Improving liver allocation: MELD and PELD

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106724/1/j.1600-6135.2004.00403.x.pd

Racial and ethnic disparities in access to liver transplantation

Access to liver transplantation is reportedly inequitable for racial/ethnic minorities, but inadequate adjustments for geography and disease progression preclude any meaningful conclusions. We aimed to evaluate the association between candidate race/ethnicity and liver transplant rates after thorough adjustments for these factors and to determine how uniform racial/ethnic disparities were across Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. Chronic end-stage liver disease candidates initially wait-listed between February 28, 2002 and February 27, 2007 were identified from Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients data. The primary outcome was deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT); the primary exposure covariate was race/ethnicity (white, African American, Hispanic, Asian, and other). Cox regression was used to estimate the covariate-adjusted DDLT rates by race/ethnicity, which were stratified by the donation service area and MELD score. With averaging across all MELD scores, African Americans, Asians, and others had similar adjusted DDLT rates in comparison with whites. However, Hispanics had an 8% lower DDLT rate versus whites [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.92, P = 0.011]. The disparity among Hispanics was concentrated among patients with MELD scores < 20, with HR = 0.84 ( P = 0.021) for MELD scores of 6 to 14 and HR = 0.85 ( P = 0.009) for MELD scores of 15 to 19. Asians with MELD scores < 15 had a 24% higher DDLT rate with respect to whites (HR = 1.24, P = 0.024). However, Asians with MELD scores of 30 to 40 had a 46% lower DDLT rate (HR = 0.54, P = 0.004). In conclusion, although African Americans did not have significantly different DDLT rates in comparison with similar white candidates, race/ethnicity-based disparities were prominent among subgroups of Hispanic and Asian candidates. By precluding the survival benefit of liver transplantation, this inequity may lead to excess mortality for minority candidates. Liver Transpl 16:1033–1040, 2010. © 2010 AASLD.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78074/1/22108_ftp.pd

Geographic Variation in End-Stage Renal Disease Incidence and Access to Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation

The effect of demand for kidney transplantation, measured by end-stage renal disease (ESRD) incidence, on access to transplantation is unknown. Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (OPTN/SRTR) from 2000 to 2008, we performed donation service area (DSA) and patient-level regression analyses to assess the effect of ESRD incidence on access to the kidney waiting list and deceased donor kidney transplantation. In DSAs, ESRD incidence increased with greater density of high ESRD incidence racial groups (African Americans and Native Americans). Wait-list and transplant rates were relatively lower in high ESRD incidence DSAs, but wait-list rates were not drastically affected by ESRD incidence at the patient level. Compared to low ESRD areas, high ESRD areas were associated with lower adjusted transplant rates among all ESRD patients (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.66–0.70). Patients living in medium and high ESRD areas had lower transplant rates from the waiting list compared to those in low ESRD areas (medium: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.66–0.69; high: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.61–0.65). Geographic variation in access to kidney transplant is in part mediated by local ESRD incidence, which has implications for allocation policy development.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79376/1/j.1600-6143.2010.03043.x.pd

Kidney Transplantation in Sensitized Recipients; A Single Center Experience

A successful transplantation, across a positive crossmatch barrier, is one of the most persistent long-standing problems in the field of kidney transplant medicine. The aim of this study was to describe seven consecutive living renal transplantations in recipients with positive crossmatch for donors or positive for donor specific antibodies (DSAs). A preconditioning regimen including plasmapheresis and intravenous immunoglobulin was delivered three times a week until the crossmatch and/or DSAs became negative. Mycophenolate mofetil and tacrolimus were started two days before the plasmapheresis. The protocol was modified to include administration of anti-CD 20 antibody (rituximab, 375 mg/m2) from the patient number 3 through the patient number 7. All seven patients achieved negative conversion of the crossmatch or DSAs, and the kidney transplantations were successfully performed in all cases. Acute cellular rejection occurred in two patients, which were subclinical and controlled with high dose steroid treatment. Antibody-mediated rejection occurred in one patient, which was easily reversed with plasmapheresis. All recipients attained normal graft function during the 7-24 months of follow up. Our study suggests that sensitized patients can be transplanted successfully with desensitization pretreatment

Surgically-placed abdominal wall catheters on postoperative analgesia and outcomes after living liver donation

Living donor liver resections are associated with significant postoperative pain. Epidural analgesia is the gold standard for postoperative pain management, although it is often refused or contraindicated. Surgically placed abdominal wall catheters (AWCs) are a novel pain modality that can potentially provide pain relief for those patients who are unable to receive an epidural. A retrospective review was performed at a single center. Patients were categorized according to their postoperative pain modality: intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), AWCs with IV PCA, or patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). Pain scores, opioid consumption, and outcomes were compared for the first 3 postoperative days. Propensity score matches (PSMs) were performed to adjust for covariates and to confirm the primary analysis. The AWC group had significantly lower mean morphine-equivalent consumption on postoperative day 3 [18.1 mg, standard error (SE) 5 3.1 versus 28.2 mg, SE 5 3.0; P 5 0.02] and mean cumulative morphine-equivalent consumption (97.2 mg, SE 5 7.2 versus 121.0 mg, SE 5 9.1; P 5 0.04) in comparison with the IV PCA group; the difference in cumulative-morphine equivalent remained significant in the PSMs. AWC pain scores were higher than those in the PCEA group and were similar to the those in the IV PCA group. The AWC group had a lower incidence of pruritus and a shorter hospital stay in comparison with the PCEA group and had a lower incidence of sedation in comparison with both groups. Time to ambulation, nausea, and vomiting were comparable among all 3 groups. The PSMs confirmed all results except for a decrease in the length of stay in comparison with PCEA. AWCs may be an alternative to epidural analgesia after living donor liver resections. Randomized trials are needed to verify the benefits of AWCs, including the safety and adverse effects.James Khan is supported by a masters award from the Canadian Institute of Health Research and a fellowship grant from the Michael G. DeGroote Institute of Pain Research and Care. Hance Clarke is supported by a merit award from the Department of Anesthesia at the University of Toronto and by the Strategic Training for Advanced Genetic Epidemiology Program in Genetic Epidemiology at the Canadian Institute of Health Research

Unfair Advantages for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Listed for Liver Transplant in Short‐Wait Regions Following 2015 Hepatocellular Carcinoma Policy Change

For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) listed for liver transplantation (LT), United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) enacted policy changes in 2015 to improve equity between HCC and non-HCC patients. We evaluated the impact of these changes on regional disparities in wait-list dropout and LT. We included patients in the UNOS database listed with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease HCC exceptions in long-wait regions (LWRs), mid-wait regions (MWRs), and short-wait regions (SWRs) before these policy changes (era 1, January 1 to December 31, 2013) and after (era 2, October 7, 2015, to October 7, 2016). Cumulative incidence of wait-list dropout and LT were evaluated using competing risk regression. Median time to LT increased by 3.6 months (3.1 to 6.7 months) in SWRs and 1.3 months (6.9 to 8.2 months) in MWRs (P < 0.001), with a slight decrease in LWRs (13.4 to 12.9 months; P = 0.02). The 2-year cumulative incidence of dropout increased from 9.7% to 14.8% in SWRs (P = 0.03) and from 18.9% to 22.6% in MWRs (P = 0.18) but decreased in LWRs from 26.7% to 24.8% (P = 0.31). Factors predicting wait-list dropout included listing in era 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17), in LWRs (HR, 2.56), and in MWRs (HR, 1.91). Regional differences in wait-list outcomes decreased with policy changes, but HCC patients in SWRs remain advantaged. Recent policy change may narrow these disparities