Factors that affect deceased donor liver transplantation rates in the United States in addition to the model for end‐stage liver disease score
dc.contributor.author | Sharma, Pratima | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Schaubel, Douglas E. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Messersmith, Emily E. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Guidinger, Mary K. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Merion, Robert M. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2013-01-03T19:45:31Z | |
dc.date.available | 2014-01-07T14:51:07Z | en_US |
dc.date.issued | 2012-12 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Sharma, Pratima; Schaubel, Douglas E.; Messersmith, Emily E.; Guidinger, Mary K.; Merion, Robert M. (2012). "Factors that affect deceased donor liver transplantation rates in the United States in addition to the model for end‐stage liver disease score ." Liver Transplantation 18(12): 1456-1463. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/95560> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1527-6465 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1527-6473 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/95560 | |
dc.description.abstract | Under an ideal implementation of Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD)–based liver allocation, the only factors that would predict deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) rates would be the MELD score, blood type, and donation service area (DSA). We aimed to determine whether additional factors are associated with DDLT rates in actual practice. Data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for all adult candidates wait‐listed between March 1, 2002 and December 31, 2008 (n = 57,503) were analyzed. Status 1 candidates were excluded. Cox regression was used to model covariate‐adjusted DDLT rates, which were stratified by the DSA, blood type, liver‐intestine policy, and allocation MELD score. Inactive time on the wait list was not modeled, so the computed DDLT hazard ratios (HRs) were interpreted as active wait‐list candidates. Many factors, including the candidate's age, sex, diagnosis, hospitalization status, and height, prior DDLT, and combined listing for liver‐kidney or liver‐intestine transplantation, were significantly associated with DDLT rates. Factors associated with significantly lower covariate‐adjusted DDLT rates were a higher serum creatinine level (HR = 0.92, P < 0.001), a higher bilirubin level (HR = 0.99, P = 0.001), and the receipt of dialysis (HR = 0.83, P < 0.001). Mild ascites (HR = 1.15, P < 0.001) and hepatic encephalopathy (grade 1 or 2, HR = 1.05, P = 0.02; grade 3 or 4, HR = 1.10, P = 0.01) were associated with significantly higher adjusted DDLT rates. In conclusion, adjusted DDLT rates for actively listed candidates are affected by many factors aside from those integral to the allocation system; these factors include the components of the MELD score itself as well as candidate factors that were considered but were deliberately omitted from the MELD score in order to keep it objective. These results raise the question whether additional candidate characteristics should be explicitly incorporated into the prioritization of wait‐list candidates because such factors are already systematically affecting DDLT rates under the current allocation system. Liver Transpl, 2012. © 2012 AASLD. | en_US |
dc.publisher | Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company | en_US |
dc.title | Factors that affect deceased donor liver transplantation rates in the United States in addition to the model for end‐stage liver disease score | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Surgery and Anesthesiology | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Departments of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 3912 Taubman Center, SPC 5362, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Departments of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Departments of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, MI | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 22965903 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/95560/1/23548_ftp.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1002/lt.23548 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Liver Transplantation | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sharma P, Schaubel DE, Guidinger MK, Merion RM. Effect of pretransplant serum creatinine on the survival benefit of liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2009; 15: 1808 ‐ 1813. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mathur AK, Schaubel DE, Qi G, Guidinger MK, Merion RM. Racial and ethnic disparities in transplant rates have improved in the MELD era [abstract]. Am J Transplant 2009; 9: 360. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Policy 3.6: allocation of livers. http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/PoliciesandBylaws2/policies/pdfs/policy_8.pdf. Accessed August 2012. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Analysis of waiting times. In: Committee on Organ Procurement and Transplantation Policy, Institute of Medicine. Organ Procurement and Transplantation: Assessing Current Policies and the Potential Impact of the DHHS Final Rule. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999: 61 ‐ 90. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Wiesner RH, McDiarmid SV, Kamath PS, Edwards EB, Malinchoc M, Kremers WK, et al. MELD and PELD: application of survival models to liver allocation. Liver Transpl 2001; 7: 567 ‐ 580. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kamath PS, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, Kremers W, Therneau TM, Kosberg CL, et al. A model to predict survival in patients with end‐stage liver disease. Hepatology 2001; 33: 464 ‐ 470. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Wiesner R, Edwards E, Freeman R, Harper A, Kim R, Kamath P, et al.; for United Network for Organ Sharing Liver Disease Severity Score Committee. Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and allocation of donor livers. Gastroenterology 2003; 124: 91 ‐ 96. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mindikoglu AL, Regev A, Seliger SL, Magder LS. Gender disparity in liver transplant waiting‐list mortality: the importance of kidney function. Liver Transpl 2010; 16: 1147 ‐ 1157. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Moylan CA, Brady CW, Johnson JL, Smith AD, Tuttle‐Newhall JE, Muir AJ. Disparities in liver transplantation before and after introduction of the MELD score. JAMA 2008; 300: 2371 ‐ 2378. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Volk ML, Choi H, Warren GJ, Sonnenday CJ, Marrero JA, Heisler M. Geographic variation in organ availability is responsible for disparities in liver transplantation between Hispanics and Caucasians. Am J Transplant 2009; 9: 2113 ‐ 2118. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Schaubel DE, Guidinger MK, Biggins SW, Kalbfleisch JD, Pomfret EA, Sharma P, Merion RM. Survival benefit‐based deceased‐donor liver allocation. Am J Transplant 2009; 9 ( pt 2 ): 970 ‐ 981. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mathur AK, Schaubel DE, Gong Q, Guidinger MK, Merion RM. Racial and ethnic disparities in access to liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2010; 16: 1033 ‐ 1040. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Levine GN, McCullough KP, Rodgers AM, Dickinson DM, Ashby VB, Schaubel DE. Analytical methods and database design: implications for transplant researchers, 2005. Am J Transplant 2006; 6 ( pt 2 ): 1228 ‐ 1242. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Merion RM, Schaubel DE, Dykstra DM, Freeman RB, Port FK, Wolfe RA. The survival benefit of liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 307 ‐ 313. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Reid AE, Resnick M, Chang Y, Buerstatte N, Weissman JS. Disparity in use of orthotopic liver transplantation among blacks and whites. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: 834 ‐ 841. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mathur AK, Osborne NH, Lynch RJ, Ghaferi AA, Dimick JB, Sonnenday CJ. Racial/ethnic disparities in access to care and survival for patients with early‐stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Arch Surg 2010; 145: 1158 ‐ 1163. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Asrani SK, Kim WR, Kamath PS. Race and receipt of liver transplantation: location matters. Liver Transpl 2010; 16: 1009 ‐ 1012. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sharma P, Balan V, Hernandez JL, Harper AM, Edwards EB, Rodriguez‐Luna H, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: the MELD impact. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: 36 ‐ 41. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Freeman RB, Wiesner RH, Edwards E, Harper A, Merion R, Wolfe R; for United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Liver and Transplantation Committee. Results of the first year of the new liver allocation plan. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: 7 ‐ 15. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kamath PS, Kim WR; for Advanced Liver Disease Study Group. The Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD). Hepatology 2007; 45: 797 ‐ 805. | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
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.