Literature DB >> 34482614

The Effect of Acuity Circles on Deceased Donor Transplant and Offer Rates Across Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Scores and Exception Statuses.

Andrew Wey1, Samantha Noreen2, Sommer Gentry1,3, Matt Cafarella2, James Trotter4, Nicholas Salkowski1, Dorry Segev1,5, Ajay Israni1,6,7, Bertram Kasiske1,7, Ryutaro Hirose1,8, Jon Snyder1,6.   

Abstract

Acuity circles (AC), the new liver allocation system, was implemented on February 4, 2020. Difference-in-differences analyses estimated the effect of AC on adjusted deceased donor transplant and offer rates across Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) categories and types of exception statuses. The offer rates were the number of first offers, top 5 offers, and top 10 offers on the match run per person-year. Each analysis adjusted for candidate characteristics and only used active candidate time on the waiting list. The before-AC period was February 4, 2019, to February 3, 2020, and the after-AC period was February 4, 2020, to February 3, 2021. Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 and PELD/MELD scores 33 to 36 had higher transplant rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 after AC compared with before AC (transplant rate ratios: PELD/MELD scores 29-32, 2.34 3.324.71 ; PELD/MELD scores 33-36, 1.70 2.513.71 ). Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 or higher had higher offer rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28, and candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 had the largest difference (offer rate ratios [ORR]: first offers, 2.77 3.955.63 ; top 5 offers, 3.90 4.394.95 ; top 10 offers, 4.85 5.305.80 ). Candidates with exceptions had lower offer rates than candidates without exceptions for offers in the top 5 (ORR: hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], 0.68 0.770.88 ; non-HCC, 0.73 0.810.89 ) and top 10 (ORR: HCC, 0.59 0.650.71 ; non-HCC, 0.69 0.750.81 ). Recipients with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 and an HCC exception received a larger proportion of donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors after AC than before AC, although the differences in the liver donor risk index were comparatively small. Thus, candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 34 and no exceptions had better access to transplant after AC, and donor quality did not notably change beyond the proportion of DCD donors.
© 2021 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34482614     DOI: 10.1002/lt.26286

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


  4 in total

1.  Organ allocation in pediatric abdominal transplant.

Authors:  Leah Ott; Khashayar Vakili; Alex G Cuenca
Journal:  Semin Pediatr Surg       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Disparities in the Effects of Acuity Circle-based Liver Allocation on Waitlist and Transplant Practice Between Centers.

Authors:  Shunji Nagai; Tommy Ivanics; Toshihiro Kitajima; Shingo Shimada; Tayseer M Shamaa; Kelly Collins; Michael Rizzari; Atsushi Yoshida; Dilip Moonka; Marwan Abouljoud
Journal:  Transplant Direct       Date:  2022-09-26

3.  Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization.

Authors:  Ethan Chan; April J Logan; Jeffrey M Sneddon; Navdeep Singh; Guy N Brock; William K Washburn; Austin D Schenk
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 9.369

4.  DCD Liver Grafts Can Safely Be Used for Recipients With Grade I-II Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Multicenter Analysis.

Authors:  Lydia A Mercado; Harpreet K Bhangu; Esteban Calderon; Amit K Mathur; Bashar Aqel; Kaitlyn R Musto; Kymberly D Watt; Charles B Rosen; Candice Bolan; Jordan D LeGout; C Burcin Taner; Denise M Harnois; Kristopher P Croome
Journal:  Transplant Direct       Date:  2022-10-07
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.