Show simple item record

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.authorSharma, Pratimaen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchaubel, Douglas E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMessersmith, Emily E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGuidinger, Mary K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMerion, Robert M.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-01-03T19:45:31Z
dc.date.available2014-01-07T14:51:07Zen_US
dc.date.issued2012-12en_US
dc.identifier.citationSharma, 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.issn1527-6465en_US
dc.identifier.issn1527-6473en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/95560
dc.description.abstractUnder 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.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.titleFactors that affect deceased donor liver transplantation rates in the United States in addition to the model for end‐stage liver disease scoreen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelSurgery and Anesthesiologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartments of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 3912 Taubman Center, SPC 5362, Ann Arbor, MI 48109en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartments of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartments of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherArbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, MIen_US
dc.identifier.pmid22965903en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/95560/1/23548_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/lt.23548en_US
dc.identifier.sourceLiver Transplantationen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSharma 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.citedreferenceMathur 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.citedreferenceOrgan 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.citedreferenceAnalysis 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.citedreferenceWiesner 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.citedreferenceKamath 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.citedreferenceWiesner 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.citedreferenceMindikoglu 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.citedreferenceMoylan 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.citedreferenceVolk 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.citedreferenceSchaubel 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.citedreferenceMathur 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.citedreferenceLevine 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.citedreferenceMerion 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.citedreferenceReid 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.citedreferenceMathur 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.citedreferenceAsrani SK, Kim WR, Kamath PS. Race and receipt of liver transplantation: location matters. Liver Transpl 2010; 16: 1009 ‐ 1012.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSharma 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.citedreferenceFreeman 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.citedreferenceKamath 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.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

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.