View Item 

Show simple item record

CAQ Corner: Evolution of liver allocation policy
dc.contributor.authorHassan, Ammar
dc.contributor.authorSharma, Pratima
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-09T21:18:57Z
dc.date.available2023-12-09 16:18:55en
dc.date.available2022-11-09T21:18:57Z
dc.date.issued2022-11
dc.identifier.citationHassan, Ammar; Sharma, Pratima (2022). "CAQ Corner: Evolution of liver allocation policy." Liver Transplantation (11): 1785-1795.
dc.identifier.issn1527-6465
dc.identifier.issn1527-6473
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/175103
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.publisherNational Academies Press (US)
dc.titleCAQ Corner: Evolution of liver allocation policy
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelSurgery and Anesthesiology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/175103/1/lt26497_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/175103/2/lt26497.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/lt.26497
dc.identifier.sourceLiver Transplantation
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBertsimas D, Papalexopoulos T, Trichakis N, Wang Y, Hirose R, Vagefi PA. Balancing efficiency and fairness in liver transplant access: tradeoff curves for the assessment of organ distribution policies. Transplantation. 2020; 104: 981 – 7.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSharma P, Schaubel DE, Goodrich NP, Merion RM. Serum sodium and survival benefit of liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2015; 21: 308 – 13.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKim WR, Mannalithara A, Heimbach JK, Kamath PS, Asrani SK, Biggins SW, et al. MELD 3.0: the model for end-stage liver disease updated for the modern era. Gastroenterology. 2021; 161: 1887 – 95.e4.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLiver allocation policy. [cited 2022 Feb 14]. Available from: https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/media/eavh5bf3/optn_policies.pdf
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreeman RB Jr, Gish RG, Harper A, Davis GL, Vierling J, Lieblein L, et al. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exception guidelines: results and recommendations from the MELD Exception Study Group and Conference (MESSAGE) for the approval of patients who need liver transplantation with diseases not considered by the standard MELD formula. Liver Transpl. 2006; 12 ( Suppl 3 ): S128 – 36.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAby ES, Lake JR. Basic principles of liver allocation and development over the years. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2020; 25: 99 – 103.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWedd JP, Harper AM, Biggins SW. MELD score, allocation, and distribution in the United States. Clin Liver Dis. 2013; 2: 148 – 51.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHumar A, Khwaja K, Glessing B, Larson E, Asolati M, Durand B, et al. Regionwide sharing for status 1 liver patients—beneficial impact on waiting time and pre- and posttransplant survival. Liver Transpl. 2004; 10: 661 – 5.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSharma P, Schaubel DE, Gong Q, Guidinger M, Merion RM. End-stage liver disease candidates at the highest model for end-stage liver disease scores have higher wait-list mortality than status-1A candidates. Hepatology. 2012; 55: 192 – 8.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMassie AB, Chow EK, Wickliffe CE, Luo X, Gentry SE, Mulligan DC, et al. Early changes in liver distribution following implementation of share 35. Am J Transplant. 2015; 15: 659 – 67.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSakamoto S, Uchida H, Takeuchi I, Irie R, Shimizu S, Yanagi Y, et al. Sequential deceased donor intestine transplantation followed by living donor liver transplantation, also known as hybrid intestine-liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2020; 104: e42 – 3.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAvailable from: https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/media/53wj54zi/data_report_liver_full_18moallocation_20211203_508_compliant.pdf
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAvailable from: https://unos.org/news/innovation/building-more-flexible-system-for-organallocation/
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCullaro G, Sharma P, Jo J, Rassiwala J, LB VW, Wong R, et al. Temporal trends and evolving outcomes after simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation: results from the US SLKT Consortium. Liver Transpl. 2021; 27: 1613 – 22.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFormica RN, Aeder M, Boyle G, Kucheryavaya A, Stewart D, Hirose R, et al. Simultaneous liver-kidney allocation policy: a proposal to optimize appropriate utilization of scarce resources. Am J Transplant. 2016; 16: 758 – 66.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBari K, Sharma P. Optimizing the selection of patients for simultaneous liver-kidney transplant. Clin Liver Dis. 2021; 25: 89 – 102.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSamoylova ML, Wegermann K, Shaw BI, Kesseli SJ, Au S, Park C, et al. The impact of the 2017 kidney allocation policy change on simultaneous liver-kidney utilization and outcomes. Liver Transpl. 2021; 27: 1106 – 15.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMerion RM, Schaubel DE, Dykstra DM, Freeman RB, Port FK, Wolfe RA. The survival benefit of liver transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2005; 5: 307 – 13.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKim WR, Lake JR, Smith JM, Schladt DP, Skeans MA, Noreen SM, et al. OPTN/SRTR 2017 annual data report: liver. Am J Transplant. 2019; 19 ( Suppl 2 ): 184 – 283.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreeman RB Jr, Wiesner RH, Roberts JP, McDiarmid S, Dykstra DM, Merion RM. Improving liver allocation: MELD and PELD. Am J Transplant. 2004; 4 ( Suppl 9 ): 114 – 31.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchilsky ML, Moini M. Advances in liver transplantation allocation systems. World J Gastroenterol. 2016; 22: 2922 – 30.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceInstitute of Medicine (US). Committee on Organ Procurement and Transplantation Policy. Organ procurement and transplantation: assessing current policies and the potential impact of the DHHS final rule. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 1999.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMalinchoc M, Kamath PS, Gordon FD, Peine CJ, Rank J, ter Borg PC. A model to predict poor survival in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Hepatology. 2000; 31: 864 – 71.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWiesner R, Edwards E, Freeman R, Harper A, Kim R, Kamath P, et al. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and allocation of donor livers. Gastroenterology. 2003; 124: 91 – 6.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreeman RB, Wiesner RH, Edwards E, Harper A, Merion R, Wolfe R, et al. Results of the first year of the new liver allocation plan. Liver Transpl. 2004; 10: 7 – 15.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRuf AE, Kremers WK, Chavez LL, Descalzi VI, Podesta LG, Villamil FG. Addition of serum sodium into the MELD score predicts waiting list mortality better than MELD alone. Liver Transpl. 2005; 11: 336 – 43.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKim WR, Biggins SW, Kremers WK, Wiesner RH, Kamath PS, Benson JT, et al. Hyponatremia and mortality among patients on the liver-transplant waiting list. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359: 1018 – 26.
dc.working.doiNOen
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
lt26497_am.pdf
Size:
3.442MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
lt26497.pdf
Size:
1.257MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.