Search

Questions have arisen around new metrics for organ procurement organizations (OPO) due to the perception that low-performing OPOs may be limited by local centers' acceptance of marginal organs. We reviewed 2013-2019 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OTPN) and National Centers for Health Statistics (NCHS) data to explore the relationship between objectively measured OPO performance and utilization of deceased donor kidneys. We found that although donor recovery declined with rising age and kidney donor profile index (KDPI), OPO performance differences were evident within each age/KDPI group. By contrast, the number of discards per donor did not vary with OPO performance. Centers in donor service areas (DSAs) with lower-performing OPOs had higher local utilization and greater import of high-KDPI kidneys than did those with higher-performing OPOs. Lower rates of donor availability relative to waitlist additions may contribute to observed center acceptance behavior. Differences in center-level performance were highly visible in Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) organ acceptance metrics, while SRTR OPO metrics did not detect large or persistent variation in procurement performance. Cumulatively, our findings suggest that objective measures of procurement performance can inform discussions of organ utilization, allowing for alignment of metrics in all elements of the procurement-transplantation system.

Much of our understanding regarding geographic issues in transplantation is based on statistical techniques that do not formally account for geography and is based on obsolete boundaries such as donation service area.We applied spatial epidemiological techniques to analyze liver-related mortality and access to liver transplant services at the county level using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from 2010 to 2018.There was a significant negative spatial correlation between transplant rates and liver-related mortality at the county level (Moran's I, -0.319; P = 0.001). Significant clusters were identified with high transplant rates and low liver-related mortality. Counties in geographic clusters with high ratios of liver transplants to liver-related deaths had more liver transplant centers within 150 nautical miles (6.7 versus 3.6 centers; P 0.001) compared with all other counties, as did counties in geographic clusters with high ratios of waitlist additions to liver-related deaths (8.5 versus 2.5 centers; P 0.001). The spatial correlation between waitlist mortality and overall liver-related mortality was positive (Moran's I, 0.060; P = 0.001) but weaker. Several areas with high waitlist mortality had some of the lowest overall liver-related mortality in the country.These data suggest that high waitlist mortality and allocation model for end-stage liver disease do not necessarily correlate with decreased access to transplant, whereas local transplant center density is associated with better access to waitlisting and transplant.

OBJECTIVE: During the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, organ transplantation was classified a CMS Tier 3b procedure which should not be postponed. The differential impact of the pandemic on access to liver transplantation was assessed. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Disparities in organ access and transplant outcomes among vulnerable populations have served as obstacles in liver transplantation. METHODS: Using UNOS STARfile data, adult waitlisted candidates were identified from March 1, 2020 to November 30, 2020 (n = 21,702 pandemic) and March 1, 2019 to November 30, 2019 (n = 22,797 pre-pandemic), and further categorized and analyzed by time periods: March to May (Period 1), June to August (Period 2), and September to November (Period 3). Comparisons between pandemic and pre-pandemic groups included: Minority status, demographics, diagnosis, MELD, insurance type, and transplant center characteristics. Liver transplant centers (n = 113) were divided into tertiles by volume (small, medium, large) for further analyses. Multivariable logistic regression was fitted to assess odds of transplant. Competing risk regression was used to predict probability of removal from the waitlist due to transplantation or death and sickness. Additional temporal analyses were performed to assess changes in outcomes over the course of the pandemic. RESULTS: During Period 1 of the pandemic, Minorities showed greater reduction in both listing (-14% vs -12% Whites), and transplant (-15% vs -7% Whites), despite a higher median MELD at transplant (23 vs 20 Whites, P < 0.001). Of candidates with public insurance, Minorities demonstrated an 18.5% decrease in transplants during Period 1 (vs -8% Whites). Although large programs increased transplants during Period 1, accounting for 61.5% of liver transplants versus 53.4% pre-pandemic (P < 0.001), Minorities constituted significantly fewer transplants at these programs during this time period (27.7% pandemic vs 31.7% pre-pandemic, P = 0.04). Although improvements in disparities in candidate listings, removals, and transplants were observed during Periods 2 and 3, the adjusted odds ratio of transplant for Minorities was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.96, P = 0.001) over the entire pandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19's effect on access to liver transplantation has been ubiquitous. However, Minorities, especially those with public insurance, have been disproportionately affected. Importantly, despite the uncertainty and challenges, our systems have remarkable resiliency, as demonstrated by the temporal improvements observed during Periods 2 and 3. As the pandemic persists, and the aftermath ensues, health care systems must consciously strive to identify and equitably serve vulnerable populations.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced changes to the Final Rule for organ procurement organizations (OPOs) in November 2020, after a 23-month period of public debate. One concern among transplant stakeholders was that public focus on OPO underperformance would harm deceased donation. Using CDC-WONDER data, we studied whether donation performance dropped during the era of public debate about OPO reform (December 2018-February 2020). Overall OPO performance as measured relative to cause, age, and location-consistent deaths rose by 12.3% in 2019, compared to a median annual change of 2.5% 2009-2019. Organ recoveries exceeded seasonally adjusted forecasts by 4.2% in the first half of 2019, by 8.1% following the Executive Order issuing a mandate for OPO metric reform, and by 14.1% between the Notice of Public Rule Making and the onset of COVID-19-related systemic disruptions. We describe changes in donor phenotype in the period of increased performance; improvement was greatest for older and donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors, and among decedents who did not have a drug-related mechanism of death. In summary, performance during an era of intense public debate and proposed regulatory changes yielded 692 additional donors over expectations, and no detriment to organ donation was observed.

The ability of kidney transplant candidates to travel outside of their usual place of care varies by sociodemographic factors, potentially exacerbating disparities in access. We used Transplant Referral Regions (TRRs) to overcome previous methodological barriers of using geographic distance to assess the characteristics and outcomes of patients listed for kidney transplant at centers in neighboring TRR or beyond neighboring TRRs. Among listed kidney transplant candidates, 20.9% traveled to a neighbor and 5.6% beyond a neighbor. A higher proportion of travelers were White, had some college education, and lived in ZIP codes with lower poverty. Travel to a neighbor was associated with a 7% increase in likelihood of deceased donor transplant (cHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.09) and traveling beyond a neighbor with a 19% increase (cHR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.24). Travelers had similar rates of living donor transplant and waitlist mortality as patients who did not travel; those who traveled beyond a neighbor had slightly lower posttransplant mortality (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.99). In conclusion, the ability to travel outside of the recipient’s assigned TRR increases access to transplantation and improves long-term survival.

In December of 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) put out a notice of proposed rule-making for 42 CFR Part 486, specifically the section that covers the organ procurement organization (OPO) Conditions for Coverage. Most crucially, the proposed rule included two new OPO performance metrics using objective, standardized data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). These new metrics would employ a denominator that included inpatient deaths from certain causes that could lead to organ donation, rather than the current unverifiable eligible death metric. Although there has been near-uniform support for replacing the eligible death denominator with CDC data, a source of contention is CMS's proposal not to adjust risk for race in their OPO outcome. Nonetheless, there have been calls for race and ethnicity to be included as risk-adjusted variables in the CMS donation metric. Herein, we lay out an argument as to why inclusion of race and ethnicity as risk adjustment variables in an OPO performance metric is not only statistically suspect but also will hide the inequities that are detrimental to optimal system performance and assurance that all patients have timely access to donation.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly become an unprecedented pandemic that has impacted society, disrupted hospital functions, strained health care resources, and impacted the lives of transplant professionals. Despite this, organ failure and the need for transplant continues throughout the United States. Considering the perpetual scarcity of deceased donor organs, Kates et al present a viewpoint that advocates for the utilization of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-positive donors in selected cases. We present a review of the current literature that details the potential negative consequences of COVID-19-positive donors. The factors we consider include (1) the risk of blood transmission of SARS-CoV-2, (2) involvement of donor organs, (3) lack of effective therapies, (4) exposure of health care and recovery teams, (5) disease transmission and propagation, and (6) hospital resource utilization. While we acknowledge that transplant fulfills the mission of saving lives, it is imperative to consider the consequences not only to our recipients but also to the community and to health care workers, particularly in the absence of effective preventative or curative therapies. For these reasons, we believe the evidence and risks show that COVID-19 infection should continue to remain a contraindication for donation, as has been the initial response of donation and transplant societies.

Background Monitoring efforts to improve access to transplantation requires a definition of the population attributable to a transplant center. Previously, assessment of variation in transplant care has focused on differences between administrative units-such as states-rather than units derived from observed care patterns. We defined catchment areas (transplant referral regions [TRRs]) from transplant center care patterns for population-based assessment of transplant access. Methods We used US adult transplant listings (2006-2016) and Dartmouth Atlas catchment areas to assess the optimal method of defining TRRs. We used US Renal Data System and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data to compare waitlist- and population-based kidney transplant rates. Results We identified 110 kidney, 67 liver, 85 pancreas, 68 heart, and 43 lung TRRs. Most patients were listed in their assigned TRR (kidney: 76%; liver: 75%; pancreas: 75%; heart: 74%; lung: 72%), although the proportion varied by organ (interquartile range for kidney, 65.7%-82.5%; liver, 58.2%-78.8%; pancreas, 58.4%-81.1%; heart, 63.1%-80.9%; lung, 61.6%-76.3%). Patterns of population- and waitlist-based kidney transplant rates differed, most notably in the Northeast and Midwest. Conclusions Patterns of TRR-based kidney transplant rates differ from waitlist-based rates, indicating that current metrics may not reflect transplant access in the broader population. TRRs define populations served by transplant centers and could enable future studies of how transplant centers can improve access for patients in their communities.

The construct of frailty was first developed in gerontology to help identify older adults with increased vulnerability when confronted with a health stressor. This article is a review of studies in which frailty has been applied to pre- and post-kidney transplantation (KT) populations. Although KT is the optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), KT candidates often must overcome numerous health challenges associated with ESKD before receiving KT. After KT, the impacts of surgery and immunosuppression represent additional health stressors that disproportionately impact individuals with frailty. Frailty metrics could improve the ability to identify KT candidates and recipients at risk for adverse health outcomes and those who could potentially benefit from interventions to improve their frail status. The Physical Frailty Phenotype (PFP) is the most commonly used frailty metric in ESKD research, and KT recipients who are frail at KT (~20% of recipients) are twice as likely to die as nonfrail recipients. In addition to the PFP, many other metrics are currently used to assess pre- and post-KT vulnerability in research and clinical practice, underscoring the need for a disease-specific frailty metric that can be used to monitor KT candidates and recipients. Although frailty is an independent risk factor for post-transplant adverse outcomes, it is not factored into the current transplant program risk-adjustment equations. Future studies are needed to explore pre- and post-KT interventions to improve or prevent frailty.

Organ procurement in the US has received attention from government officials and policymakers the last two years, culminating in CMS releasing an updated Final Rule related to organ donation this year. This regulatory change revises how organ procurement organizations (OPOs), the federal contractors tasked with managing deceased donation, are evaluated and certified/de-certified. We used 2019 data and the CMS methodology to calculate race-stratified donation data among racial/ethnic minorities across the 57 OPOs. We found that the variability in donation rates across the 57 OPOs are greater among minority populations than non-Hispanic white potential donors. Among Tier 3 OPOs, there are: a) some with low donation rates across all racial/ethnic groups; b) some with low donation rates among only certain groups, and c) some where donation rates are lowest among non-Hispanic white patients. Among low-performing OPOs, these race/ethnicity-stratified data show that under-performance in certain areas is not due to the population demographics, and identifies areas for targeted interventions to increase donation and avoid decertification

To meet new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) metrics, organ procurement organizations (OPOs) will benefit from understanding performance across decedent and hospital types. We sought to determine the utility of existing data-reporting structures for this purpose by reviewing Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient (SRTR) OPO-Specific Reports (OSRs) from 2013 to 2019. OSRs contain both the Standardized donation rate ratio (SDRR) metric and OPO-reported numbers of "eligible deaths" and donors by hospital. Donor hospitals were characterized using information from Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, Dartmouth Atlas Hospital Service Area data, and the US Census Bureau. Hospital data reported by OPOs showed 51% higher eligible death donors and 140% higher noneligible death donors per 100 inpatient beds in CMS ranked top versus bottom-quartile OPOs. Top-quartile OPOs by the CMS metric recovered 78% more donors than those in the bottom quartile, but were indistinguishable by SDRR rankings. These differences persisted across hospital sizes, trauma case mix, and area demographics. OPOs with divergent performance were indistinguishable over time by SDRR, but showed changes to hospital-level recovery patterns in SRTR data. Contemporaneous recognition of underperformance across hospitals may provide important and actionable data for regulators and OPOs for focused quality improvement projects.

Recent changes to organ procurement organization (OPO) performance metrics have highlighted the need to identify opportunities to increase organ donation in the United States. Using data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR), and Veteran Health Administration Informatics and Computing Infrastructure Clinical Data Warehouse (VINCI CDW), we sought to describe historical donation performance at Veteran Administration Medical Centers (VAMCs). We found that over the period 2010-2019, there were only 33 donors recovered from the 115 VAMCs with donor potential nationwide. VA donors had similar age-matched organ transplant yields to non-VA donors. Review of VAMC records showed a total of 8474 decedents with causes of death compatible with donation, of whom 5281 had no infectious or neoplastic comorbidities preclusive to donation. Relative to a single state comparison of adult non-VA inpatient deaths, VAMC deaths were 20 times less likely to be characterized as an eligible death by SRTR. The rate of conversion of inpatient donation-consistent deaths without preclusive comorbidities to actual donors at VAMCs was 5.9% that of adult inpatients at non-VA hospitals. Overall, these findings suggest significant opportunities for growth in donation at VAMCs.

BACKGROUND Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has proposed a rule change to redefine the metric by which organ procurement organizations (OPOs) are evaluated. The metric relies on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data on inpatient deaths from causes consistent with donation among patients

Purpose of review Scarcity is a defining feature of the modern transplant landscape, and in light of chronic shortages in donor organs, there is cause for concern about geographic inequities in patients' access to lifesaving resources. Recent policy changes designed to ameliorate unequal donor supply and demand have brought new interest to measuring and addressing disparities at all stages of transplant care. The purpose of this review is to describe an overview of recent literature on geographic inequities in transplant access, focusing on kidney, liver, and lung transplantation and the impact of policy changes on organ allocation. Recent findings Despite a major change to the kidney allocation policy in 2014, geographic inequity in kidney transplant access remains. In liver transplantation, the debate has centered on the median acuity score at transplantation; however, a more thorough examination of disparities in access and survival has emerged. Summary Geographic differences in access and quality of transplant care are undeniable, but existing disparity metrics reflect disparities only among candidates who are waitlisted. Future research should address major gaps in our understanding of geographic inequity in transplant access, including patients who may be transplant-eligible but experience a wide variety of barriers in accessing the transplant waiting list.

Background Serious fall injuries are associated with poor outcomes among dialysis patients, but whether these associations hold in patients with a history of serious fall injury before kidney transplantation is unknown. Methods In national administrative data, 22 474 US adults receiving a first kidney transplant in 2011-2014 with at least 1 year of follow-up before transplant were identified. Serious fall injuries in the year before transplant were identified using diagnostic codes for falls and simultaneous fractures, dislocations, or head trauma in inpatient or outpatient claims. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to estimate associations of incident posttransplant outcomes with serious fall injury in the year before transplant. Results A total of 620 (2.8%) recipients had serious fall injuries before transplant and were more likely to be white, female, and have more comorbid conditions than those without a fall injury. Although posttransplant recipient survival did not differ by recent serious fall injuries (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.36), these injuries were associated with 33% higher rates of graft failure (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.72). Patients with serious fall injuries spent 12.1% of posttransplant follow-up hospitalized, a 3.3-fold higher rate than those without a fall, and had nearly 2-fold higher rates of skilled nursing facility utilization (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.52-2.57). Conclusions Serious fall injuries are independently associated with significantly greater resource requirements and lower graft survival. Further study is needed to delineate the relationship between falls and adverse outcomes in transplant and reduce the incidence and deleterious effects of these events.

A consensus conference on frailty in kidney, liver, heart and lung transplantation, sponsored by the American Society of Transplantation (AST) and endorsed by the American Society of Nephrology (ASN), the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) and the Canadian Society of Transplantation (CST), took place on February 11, 2018 in Phoenix, Arizona. Input from the transplant community through scheduled conference calls enabled wide discussion of current concepts in frailty, exploration of best practices for frailty risk assessment of transplant candidates and for management after transplant, and development of ideas for future research. A current understanding of frailty was compiled by each of the solid organ groups and is presented in this paper. Frailty is a common entity in patients with end-stage organ disease who are awaiting organ transplantation, and affects mortality on the wait-list and in the post-transplant period. The optimal methods by which frailty should be measured in each organ group are yet to be determined, but studies are underway. Interventions to reverse frailty vary among organ groups and appear promising. This conference achieved its intent to highlight the importance of frailty in organ transplantation and to plant the seeds for further discussion and research in this field.

Allocation of livers for transplantation faces regulatory pressure to move toward broader sharing. A current proposal supported by the United Network for Organ Sharing Board of Directors relies on concentric circles, but its effect on socioeconomic inequities in access to transplant services is poorly understood. In this article, we offer a proposal that uses the state of donation as a unit of distribution, given that the state is a recognized unit of legal jurisdiction and socioeconomic health in many contexts. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients liver simulated allocation model algorithm was used to generate comparative estimates of regional transplant volume and the impact of these considered changes with regard to vulnerable and high-risk patients on the waiting list and to disparities in wait-list access. State-based liver distribution outperforms the concentric circle models in overall system efficiency, reduced discards, and minimized flights for organs. Furthermore, the efflux of organs from areas of greater sociodemographic vulnerability and lesser wait-list access is more than 2-fold lower in a state-based model than in concentric circle alternatives. In summary, we propose that a state-based system offers a legally defensible, practical, and ethically sound alternative to geometric zones of organ distribution.

New metrics for organ procurement organization (OPO) performance utilize National Center for Health Statistics data to measure cause, age, and location consistent (CALC) deaths. We used this denominator to identify opportunities for improved donor conversion at one OPO, Indiana Donor Network (INOP). We sought to determine whether such analyses are immediately actionable for quality improvement (QI) initiatives directed at increased donor conversion. CALC-based assessment of INOP's performance revealed an opportunity to improve conversion of older donors. Following the QI initiative, INOP donor yield rose by 44%, while organs transplanted rose by 29%. These changes tolerated temporary disruption around the COVID-19 pandemic. Improved donor yield was primarily seen in older groups identified by CALC-based methods. Process changes in resource allocation and monitoring were associated with a 57% increase in the number of potential donors approached in the QI period and a subsequent rise in the number of potential donor referrals, suggesting positive feedback at area hospitals. Post-intervention, INOP's projected donation performance rose from 51st to 18th among all OPOs. OPOs can use CALC death data to accurately assess donor conversion by categories including age and race/ethnicity. These data can be used in real time to inform OPO-level processes to maximize donor recovery.

Little is known about the role that transplant centers may play in perpetuating racial disparities after liver transplantation, which are unexplained by patient-level factors. We examined variation in between-center and within-center disparities among 34,114 Black and White liver transplant recipients in the United States from 2010 to 2017 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient (SRTR) data. We used Cox proportional hazards models to calculate transplant center-specific Black-White hazard ratios and hierarchical survival analysis to examine potential effect modification of the race-survival association by transplant center characteristics, including transplant volume, proportion of Black patients, SRTR quality rating, and region. Models were sequentially adjusted for clinical, socioeconomic, and center characteristics. After adjustment, Black patients experienced 1.11 excess deaths after liver transplant per 100 person-years compared with White patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.56), corresponding to a 21% increased mortality risk (95% CI, 1.12-1.31). Although there was substantial variation in this disparity across transplant centers, there was no evidence of effect modification by transplant center volume, proportion of minority patients seen, quality rating, or region. We found significant racial disparities in survival after transplant, with substantial variation in this disparity across transplant centers that was not explained by selected center characteristics. This is the first study to directly evaluate the role transplant centers play in racial disparities in transplant outcomes. Further assessment of the qualitative factors that may drive disparities, such as selection processes and follow-up care, is needed to create effective center-level interventions to address health inequity.

Kidney transplant program performance in the United States is commonly measured by posttransplant outcomes. Inclusion of pretransplant measures could provide a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and necessary information for patient decision-making. In this study, we propose a new metric, the waitlisting rate, defined as the ratio of patients who are waitlisted in a center relative to the person-years referred for evaluation to a program. Furthermore, we standardize the waitlisting rate relative to the state average in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The new metric was used as a proof-of-concept to assess transplant-program access compared to the existing transplant rate metric. The study cohorts were defined by linking 2017 United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data with transplant-program referral data from the Southeastern United States between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016. Waitlisting rate varied across the 9 Southeastern transplant programs, ranging from 10 to 22 events per 100 patient-years, whereas the program-specific waitlisting rate ratio ranged between 0.76 and 1.33. Program-specific waitlisting rate ratio was uncorrelated with the transplant rate ratio (r = -.15, 95% CI, -0.83 to 0.57). Findings warrant collection of national data on early transplant steps, such as referral, for a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and pretransplant access.

Background and objectives Serious fall injuries in the setting of ESKD may be associated with poor access to kidney transplant. We explored the burden of serious fall injuries among patients on dialysis and patients on the deceased donor waitlist and the associations of these fall injuries with waitlisting and transplantation. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Our analytic cohorts for the outcomes of (1) waitlisting and (2) transplantation included United States adults ages 18–80 years old who (1) initiated dialysis (n=183,047) and (2) were waitlisted for the first time (n=37,752) in 2010–2013. Serious fall injuries were determined by diagnostic codes for falls plus injury (fracture, joint dislocation, or head trauma) in inpatient and emergency department claims; the first serious fall injury after cohort entry was included as a time-varying exposure. Follow-up ended at the specified outcome, death, or the last date of follow-up (September 30, 2014). We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to determine the independent associations between serious fall injury and waitlisting or transplantation. Results Overall, 2-year cumulative incidence of serious fall injury was 6% among patients on incident dialysis; with adjustment, patients who had serious fall injuries were 61% less likely to be waitlisted than patients who did not (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.44). Among incident waitlisted patients (4% 2-year cumulative incidence), those with serious fall injuries were 29% less likely than their counterparts to be subsequently transplanted (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 0.80). Conclusions Serious fall injuries among United States patients on dialysis are associated with substantially lower likelihood of waitlisting for and receipt of a kidney transplant. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2018_03_06_CJASNPodcast_18_4_P.mp3

While regional organ availability dominates discussions of distribution policy, community-level disparities remain poorly understood. We studied micro-geographic determinants of survival risk and their distribution across Donor Service Areas (DSAs). Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients records for all adults waitlisted for liver transplantation 2002-2014 were reviewed. The primary exposure variables were county-level sociodemographic risk, as measured by the Community Health Score (CHS), a previously-validated composite index local health conditions, and distance to listing transplant center. Among 114 347 patients, the median CHS was 19.4 (range: 0-40). Compared the lowest risk counties (CHS 1-10), highest-risk counties (CHS 31-40) had more black (14.6% vs. 5.4%), publicly insured (44.9% vs. 33.0), and remote candidates (34.0% vs. 15.1% living >100 miles away). Higher-CHS candidates had greater waitlist mortality in Cox multivariable (HR 1.16 for CHS 31-40, 95% CI 1.11-1.21) and competing risks analysis (sHR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99-1.14). Post-transplant survival was similar across CHS quartiles. Living >25 miles from the transplant center conferred excess mortality risk (sHR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03-1.12). Proposed distribution changes would disproportionately impact DSAs with more high-CHS or distant candidates. Low-income, rural and minority patients experience excess mortality while awaiting transplant, and risk disproportionately worse outcomes with reduced organ availability under current proposals.

Patients thought to be at greater risk of liver waitlist dropout than their laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (lMELD) score reflects are commonly given MELD exceptions, where a higher allocation MELD (aMELD) score is assigned that is thought to reflect the patient's risk. This study was undertaken to determine whether exceptions for reasons other than hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are justified, and whether exception aMELD scores appropriately estimate risk.Adult primary liver transplantation candidates listed in the current era of liver allocation in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were analyzed. Patients granted non-HCC-related MELD exceptions and those without MELD exceptions were compared. Rates of waitlist dropout and liver transplantation were analyzed using cause-specific hazards regression, with separate models fitted to adjust for lMELD and aMELD.There were 29,243 patients, with 2,555 in the exception group. Nationally, exception patients were more likely to dropout (hazard ratio [HR] 1.60; 95% CI, 1.45 to 1.76; p0.001) or undergo liver transplantation (HR 3.49; 95% CI, 3.32 to 3.67; p0.001) than their lMELD-adjusted counterparts. Adjusting for aMELD, exception patients were less likely to dropout (HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.85; p0.001) and less likely to undergo liver transplantation (HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.80; p0.001). Exception patients were not at significantly increased risk of waitlist dropout when adjusted for lMELD in 4 of 11 United Network for Organ Sharing regions.Despite appropriate use of non-HCC MELD exceptions on a national level, patients with non-HCC MELD exceptions were awarded inappropriately high priority for transplantation in many regions. This highlights the need to consider local conditions faced by transplantation candidates when estimating waitlist mortality and determining priority for transplantation.

The US organ donation system has received attention from the highest levels of government. It has been debated whether increased donation is attributable solely to the opioid epidemic, or to broader performance improvements of the 58 OPOs. We evaluated Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) data of all deceased donors from 1/1/2009 to 12/31/2018. We hierarchically created four categories: (a) donor's mechanism of death coded as "drug intoxication" by the OPO; or donor coded as another mechanism of death but his/her history noted (b) intravenous drug use, (c) non-intravenous drug use (eg, snorting), or (d) no drug use. The first three categories were grouped as "drug-related." In 2018, there were 2700 more deceased donors than 2009. While the number of donors dying from a non-drug-related death decreased by 52, the number of drug-related deaths increased by 2752 (102% of increase from 2018 vs 2009). While there have been improvements in performance at some OPOs, based on these data it is indisputable that nationally the increased number of donors is almost wholly attributable to the drug epidemic, and reflects the byproduct of a national tragedy, rather than an improved system to be celebrated.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background. In 2018, 81% of the 36, 529 solid organs transplanted in the United States came from deceased donors. These organs were recovered through widespread use of aeromedical and emergency ground transportation systems. Urgently scheduled travel to remote hospitals at night and in varied weather conditions carries risk for the transplant professionals involved. A landmark survey conducted in 2007 demonstrated that 80% of respondents had experienced a “near-miss” event while on a procurement trip, and 15% had been involved in at least 1 accident. One decade later, we sought to revisit the issue of procurement related travel safety. Methods. A 32 question survey designed to interrogate travel practice, accident frequency, and perceptions of safety was sent to the American Society of Transplant Surgeons membership. Results. Our survey response rate was 20.6%. At least 1 travel accident with bodily injury was reported by 23% of respondents and yet only 7% of respondents reported feeling “unsafe” or “very unsafe” during procurement travel. Sixteen percent of respondents participated in a procurement at a dedicated organ procurement facility, and only 53% of procurement surgeons completed at least 1 deceased donor procurement at their own hospital facility within the preceding 12 months. Conclusions. In a field where increasingly aggressive organ utilization is the norm, the efficiency and safety of procurement travel merits ongoing consideration. Addressing these concerns takes on new significance as organ allocation policies change geographic distribution to expand the extent of travel required for surgical teams.

Background Given the potential utility of frailty, a clinical phenotype of decreased physiologic reserve and resistance to stressors, to predict postkidney transplant (KT) outcomes, we sought to understand the perceptions and practices regarding frailty measurement in US KT programs. Methods Surveys were emailed to American Society of Transplantation Kidney/Pancreas Community of Practice members and 202 US transplant programs (November 2017 to April 2018). Program characteristics were gleaned from Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Results The 133 responding programs (response rate = 66%) represented 77% of adult KTs and 79% of adult KT candidates in the United States. Respondents considered frailty to be a useful concept in evaluating candidacy (99%) and endorsed a need to develop a frailty measurement specific to KT (92%). Frailty measurement was more common during candidacy evaluation (69%) than during KT admission (28%). Of the 202 programs, 38% performed frailty assessments in all candidates while 23% performed assessments only for older candidates. There was heterogeneity in the frailty assessment method; 18 different tools were utilized to measure frailty. The most common tool was a timed walk test (19%); 67% reported performing >1 tool. Among programs that measure frailty, 53% reported being less likely to list frail patients for KT. Conclusions Among US KT programs, frailty is recognized as a clinically relevant construct and is commonly measured at evaluation. However, there is considerable heterogeneity in the tools used to measure frailty. Efforts to identify optimal measurement of frailty using either an existing or a novel tool and subsequent standardization of its measurement and application across KT programs should be considered.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background. A better understanding of the risk factors of posttransplant hospital readmission is needed to develop accurate predictive models. Methods. We included 40 461 kidney transplant recipients from United States renal data system (USRDS) between 2005 and 2014. We used Prentice, Williams and Peterson Total time model to compare the importance of various risk factors in predicting posttransplant readmission based on the number of the readmissions (first vs subsequent) and a random forest model to compare risk factors based on the timing of readmission (early vs late). Results. Twelve thousand nine hundred eighty-five (31.8%) and 25 444 (62.9%) were readmitted within 30 days and 1 year postdischarge, respectively. Fifteen thousand eight hundred (39.0%) had multiple readmissions. Predictive accuracies of our models ranged from 0.61 to 0.63. Transplant factors remained the main predictors for early and late readmission but decreased with time. Although recipients’ demographics and socioeconomic factors only accounted for 2.5% and 11% of the prediction at 30 days, respectively, their contribution to the prediction of later readmission increased to 7% and 14%, respectively. Donor characteristics remained poor predictors at all times. The association between recipient characteristics and posttransplant readmission was consistent between the first and subsequent readmissions. Donor and transplant characteristics presented a stronger association with the first readmission compared with subsequent readmissions. Conclusions. These results may inform the development of future predictive models of hospital readmission that could be used to identify kidney transplant recipients at high risk for posttransplant hospitalization and design interventions to prevent readmission.

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have been heavily used to predict various downstream clinical tasks such as readmission or mortality. One of the modalities in EHRs, clinical notes, has not been fully explored for these tasks due to its unstructured and inexplicable nature. Although recent advances in deep learning (DL) enables models to extract interpretable features from unstructured data, they often require a large amount of training data. However, many tasks in medical domains inherently consist of small sample data with lengthy documents; for a kidney transplant as an example, data from only a few thousand of patients are available and each patient's document consists of a couple of millions of words in major hospitals. Thus, complex DL methods cannot be applied to these kinds of domains. In this paper, we present a comprehensive ensemble model using vector space modeling and topic modeling. Our proposed model is evaluated on the readmission task of kidney transplant patients and improves 0.0211 in terms of c-statistics from the previous state-of-the-art approach using structured data, while typical DL methods fail to beat this approach. The proposed architecture provides the interpretable score for each feature from both modalities, structured and unstructured data, which is shown to be meaningful through a physician's evaluation., 4 pages, IEEE BHI 2019

Identifying and supporting specific organ procurement organizations (OPOs) with the greatest opportunity to increase donation rates could significantly increase the number of organs available for transplant. Accomplishing this is complicated by current Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metrics of donation rates and OPO performance that rely on eligible deaths. These data are self-reported and unverifiable and have been shown to underestimate potential organ donors. We examine the limitations of current OPO performance/donation metrics to inform discussions related to strategies to increase donation. We propose changing to a simple, verifiable, and uniformly applied donation metric. This would allow the transplant community to (1) better understand inherent differences in donor availability based on geography and (2) identify underperforming areas that would benefit from systems improvement agreements to increase donation rates.

Background and Aims Data have demonstrated state-wide variability in mortality rates from liver disease (cirrhosis + hepatocellular carcinoma), but data are lacking at the local level (eg, county) to identify factors associated with variability in liver disease–related mortality and hotspots of liver disease mortality. Methods We used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research data from 2009 to 2018 to calculate county-level, age-adjusted liver disease–related death rates. We fit multivariable linear regression models to adjust for county-level covariates related to demographics (ie, race and ethnicity), medical comorbidities (eg, obesity), access to care (eg, uninsured rate), and geographic (eg, distance to closest liver transplant center) variables. We used optimized hotspot analysis to identify clusters of liver disease mortality hotspots based on the final multivariable models. Results In multivariable models, 61% of the variability in among-county mortality was explained by county-level race/ethnicity, poverty, uninsured rates, distance to the closest transplant center, and local rates of obesity, diabetes, and alcohol use. Despite adjustment, significant within-state variability in county-level mortality rates was found. Of counties in the top fifth percentile (ie, highest mortality) of fully adjusted mortality, 60% were located in 3 states: Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. Adjusted mortality rates were highly spatially correlated, representing 5 clusters: South Florida; Appalachia and the eastern part of the Midwest; Texas and Oklahoma; New Mexico, Arizona, California, and southern Oregon; and parts of Washington and Montana. Conclusions Our data demonstrate significant intrastate differences in liver disease–related mortality, with more than 60% of the variability explained by patient demographics, clinical risk factors for liver disease, and access to specialty liver care.

Access to quality hospital care is a persistent problem for rural patients. Little is known about disparities between rural and urban populations regarding in-hospital outcomes for end-stage liver disease (ESLD) patients. We aimed to determine whether rural ESLD patients experienced higher in-hospital mortality than urban patients and whether disparities were attributable to the rurality of the patient or the center. This was a retrospective study of patient admissions in the National Inpatient Sample, a population-based sample of hospitals in the United States. Admissions were included if they were from adult patients who had an ESLD-related admission defined by codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, between January 2012 and December 2014. The primary exposures of interest were patient-level rurality and hospital-level rurality. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. We stratified our analysis by disease severity score. After accounting for patient- and hospital-level covariates, ESLD admissions to rural hospitals in every category of disease severity had significantly higher odds of in-hospital mortality than patient admissions to urban hospitals. Those with moderate or major risk of dying had more than twice the odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] for moderate risk, 2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62-3.59; OR for major risk, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.97-3.14). There was no association between patient-level rurality and mortality in the adjusted models. In conclusion, ESLD patients admitted to rural hospitals had increased odds of in-hospital mortality compared with those admitted to urban hospitals, and the differences were not attributable to patient-level rurality. Our results suggest that interventions to improve outcomes in this population should focus on the level of the health system.

The transplant community has debated the necessity and merits of broader organ distribution for several years, but the debate has been fundamentally shaped by inaccurate assessments of donor supply and demand. The possible legal requirements of distribution must be balanced with (a) the moral and statutory imperatives to reduce inequities resulting from socioeconomic disparity, and (b) the shortcomings of MELD in predicting mortality risk in rural areas. In this viewpoint, we use the example of liver transplantation to discuss the drivers of geographic disparity as a direct consequence of donation rates, local organ use, wealth, and poverty. Seen in this light, strategies seeking to equalize MELD at transplant across the United States risk severely exacerbating existing inequalities in access to health care.

Acceptance criteria for liver allografts are ever more expanding because of a persisting wait‐list mortality. Older livers are therefore offered and used more frequently for transplantation. This study aims to analyze the use and longterm outcome of these transplantations. Data were included on 17,811 first liver transplantations (LTs) and information on livers that were reported for allocation but not transplanted from 2000 to 2015 in the Eurotransplant (ET) region. Graft survival was defined as the period between transplantation and date of retransplantation or date of recipient death. In the study period, 2394 (13%) transplantations were performed with livers ≥70 years old. Graft survival was 74%, 57%, and 41% at 1‐, 5‐, and 10‐year follow‐up, respectively. A history of diabetes mellitus in the donor (hazard ratio [HR], 1.3; P = 0.01) and positive hepatitis C virus antibody in the recipient (HR, 1.5; P < 0.001) are specific risk factors for transplantations with livers ≥70 years old. Although donor age is associated with a linearly increasing risk of graft loss between 25 and 80 years old, no difference in graft survival could be observed when “preferred” recipients were transplanted with a liver

BACKGROUND For patients waitlisted for a deceased-donor kidney, hospitalization is associated with a lower likelihood of transplantation and worse posttransplant outcomes. However, individual-, neighborhood-, and regional-level risk factors for hospitalization throughout the waitlist period and specific causes of hospitalization in this population are unknown. METHODS We used United States Renal Data System Medicare-linked data on patients waitlisted between 2005 and 2013 with continuous enrollment in Medicare parts A and B (n = 53 810) to examine the association between annual hospitalization rate and a variety of demographic, clinical, and social factors. We used multilevel multivariable ordinal logistic regression to estimate odds ratios. RESULTS Factors associated with significantly increased hospitalization rates among waitlisted individuals included older age, female sex, more years on dialysis before waitlisting, tobacco use, panel-reactive antibody greater than 0, public insurance or no insurance at end-stage renal disease diagnosis, more regional acute care hospital beds, and urban residence (all P < 0.05). Among patients dialysis-dependent when waitlisted, individuals with arteriovenous fistulas were significantly less likely than individuals with indwelling catheters or grafts to be hospitalized (odds ratios, 0.79 and 0.82, respectively, both P < 0.001). The most common causes of hospitalization were complications related to devices, implants, and grafts; hypertension; and sepsis. CONCLUSIONS Individual- and regional-level variables were significantly associated with hospitalization while waitlisted, suggesting that personal, health system, and geographic factors may impact patients' risk. Conditions related to dialysis access and comorbidities were common hospitalization causes, underscoring the importance proper access management and care for additional chronic health conditions.

To determine whether fitness for transplant can be determined by candidates' hospitalizations although waitlisted.Renal transplantation must increasingly serve a population of multiply comorbid patients in an environment defined by organ scarcity and premiums on value-based care. Determining those at excess risk for transplant is critical to these imperatives.United States Renal Data Systems patient and claims data for all adult renal transplant recipients between 2000 and 2010 with continuous primary Medicare coverage for 1 year before and after transplantation were examined. Outcomes included readmissions within the first-year post-transplant and 3-year graft and patient survival. Chi-square statistics, Kaplan-Meier methods (log-rank test), and goodness of fit calculations (c-statistics) were performed for models of transplant outcome.Among 37,623 patients, the percentages of patients admitted for 0, 1 to 7, 8 to 14, or 15 or more days in the pretransplant year were 51%, 25%, 11%, and 13%. Overall readmission-free survival at 1 year was 31%. Heavily preadmitted patients were more likely to have a greater length of stay during their transplant admission, and had a greater service needs at discharge. Pretransplant admission strongly predicted more frequent post-transplant admission. Among all factors studied, preadmission was the strongest predictor of post-transplant death, and had a dose-dependent effect on both death and graft loss.In summary, hospitalization in the year before transplant is an objective, readily ascertainable, and powerful predictor of excess resource utilization and inferior outcome. Incorporation of a rolling assessment of patient hospitalization has potential policy implications for maximizing value in renal transplantation.

Recently, both living and deceased organ donation rates have hit a plateau, despite increases in need for viable organs. One approach to improve donation rate is public education and policy; thus, it is necessary to understand the information the public is receiving regarding organ donation. We hypothesized that primetime medical dramas portray organ donation and transplantation in a negative manner. We compiled data on all primetime medical drama episodes with transplant themes from November 2008 through June 2010 and assessed depictions of organ donors and transplant candidates. Positive and negative thematic elements surrounding the process and individuals involved were also identified. One hundred and fifty-five million and 145 million households watched episodes containing any negative message and any positive message, respectively. Episodes containing only negative messages had over twice the household viewership per episode compared to episodes containing only positive messages (8.4 million vs. 4.1 million, p = 0.01). Widespread exposure to these representations may reinforce public misconceptions of transplantation. The transplant community should consider the popularity of medical dramas as an opportunity to impact the perception of organ donation and transplantation for millions of Americans.

We sought to estimate the effect of smoking on the biliary complication rate following orthotopic liver transplantation. We retrospectively evaluated the records of liver transplant recipients at our center from July 1, 1999 to October 26, 2007. Using Cox proportional hazards models, we estimated the time to the earliest biliary complication (leak or stricture) based on smoking exposure, as active, former, or lifetime nonsmoker, adjusting for other clinical factors. Overall, 409 liver transplant recipients were evaluated. The overall biliary complication rate was 37.7% (n = 154). Biliary complications included 66 anastomotic leaks, 60 anastomotic strictures, and 28 nonanastomotic lesions. ERCP was the primary diagnostic modality (n = 112). 18.1% of liver transplant recipients were active smokers (n = 74) and 42.8% were former smokers (n = 175). Active smokers were at greatest risk for biliary complications on unadjusted analysis (P = 0.022). After multivariable adjustment, active smokers had a 92% higher rate of biliary complication rates compared with lifetime nonsmokers (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.07-3.43), but no difference was noted in the rate of complication resolution. Smoking clearly portends a significant risk of biliary complications following liver transplantation. Smoking status should be clearly defined when evaluating transplant candidacy and in counseling patients with cirrhosis.

With the recent regulations limiting resident work hours, it has become more important to understand how residents spend their time. The volume and content of the pages they receive provide a valuable source of information that give insight into their workload and help identify inefficiencies in hospital communication. We hypothesized that above a certain workload threshold, paging data would suggest breakdowns in communication and implications for quality of care. All pages sent to six general surgery interns at the University of Michigan over the course of one academic year (7/1/2008-6/30/2009) were retrospectively categorized by sender type, message type, message modifier, and message quality. Census, discharge, and admission information for each intern service were also collected, and intern duties were further analyzed with respect to schedule. "On-call" days were defined as days on which the intern bore responsibility for care of all admitted floor patients. The interns received a total of 9,843 pages during the study period. During on-call shifts, each intern was paged an average of 57 ± 3 times, and those on non-call shifts received an average of 12 ± 3 pages. Floor/intensive care unit (ICU) nurses represented 32% of the page volume received by interns. Interestingly, as patient volume increased, there was a decrease in the number of pages received per patient. By contrast, at higher patient volumes, there was a trend toward an increasing percentage of urgent pages per patient. At high intern workloads, our data suggest no major communication breakdowns but reveal the potential for inferior quality of care.