Cargando…
Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization
Liver allocation policy was changed to reduce variance in median MELD scores at transplant (MMaT) in February 2020. “Acuity circles” replaced local allocation. Understanding the impact of policy change on donor utilization is important. Ideal (I), standard (S), and non‐ideal (NI) donors were defined...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9544006/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35182000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajt.17006 |
_version_ | 1784804504130027520 |
---|---|
author | Chan, Ethan Logan, April J. Sneddon, Jeffrey M. Singh, Navdeep Brock, Guy N. Washburn, William K. Schenk, Austin D. |
author_facet | Chan, Ethan Logan, April J. Sneddon, Jeffrey M. Singh, Navdeep Brock, Guy N. Washburn, William K. Schenk, Austin D. |
author_sort | Chan, Ethan |
collection | PubMed |
description | Liver allocation policy was changed to reduce variance in median MELD scores at transplant (MMaT) in February 2020. “Acuity circles” replaced local allocation. Understanding the impact of policy change on donor utilization is important. Ideal (I), standard (S), and non‐ideal (NI) donors were defined. NI donors include older, higher BMI donors with elevated transaminases or bilirubin, history of hepatitis B or C, and all DCD donors. Utilization of I, S, and NI donors was established before and after allocation change and compared between low MELD (LM) centers (MMaT ≤ 28 before allocation change) and high MELD (HM) centers (MMaT > 28). Following reallocation, transplant volume increased nationally (67 transplants/center/year pre, 74 post, p .0006) and increased for both HM and LM centers. LM centers significantly increased use of NI donors and HM centers significantly increased use of I and S donors. Centers further stratify based on donor utilization phenotype. A subset of centers increased transplant volume despite rising MMaT by broadening organ acceptance criteria, increasing use of all donor types including DCD donors (98% increase), increasing living donation, and transplanting more frequently for alcohol associated liver disease. Variance in donor utilization can undermine intended effects of allocation policy change. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9544006 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95440062022-10-14 Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization Chan, Ethan Logan, April J. Sneddon, Jeffrey M. Singh, Navdeep Brock, Guy N. Washburn, William K. Schenk, Austin D. Am J Transplant Brief Communications Liver allocation policy was changed to reduce variance in median MELD scores at transplant (MMaT) in February 2020. “Acuity circles” replaced local allocation. Understanding the impact of policy change on donor utilization is important. Ideal (I), standard (S), and non‐ideal (NI) donors were defined. NI donors include older, higher BMI donors with elevated transaminases or bilirubin, history of hepatitis B or C, and all DCD donors. Utilization of I, S, and NI donors was established before and after allocation change and compared between low MELD (LM) centers (MMaT ≤ 28 before allocation change) and high MELD (HM) centers (MMaT > 28). Following reallocation, transplant volume increased nationally (67 transplants/center/year pre, 74 post, p .0006) and increased for both HM and LM centers. LM centers significantly increased use of NI donors and HM centers significantly increased use of I and S donors. Centers further stratify based on donor utilization phenotype. A subset of centers increased transplant volume despite rising MMaT by broadening organ acceptance criteria, increasing use of all donor types including DCD donors (98% increase), increasing living donation, and transplanting more frequently for alcohol associated liver disease. Variance in donor utilization can undermine intended effects of allocation policy change. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-03-09 2022-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9544006/ /pubmed/35182000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajt.17006 Text en © 2022 The Authors. American Journal of Transplantation published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Brief Communications Chan, Ethan Logan, April J. Sneddon, Jeffrey M. Singh, Navdeep Brock, Guy N. Washburn, William K. Schenk, Austin D. Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization |
title | Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization |
title_full | Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization |
title_fullStr | Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization |
title_full_unstemmed | Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization |
title_short | Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization |
title_sort | dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization |
topic | Brief Communications |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9544006/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35182000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajt.17006 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chanethan dynamicimpactofliverallocationpolicychangeondonorutilization AT loganaprilj dynamicimpactofliverallocationpolicychangeondonorutilization AT sneddonjeffreym dynamicimpactofliverallocationpolicychangeondonorutilization AT singhnavdeep dynamicimpactofliverallocationpolicychangeondonorutilization AT brockguyn dynamicimpactofliverallocationpolicychangeondonorutilization AT washburnwilliamk dynamicimpactofliverallocationpolicychangeondonorutilization AT schenkaustind dynamicimpactofliverallocationpolicychangeondonorutilization |