Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: Liver allocation in the United States was updated on February 4, 2020, by introducing the acuity circle (AC)-based model. This study evaluated the early effects of the AC-based allocation on waitlist outcomes.

Methods

Adult liver transplant (LT) candidates listed between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021, were assessed. Two periods were defined according to listing date (pre- and post-AC), and 90-d waitlist outcomes were compared. Median transplant Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of each transplant center was calculated, with centers categorized as low- (<25 percentile), mid- (25-75 percentile), and high-MELD (>75 percentile) centers.

Results

A total of 12 421 and 17 078 LT candidates in the pre- and post-AC eras were identified. Overall, the post-AC era was associated with higher cause-specific 90-d hazards of transplant (csHR, 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.38; P < 0.001) and waitlist mortality (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.32; P < 0.001). The latter effect was primarily driven by high-MELD centers. Low-MELD centers had a higher proportion of donations after circulatory death (DCDs) used. Compared with low-MELD centers, mid-MELD and high-MELD centers had significantly lower cause-specific hazards of DCD-LT in both eras (mid-MELD: csHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38-0.59 in pre-AC and csHR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.67 in post-AC and high-MELD: csHR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.07-0.17 in pre-AC and csHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.20 in post-AC; all P < 0.001). Using a structural Bayesian time-series model, the AC policy was associated with an increase in the actual monthly DCD-LTs in low-, mid-, and high-MELD centers (actual/predicted: low-MELD: 19/16; mid-MELD: 21/14; high-MELD: 4/3), whereas the increase in monthly donation after brain death-LTs were only present in mid- and high-MELD centers.

Conclusions

Although AC-based allocation may improve waitlist outcomes, regional variation exists in the drivers of such outcomes between centers.

SUBMITTER: Nagai S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9514831 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Nagai Shunji S Ivanics Tommy T Kitajima Toshihiro T Shimada Shingo S Shamaa Tayseer M TM Collins Kelly K Rizzari Michael M Yoshida Atsushi A Moonka Dilip D Abouljoud Marwan M

Transplantation direct 20220926 10

Liver allocation in the United States was updated on February 4, 2020, by introducing the acuity circle (AC)-based model. This study evaluated the early effects of the AC-based allocation on waitlist outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>Adult liver transplant (LT) candidates listed between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021, were assessed. Two periods were defined according to listing date (pre- and post-AC), and 90-d waitlist outcomes were compared. Median transplant Model for End-stage Liver Disease ...[more]

PMID: 36176726

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDifferences in local organ supply and demand have introduced geographic inequities in the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score-based liver allocation system, prompting national debate and patient-initiated lawsuits. No study to our knowledge has quantified the sex disparities in allocation associated with clinical vs geographic characteristics.ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of sex disparity in wait list mortality and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) associated with clinical and geographic characteristics.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used adult (age ≥18 years) liver-only transplant listings reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network from June 18, 2013, through March 1, 2018.ExposureLiver transplant waiting list.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes included wait list mortality and DDLT. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed, and inverse odds ratio weighting was used to estimate the proportion of disparity across geographic location, MELD score, and candidate anthropometric and liver measurements.ResultsAmong 81 357 adults wait-listed for liver transplant only, 36.1% were women (mean [SD] age, 54.7 [11.3] years; interquartile range, 49.0-63.0 years) and 63.9% were men (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [10.1] years; interquartile range, 51.0-63.0 years). Compared with men, women were 8.6% more likely to die while on the waiting list (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18) and were 14.4% less likely to receive a DDLT (aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84-0.88). In the geographic domain, organ procurement organization was the only variable that was significantly associated with increased disparity between female sex and wait list mortality (22.1% increase; aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.30); no measure of the geographic domain was associated with DDLT. Laboratory and allocation MELD scores were associated with increases in disparities in wait list mortality: 1.14 (95% CI, 1.09-1.19; 50.1% increase among women) and DDLT: 0.87 (95% CI, 0.86-0.88; 10.3% increase among women). Candidate anthropometric and liver measurements had the strongest association with disparities between men and women in wait list mortality (125.8% increase among women) and DDLT (49.0% increase among women).Conclusions and relevanceOur findings suggest that addressing geographic disparities alone may not mitigate sex-based disparities, which were associated with the inability of the MELD score to accurately estimate disease severity in women and to account for candidate anthropometric and liver measurements in this study.

Project description:ImportanceAcuity circles (AC) liver allocation policy was implemented to eliminate donor service area geographic boundaries from liver allocation and to decrease variability in median Model of End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at transplant and wait list mortality. However, the broader sharing of organs was also associated with more flights for organ procurements and higher costs associated with the increase in flights.ObjectiveTo determine whether the costs associated with liver acquisition changed after the implementation of AC allocation.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-center cost comparison study analyzed fees associated with organ acquisition before and after AC allocation implementation. The cost data were collected from a single transplant institute with 2 liver transplant centers, located 30 miles apart, in different donation service areas. Cost, recipient, and transportation data for all cases that included fees associated with liver acquisition from July 1, 2019, to October 31, 2020, were collected.ExposuresPrimary liver offer acceptance with associated organ procurement organization or charter flight fees.Main outcomes and measuresSpecific fees (organ acquisition, surgeon, import, and charter flight fees) and total fees per donor were collected for all accepted liver donors with at least 1 associated fee during the study period.ResultsOf 213 included donors, 171 were used for transplant; 90 of 171 (52.6%) were male, and the median (interquartile range) age of donors was 41.0 (30.0-52.8) years in the pre-AC period and 36.9 (24.0-48.8) years in the post-AC period. There was no significant difference in the post-AC compared with pre-AC period in median (range) MELD score (24 [8-40] vs 25 [6-40]; P = .27) or median (range) match run sequence (15 [1-3951] vs 10 [1-1138]; P = .31), nor in mean (SD) distance traveled (155.83 [157.00] vs 140.54 [144.33] nautical miles; P = .32) or percentage of donors requiring flights (58.5% [69 of 118] vs 56.8% [54 of 95]; P = .82). However, costs increased significantly in the post-AC period: total cost increased 16% per accepted donor (mean [SD] of $52 966 [13 278] vs $45 725 [9300]; P < .001) and 55% per declined donor (mean [SD] of $15 865 [3942] vs $10 217 [4853]; P < .001). Contributing factors included more than 2-fold increases in the proportions of donors incurring import fees (31.4% [37 of 118] vs 12.6% [12 of 95]; P = .002) and surgeon fees (19.5% [23 of 118] vs 9.5% [9 of 95]; P = .05), increased acquisition fees (10% increase; mean [SD] of $43 860 [3266] vs $39 980 [2236]; P < .001), and increased flight expenses (43% increase; mean [SD] of $12 904 [6066] vs $9049 [5140]; P = .002).Conclusions and relevanceThe unintended consequences of implementing broader sharing without addressing organ acquisition fees to account for increased importation between organ procurement organizations must be remedied to contain costs and ensure viability of transplant programs.

Dataset Information

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

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets