Dataset Information

Tool to Aid Patients in Selecting a Liver Transplant Center.

ABSTRACT: Variations in candidate and donor acceptance criteria may influence access and mortality for liver transplantation. We sought to understand how recipient and donor characteristics vary across centers and how patients interpret this information, and we used these data to develop a tool to provide tailored information to candidates seeking a center (www.transplantcentersearch.org). We analyzed liver recipient data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to determine how recipient and donor characteristics (eg, age, Medicaid use, and human immunodeficiency virus status) varied across programs. Data included recipients and donors at each US program between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. The variation in characteristics was plotted with centers stratified by total transplant volume and by volume of each characteristic. A subset of characteristics was plotted to show variation over 3 years. We created mockups of potential reports displaying recipient characteristics alongside pretransplant and posttransplant outcomes and solicited feedback at patient and family interviews and focus groups, which included 39 individuals: 10 pilot interviews with candidates seeking liver transplant at the University of Minnesota-Fairview (UMNF) and 5 focus groups with 13 UMNF candidates, 6 UMNF family members, and 10 national recipients. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis. Several themes emerged: (1) Candidates experience gaps in existing education about center options; (2) patients requested information about how selection criteria might impact access to transplant; and (3) information tailored to a candidate's medical characteristics can inform decisions. Characteristics shown on mockups varied across centers (P < 0.01). Variation was widespread for small and large centers. In conclusion, variation exists in recipient and donor characteristics across centers. Liver transplant patients provide positive feedback upon viewing patient-specific search tools.

SUBMITTER: Schaffhausen CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8193801 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPerioperative hyperglycemia is associated with poor outcomes yet evidence to guide intraoperative goals and treatment modalities during non-cardiac surgery are lacking. End-stage liver disease is associated with altered glucose homeostasis; patients undergoing liver transplantation display huge fluctuations in blood glucose (BG) and represent a population of great interest. Here, we conduct a randomized trial to compare the effects of strict versus conventional glycemic control during orthotopic liver transplant (OLT).MethodsFollowing approval by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Michigan Medical School and informed consent, 100 adult patients undergoing OLT were recruited. Patients were randomized to either strict (target BG 80-120 mg/dL) or conventional (target BG 180-200 mg/dL) BG control with block randomization for diabetic and nondiabetic patients. The primary outcomes measured were 1-year patient and graft survival assessed on an intention to treat basis. Graft survival is defined as death or needing re-transplant (www.unos.org). Three and 5-year patient and graft survival, infectious and biliary complications were measured as secondary outcomes. Data were examined using univariate methods and Kaplan-Meir survival analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed to compare patients with a mean BG of ≤120 mg/dL and those > 120 mg/dL regardless of treatment group.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in patient survival between conventional and strict control respectively;1 year, 88% vs 88% (p-0.99), 3 years, 86% vs 84% (p- 0.77), 5 years, 82% vs 78. % (p-0.36). Graft survival was not different between conventional and strict control groups at 1 year, 88% vs 84% (p-0.56), 3 years 82% vs 76% (p-0.46), 5 years 78% vs 70% (p-0.362).ConclusionThere was no difference in patient or graft survival between intraoperative strict and conventional glycemic control during OLT.Trial registrationClinical trial number and registry: www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00780026. This trial was retrospectively registered on 10/22/2008.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Over the past 30 years, lung transplantation has emerged as the definitive treatment for end-stage lung disease. In 2005, the lung allocation score (LAS) was introduced to allocate organs according to disease severity. The number of transplants performed annually in the United States continues to increase as centers have become more comfortable expanding donor and recipient criteria and have become more facile with the perioperative and long-term management of these patients. We report a single-center experience with lung transplants, looking at patients before and after the introduction of LAS. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 1500 adult lung transplants at a single center performed between 1988 and 2016. Patients were separated into 2 groups, before and after the introduction of LAS: group 1 (April 1988 to April 2005; 792 patients) and group 2 (May 2005 to September 2016; 708 patients). RESULTS:Differences in demographic data were noted over these periods, reflecting changes in allocation of organs. Group 1 patient average age was 48 ± 13 years, and 404 subjects (51%) were male. Disease processes included emphysema (52%; 412), cystic fibrosis (18.2%; 144), pulmonary fibrosis (16.1%; 128) and pulmonary vascular disease (7.2%; 57). Double lung transplant (77.7%; 615) was performed more frequently than single lung transplant (22.3%; 177). Group 2 average age was 50 ± 14 years, and 430 subjects (59%) were male. Disease processes included pulmonary fibrosis (46%; 335), emphysema (25.8%; 188), cystic fibrosis (17.7%; 127) and pulmonary vascular disease (1.6%; 11). Double lung transplant (96.2%; 681) was performed more frequently than single lung transplant (3.8%; 27). Overall incidence of grade 3 primary graft dysfunction (PGD) in group 1 was significantly lower at 22.1% (175) than in group 2 at 31.6% (230) (P < .001). Nonetheless, overall hospital mortality was not statistically different between the 2 groups (4.4% vs 3.5%; P < .4). Most notably, survival at 1 year was statistically different at 646 (81.6%) for group 1 and 665 (91.4%) for group 2 (P < .02). CONCLUSIONS:Patient demographics over the study period have changed with an increased number of fibrotic patients transplanted. In addition, more aggressive strategies with donor/recipient selection appear to have resulted in a higher incidence of primary graft dysfunction. This does not, however, appear to affect patient survival on index hospitalization or at 1 year. In fact, we have observed a significant improvement in survival at 1 year in the more recent era. This observation suggests that continued expansion of possible donors and recipients, coupled with a more sophisticated understanding of primary graft dysfunction and long-term chronic rejection, can lead to increased transplant volume and prolonged survival.

Dataset Information

Tool to Aid Patients in Selecting a Liver Transplant Center.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets