transplantation (subhazard ratio [SHR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.84 to 0.87) but higher likelihood of living donor transplantation (SHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.16) compared with those who received care at their nearest center. ETD was weakly associated with higher risk of graft failure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who travel excess distances for transplant care have better access to living donor but not deceased donor transplantation and slightly higher risk of graft failure. Traveling excess distances is not clearly associated with better outcomes, especially if living donors are unavailable.
BACKGROUND: Transplant candidates may gain an advantage by traveling to receive care at a transplant center that may have more favorable characteristics than their local center. Factors associated with longer travel distance for transplant care and whether the excess travel distance (ETD) is associated with access to transplantation or with graft failure are unknown. METHODS: This study of adults in the United States wait-listed for kidney transplantation in 1995-2015 used ETD, defined as distance a patient traveled beyond the nearest transplant center for initial waiting list registration. We used linear regression to examine patient and center characteristics associated with ETD and Fine-Gray models to examine the association between ETD (modeled as a spline) and time to deceased or living donor transplantation or graft failure. RESULTS: Of 373,365 patients, 11% had an ETD≥50 miles. Traveling excess distance was more likely among patients who were of non-Black race or those whose nearest transplant center had lower annual living donor transplant volume. At an ETD of 50 miles, we observed a lower likelihood of deceased donor transplantation (subhazard ratio [SHR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.84 to 0.87) but higher likelihood of living donor transplantation (SHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.16) compared with those who received care at their nearest center. ETD was weakly associated with higher risk of graft failure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who travel excess distances for transplant care have better access to living donor but not deceased donor transplantation and slightly higher risk of graft failure. Traveling excess distances is not clearly associated with better outcomes, especially if living donors are unavailable.
Authors: Robert M Merion; Mary K Guidinger; John M Newmann; Mary D Ellison; Friedrich K Port; Robert A Wolfe Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Cristina M Arce; Benjamin A Goldstein; Aya A Mitani; Colin R Lenihan; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: A Hart; J M Smith; M A Skeans; S K Gustafson; A R Wilk; S Castro; A Robinson; J L Wainright; J J Snyder; B L Kasiske; A K Israni Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Kristen L King; S Ali Husain; Jesse D Schold; Rachel E Patzer; Peter P Reese; Zhezhen Jin; Lloyd E Ratner; David J Cohen; Stephen O Pastan; Sumit Mohan Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: David A Axelrod; Nino Dzebisashvili; Mark A Schnitzler; Paolo R Salvalaggio; Dorry L Segev; Sommer E Gentry; Janet Tuttle-Newhall; Krista L Lentine Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-08-26 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Elaine Ku; Brian K Lee; Charles E McCulloch; Garrett R Roll; Barbara Grimes; Deborah Adey; Kirsten L Johansen Journal: Transplantation Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 5.385
Authors: Katherine Ross-Driscoll; Jonathan Gunasti; Raymond J Lynch; Allan Massie; Dorry L Segev; Jon Snyder; David Axelrod; Rachel E Patzer Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 9.369
Authors: Christine Park; Mandisa-Maia Jones; Samantha Kaplan; Felicitas L Koller; Julius M Wilder; L Ebony Boulware; Lisa M McElroy Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2022-02-12