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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chan, Ethan, Logan, April J., Sneddon, Jeffrey M., Singh, Navdeep, Brock, Guy N., Washburn, William K., Schenk, Austin D.
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