Relationship between provider volume and outcomes for orthotopic liver transplantation

Examining the transplant case composition of early-career transplant surgeons

Fellowship training established by the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and certified by the Transplant Accreditation and Certification Council provides trainees with broad exposure and practice readiness for the core aspects of abdominal transplantation. However, the operative case mix of a new transplant surgeon early in practice is unknown. This study examined the volume and composition of the transplant case mix of early-career transplant surgeons to better inform residents interested in transplantation about potential career opportunities following fellowship. cas 209 early-career transplant surgeons were identified from the UNOS database containing encrypted surgeon-specific identifiers and were included in this study. At 5 years into practice, there were 85 (40.7%) kidney-predominant, 38 (18.2%) liver-predominant, and 86 (41.1%) multiorgan transplant surgeons. Comparing surgeon subgroups, multiorgan surgeons performed more transplants in year 5 of practice than both liver-predominant and kidney-predominant surgeons (both p < .05). This is the first study to describe the transplant case composition of the early-career transplant surgeons. This data can be used to inform aspiring transplant surgeons about potential career opportunities and to assist fellowship programs in guiding and mentoring fellows.

Liver Transplant Center Size and The Impact on the Clinical Outcomes and Resource Utilization

BACKGROUND

Prior studies suggest that transplant center volume is associated with liver transplantation (LT) outcomes. We compared patient characteristics and waitlist outcomes among transplant centers in the U.S. with different volumes.

METHODS

Data for adult waitlisted candidates and LT recipients in the U.S. between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database. Transplant centers were categorized by transplants/year into tertiles:low-volume centers (LVCs; <20 transplantations per year)medium-volume centers (MVCs; 20-55 transplantations per year)high-volume centers (HVCs; >55 transplantations per year)Patient characteristics, waitlist outcomes, and factors associated with post-transplantation mortality were compared.

RESULTS

From 141 centers, 112,110 patients were waitlisted for LT: 6% at LVCs, 26% at MVCs, and 68% at HVCs. Patients listed in LVCs were less likely to have private insurance but had higher Medicaid and Veterans Affairs healthcare rates. Patients at LVCs were less likely to receive LT (47% vs. 53% in MVC vs. 61% in HVC), had higher transfer rates to other centers, and were more likely to be removed from the waitlist. In competing risk survival analysis, adjusted for center location, MELD score, and clinico-demographic factors, patients listed at an HVC were more likely to receive LT (aHR:1.30; 95%CI= 1.27-1.33; P<0.001). Among LT-recipients (n=62,131), receiving a transplant at an LVC was associated with higher post-LT mortality (aHR:1.16; 95%CI=1.05-1.28; P=0.003).

CONCLUSION

Patients in LVCs were less likely to receive a LT and a higher risk of post-LT death.Supplemental Visual Abstract; http://links.lww.com/TP/C274.

Understanding Health Care Utilization and Mortality After Emergency General Surgery in Patients With Underlying Liver Disease

BACKGROUND

Mortality and complications are not well defined nationally for emergency general surgery (EGS) patients presenting with underlying all-cause liver disease (LD).

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed the 2012-2014 National Inpatient Sample for adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with a primary EGS diagnosis. Underlying LD included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for alcoholic and viral hepatitis, malignancy, congenital etiologies, and cirrhosis. The primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes included complications, operative intervention, and costs.

RESULTS

Of the 6.8 million EGS patients, 358 766 (5.3%) had underlying LD. 59.1% had cirrhosis, 6.7% had portal hypertension, and 13.7% had ascites. Compared with other EGS patients, EGS-LD patients had higher mean costs ($12 847 vs $10 234, P < .001). EGS-LD patients were less likely to have surgery (26.1% vs 37.0%, P < .001) but for those who did, mortality was higher (4.8% vs 1.8%, P < .001). Risk factors for mortality included ascites (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.68, P < .001), dialysis (aOR = 3.44, P < .001), sepsis (aOR = 8.97, P < .001), and respiratory failure requiring intubation (aOR = 10.40, P < .001). Odds of death increased in both surgical (aOR = 4.93, P < .001) and non-surgical EGS-LD patients (aOR = 2.56, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Underlying all-cause LD among EGS patients is associated with increased in-hospital mortality, even in the absence of surgical intervention.

Effect of Case Volume on Mortality After Pediatric Liver Transplantation in Korea

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether institutional case-volume affects clinical outcomes after pediatric liver transplantation.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study using the database of Korean National Healthcare Insurance Service. Between January 2007 and December 2016, 521 pediatric liver transplantations were performed at 22 centers in Korea. Centers were categorized according to the average annual number of liver transplantations: >10, 1 to 10, and <1.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality rates in the high-, medium-, and low-volume centers were 5.8%, 12.5%, and 32.1%, respectively. After adjustment, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in low-volume centers (adjusted odds ratio, 9.693; 95% confidence interval, 4.636-20.268; P < 0.001) and medium-volume centers (adjusted odds ratio, 3.393; 95% confidence interval, 1.980-5.813; P < 0.001) compared to high-volume centers. Long-term survival for up to 9 years was better in high-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Centers with higher case volume (>10 pediatric liver transplantations/y) had better outcomes after pediatric liver transplantation, including in-hospital mortality and long-term mortality, compared to centers with lower case volume (≤10 liver transplantations/y).

Association of cumulative surgeon volume and risk of complications in adult uvulopalatopharyngoplasty: a population-based study in Taiwan

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing upper airway surgery are known to have an increased perioperative risk, however, the effect of surgeon volume on this risk is largely unknown. We compared the 30-day readmission, bleeding, and mortality rates in adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing uvulopalatopharyngoplasty by cumulative surgeon volume. The objective of this study is to compare the risks of complications among different cumulative surgeon volume groups in adult patients undergoing uvulopalatopharyngoplasty and multilevel surgery.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, data of all adult inpatients (aged older than 18 years) who underwent uvulopalatopharyngoplasty in Taiwan between 2000 and 2012 were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database and then analyzed. Using mixed-effect logistic regression, we compared the risks of major complications in patients undergoing uvulopalatopharyngoplasty alone, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty with nasal surgery, and uvulopalatopharyngoplasty with tongue or hypopharyngeal surgery according to groups of cumulative surgeon volume (divided into four quartiles).

RESULTS

A total of 36,483 adults were identified (mean age, 38.6 years; 73.7% men). When quartile 4 was used as reference, very low surgeon volume (quartile 1) was associated with higher risks of readmission within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.57, P < .001), in-hospital death (aOR, 6.14, 95% CI 1.33-28.27, P = .020), and 30-day mortality (aOR, 4.90, 95% CI 1.83-13.09, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher complication rates in uvulopalatopharyngoplasty appear to be associated with very low cumulative surgeon volume.

Effect of Institutional Case Volume on In-hospital Mortality After Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Analysis of 7073 Cases Between 2007 and 2016 in Korea

BACKGROUND

The relationship between institutional case volume and clinical outcomes after living donor liver transplantation is not clarified.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study using the database of Korean National Healthcare Insurance Service. Between January 2007 and December 2016, 7073 adult living donor liver transplantations were performed at 50 centers in Korea. Centers were categorized according to the average annual number of liver transplantations: >50, 10 to 50, and <10.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality rates in the high-, medium-, and low-volume centers were 2.8%, 4.1%, and 6.7%, respectively. After adjustment, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in low-volume centers (adjusted odds ratio, 2.287; 95% confidence interval, 1.471-3.557; P < 0.001) and medium-volume centers (adjusted odds ratio, 1.676; 95% confidence interval, 1.089-2.578; P = 0.019) compared with high-volume centers. Long-term survival for up to 9 years was better, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay were shorter in high-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Centers with higher case volume (>50 liver transplantations/year) had better outcomes after living donor liver transplantation, including in-hospital mortality and long-term mortality compared with centers with lower case volume (≤50 liver transplantations/year).

Healthcare utilization after liver transplantation is highly variable among both centers and recipients

The relationship between healthcare utilization before and after liver transplantation (LT), and its association with center characteristics, is incompletely understood. This was a retrospective cohort study of 34 402 adult LTs between 2002 and 2013 using Vizient inpatient claims data linked to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. Multivariable mixed-effects linear regression models evaluated the association between hospitalization 90 days pre-LT and the number of days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) 1 year post-LT. Of those patients alive at LT discharge, 24.7% spent ≥30 days hospitalized during the first year. Hospitalization in the 90 days pre-LT was inversely associated with DAOH (β = -3.4 DAOH/week hospitalized pre-LT; P = .002). Centers with >30% of their liver transplant recipients hospitalized ≥30 days in the first LT year were typically smaller volume and/or transplanting higher risk recipients (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD] score ≥35, inpatient or ventilated pre-LT). In conclusion, pre-LT hospitalization predicts 1-year post-LT hospitalization independent of MELD score at the patient-level, whereas center-specific post-LT healthcare utilization is associated with certain center behaviors and selection practices.

Individual Surgeon Experience Yields Bimodal Effects on Patient Outcomes After Deceased-Donor Liver Transplant: Results of a Quantile Regression for Survival Data

OBJECTIVES

Data on the relevance of surgeon experience in liver transplant procedures are scarce. In this study, we evaluated the effects of individual surgeon experience on survival outcomes after deceased-donor liver transplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective analysis of 1193 liver transplant procedures, quantile regression for survival data was performed to assess the effects of surgeon experience. Conditional quantiles of mortality and graft loss were set as primary and secondary outcome measures, respectively, which were categorized as early, midterm, and late.

RESULTS

Greater experience of a surgeon performing hepatectomy increased the risk of early mortality (P = .005) and graft loss (P = .025) when the recipient Model for End-Stage Liver Disease was ≤ 25 and the donor Model for End-Stage Liver Disease was ≤ 1600. In conventional transplant procedures, greater experience of surgeon performing hepatectomy additionally increased the risk of midterm mortality (P = .027) and graft loss (P = .046). Conversely, a graft implant procedure performed by a more experienced surgeon was associated with better early, midterm, and late outcomes after conventional transplants (all P < .037) and reduced the risk of early graft loss when the donor Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was > 1600 (P = .027).

CONCLUSIONS

Unexpectedly, individual surgeon experience yields bimodal effects on posttransplant outcomes, dependent on the stage of operation, operative technique, severity of recipient status, and transplant risk profile.

A German survey of the abdominal transplantation surgical work force

This manuscript reports the results of a nationwide survey of transplant surgeons in Germany, including the demographics, training, position, individual case loads, center volumes, program structure, professional practice, grade of specialization, workload, work hours, salary, and career expectations. We contacted all 32 German transplant centers that perform liver, kidney, and pancreas transplantation. Surgeons engaged in transplantation were asked to reply to the survey. Eighty-five surgeons responded, with a mean age of 44 ± 8 years, 13% of whom were female. The median transplant frequency per active transplant surgeon was relatively low, with 16 liver transplants, 15 kidney transplants, and three pancreas transplants. The median reported center volumes were 45 liver transplants, 90 kidney transplants, and five pancreas transplants per year. Most of the surgeons reported a primary focus on hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery, and only 10% of effective work time was actually dedicated to perform transplant surgeries. The majority of respondents estimated their weekly work hours to be between 55 and 66 h. When asked about their career satisfaction and expectations, most respondents characterized their salaries as inappropriately low and their career prospects as inadequate. This survey provides a first impression of the transplant surgery work force in Germany.

Big data in organ transplantation: registries and administrative claims

The field of organ transplantation benefits from large, comprehensive, transplant-specific national data sets available to researchers. In addition to the widely used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)-based registries (the United Network for Organ Sharing and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data sets) and United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data sets, there are other publicly available national data sets, not specific to transplantation, which have historically been underutilized in the field of transplantation. Of particular interest are the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and State Inpatient Databases, produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The USRDS database provides extensive data relevant to studies of kidney transplantation. Linkage of publicly available data sets to external data sources such as private claims or pharmacy data provides further resources for registry-based research. Although these resources can transcend some limitations of OPTN-based registry data, they come with their own limitations, which must be understood to avoid biased inference. This review discusses different registry-based data sources available in the United States, as well as the proper design and conduct of registry-based research.

Impact of the center on graft failure after liver transplantation

The hospital at which liver transplantation (LT) is performed has a substantial impact on post-LT outcomes. Center-specific outcome data are closely monitored not only by the centers themselves but also by patients and government regulatory agencies. However, the true magnitude of this center effect, apart from the effects of the region and donor service area (DSA) as well as recipient and donor determinants of graft survival, has not been examined. We analyzed data submitted to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network for all adult (age ≥ 18 years) primary LT recipients (2005-2008). Using a mixed effects, proportional hazards regression analysis, we modeled graft failure within 1 year after LT on the basis of center (de-identified), region, DSA, and donor and recipient characteristics. At 115 unique centers, 14,654 recipients underwent transplantation. Rates of graft loss within a year varied from 5.9% for the lowest quartile of centers to 20.2% for the highest quartile. Gauged by a comparison of the 75th and 25th percentiles of the data, the magnitude of the center effect on graft survival (1.49-fold change) was similar to that of the recipient Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (1.47) and the donor risk index (DRI; 1.45). The center effect was similar across the DRI and MELD score quartiles and was not associated with a center's annual LT volume. After stratification by region and DSA, the magnitude of the center effect, though decreased, remained significant and substantial (1.30-fold interquartile difference). In conclusion, the LT center is a significant predictor of graft failure that is independent of region and DSA as well as donor and recipient characteristics.

Liver Transplant Center Performance Profiling: 2005–2011 Reports of the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients

Context

Transplant center performance profiling provides important information for various concerned parties. Comparing a transplant center's performance against the performance of the best-in-class centers may help in understanding the performance thresholds for the underperforming centers.

Objectives

(1) To identify and describe “Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-red-flag” performers and the “best-in-class” performers and (2) to examine the relationships between a center's performance profile and outcomes such as 1-year observed mortality, 1-month observed mortality, 1-year risk-adjusted mortality, and volume.

Methods

The data for analysis was obtained from the published reports on the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) website for adult liver transplant programs compiled for the rolling 2½-year cohorts of patients and included 7 cohorts of liver transplant recipients in the study from January through July 1, 2002, through December 31, 2010. We defined 4 performance profiles: CMS-red-flag, lower-than-expected, higher-than-expected, and best-in-class performers.

Results

The current SRTR methods classify approximately 7% of the adult liver centers as CMS-red-flag performers and 6% of the centers as best-in-class performers in every reported period. Neither of the low-volume centers (<30 liver transplants per 2½-year cohort) was profiled as CMS-red-flag until the 2010 reporting period. The transplant center's profile was significantly associated with the 1-year and 1-month observed mortality rates in every reported cohort ( P < .001).

Conclusion

The CMS-red-flag profile can be characterized with the following: (1) the highest observed 1-year mortality, (2) the highest observed 1-month mortality, (3) a very large difference between the observed and adjusted mortality rates, and (4) the center volume greater than 30 liver transplants per 2½-year cohort. The SRTR methods are not sensitive for performance profiling in the centers that perform fewer than 30 orthotopic liver transplants per 2½-year cohort.

Specialization and utilization after hepatectomy in academic medical centers

BACKGROUND

Specialized procedures such as hepatectomy are performed by a variety of specialties in surgery. We aimed to determine whether variation exists among utilization of resources, cost, and patient outcomes by specialty, surgeon case volume, and center case volume for hepatectomy.

METHODS

We queried centers (n = 50) in the University Health Consortium database from 2007-2010 for patients who underwent elective hepatectomy in which specialty was designated general surgeon (n = 2685; 30%) or specialist surgeon (n = 6277; 70%), surgeon volume was designated high volume (>38 cases annually) and center volume was designated high volume (>100 cases annually). We then stratified our cohort by primary diagnosis, defined as primary tumor (n = 2241; 25%), secondary tumor (n = 5466; 61%), and benign (n = 1255; 14%).

RESULTS

Specialist surgeons performed more cases for primary malignancy (primary 26% versus 15%) while general surgeons operated more for secondary malignancies (67% versus 61%) and benign disease (18% versus 13%). Specialists were associated with a shorter total length of stay (LOS) (5 d versus 6 d; P < 0.01) and lower in-hospital morbidity (7% versus 11%; P < 0.01). Patients treated by high volume surgeons or at high volume centers were less likely to die than those treated by low volume surgeons or at low volume centers, (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33-0.89) and (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.13-0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical specialization, surgeon volume and center volume may be important metrics for quality and utilization in complex procedures like hepatectomy. Further studies are necessary to link direct factors related to hospital performance in the changing healthcare environment.

SIOP PODC: clinical guidelines for the management of children with Wilms tumour in a low income setting

Wilms tumour is a relatively common and curable paediatric tumour. Known challenges to cure in low income countries are late presentation with advanced disease, malnutrition, failure to complete treatment and limited facilities. In this article, management recommendations are given for a low income setting where only the minimal requirements for treatment with curative intent are available (setting 1). These include general management, supportive care, social support and registration of patients. Recommendations specific for Wilms tumour care include diagnostic procedures with emphasis on the role of ultrasonography, preoperative chemotherapy with a reduced dosage for malnourished children and postoperative chemotherapy based on surgical staging.

Cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy: a multilevel approach with propensity score matching

OBJECTIVE

To compare postoperative complications and cost of treatment of laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) and to identify the most cost-effective treatment method.

METHODS

Patients treated for appendectomy in US veterans health administration (VHA) hospitals in 2005 were included into our study. Direct medical cost and postoperative complications during hospitalization were used as outcomes. Propensity score matching was employed to adjust for baseline imbalances between treatment groups. It was adjusted for the severity of appendicitis, comorbidities according to Charlson Comorbidity Index, and demographic variables. 1:1 optimal matching with replacement was performed. Based on the matched samples, we estimated generalized linear mixed regression models for costs (gamma model) and postoperative complications (logit model). Besides patients' covariates, predictors of hospital resource use and quality of care at the hospital level were considered as explanatory variables.

RESULTS

The total study population comprised of 1,128 patients (370 LA, 758 OA) from 95 VHA hospitals. Type of appendectomy had a significant influence on total costs (P=0.005), with predicted costs for LA being 17.1% lower in comparison to OA (OA: 10,851 US$ [95%CI: 9,707 US$; 12,131 US$] vs. LA: 8,995 US$ [95%CI: 8,073 US$; 10,022 US$]). Differences in the predicted overall postoperative complication were not significant between LA and OA (P=0.6311). Severity of appendicitis had a significant impact on costs and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Predicted costs for LA were 1,856 US$ lower than for OA while the postoperative complication rate did not differ significantly. Thus, LA is the treatment of choice from a provider's perspective.

Centre volume and resource consumption in liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Using SRTR/UNOS data, it has previously been shown that increased liver transplant centre volume improves graft and patient survival. In the current era of health care reform and pay for performance, the effects of centre volume on quality, utilization and cost are unknown.

METHODS

Using the UHC database (2009-2010), 63 liver transplant centres were identified that were organized into tertiles based on annual centre case volume and stratified by severity of illness (SOI). Utilization endpoints included hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), cost and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

In all, 5130 transplants were identified. Mortality was improved at high volume centres (HVC) vs. low volume centres (LVC), 2.9 vs. 3.4%, respectively. HVC had a lower median LOS than LVC (9 vs. 10 days, P < 0.0001), shorter median ICU stay than LVC and medium volume centres (MVC) (2 vs. 3 and 3 days, respectively, P < 0.0001) and lower direct costs than LVC and MVC ($90,946 vs. $98,055 and $101,014, respectively, P < 0.0001); this effect persisted when adjusted for severity of illness.

CONCLUSIONS

This UHC-based cohort shows that increased centre volume results in improved long-term post-liver transplant outcomes and more efficient use of hospital resources thereby lowering the cost. A better understanding of these mechanisms can lead to informed decisions and optimization of the pay for performance model in liver transplantation.

A learning curve for living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The number of living donor liver transplantations performed has increased rapidly in many Eastern transplant centres. However, the impact of the transplant centres' experience and learning on the transplant outcomes are not well established. Aim of the study was to evaluate the learning curve for living donor liver transplantation in our centre.

METHODS

Data from 156 recipients and 156 donors who underwent surgery were reviewed. Intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes of both donors and recipients were retrospectively analysed. Recipients and donors were divided into three groups that consisted of 52 consecutive cases each.

RESULTS

Surgical duration and intraoperative blood loss during donor surgery were decreased significantly between the earlier and the more recent cases (423±39 vs. 400±44 min and 959±523 vs. 731±278 mL, respectively; P<0.01). Rates of postoperative complications and functional changes were not statistically different amongst the three donor groups. Immediate complication rate of the first 52 recipients was higher than those of the second and third cohorts. Long-term survival rates of the three recipient groups were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve greatly influenced immediate outcomes of recipients during the early transplant period. However, it had little influence on donor outcome; long-term outcome improvement of recipients did not depend on the accumulation of experience alone.

Outcome of HCV/HIV-coinfected liver transplant recipients: a prospective and multicenter cohort study

Eighty-four HCV/HIV-coinfected and 252-matched HCV-monoinfected liver transplant recipients were included in a prospective multicenter study. Thirty-six (43%) HCV/HIV-coinfected and 75 (30%) HCV-monoinfected patients died, with a survival rate at 5 years of 54% (95% CI, 42-64) and 71% (95% CI, 66 to 77; p = 0.008), respectively. When both groups were considered together, HIV infection was an independent predictor of mortality (HR, 2.202; 95% CI, 1.420-3.413 [p < 0.001]). Multivariate analysis of only the HCV/HIV-coinfected recipients, revealed HCV genotype 1 (HR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.32-6.76), donor risk index (HR, 9.48; 95% CI, 2.75-32.73) and negative plasma HCV RNA (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.62) to be associated with mortality. When this analysis was restricted to pretransplant variables, we identified three independent factors (HCV genotype 1, pretransplant MELD score and centers with <1 liver transplantation/year in HIV-infected patients) that allowed us to identify a subset of 60 (71%) patients with a similar 5-year prognosis (69%[95% CI, 54-80]) to that of HCV-monoinfected recipients. In conclusion, 5-year survival in HCV/HIV-coinfected liver recipients was lower than in HCV-monoinfected recipients, although an important subset with a favorable prognosis was identified in the former.

Donor race does not predict graft failure after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Donor race has been proposed to predict graft failure after liver transplantation. We evaluated the extent to which the center where the transplantation surgery was performed and other potential confounding factors might account for the observed association between donor race and graft failure.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (January 2003-December 2005) for adult patients undergoing primary liver transplantation in the United States. We examined the association between graft failure and the donor races of African American (AA), Caucasian, Asian/Pacific Islander (API), or those classified as other.

RESULTS

Of 10,874 livers that were donated for transplantation, 7631 came from Caucasians, 1579 from AAs, 243 from APIs, and 1421 from others. After 36 months of follow-up evaluation, 2687 grafts failed. Without any adjustments, AA donors (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.24), API donors (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.12-1.77), and other donors (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.29) were associated with graft failure. After stratification by center and adjustments for age, height, and hepatitis B core antibody status of donors as well as serum creatinine and hepatitis C status of recipients, donor race was no longer statistically significant for AA (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95-1.20) and API (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.89-1.49) donors. However, livers donated from members of other race still had an increased risk of graft failure (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.35), although the effect was not uniform across donor-recipient pairs.

CONCLUSIONS

Donor race is not a uniform predictor of graft failure and should not be construed as an indicator of donor quality.

Low volume is associated with worse patient outcomes for pediatric liver transplant centers

BACKGROUND

An inverse association between hospital procedure volume and postoperative mortality has been demonstrated for a variety of pediatric surgical procedures. The objective of our study was to determine whether such an association exists for pediatric liver transplantation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of pediatric liver transplant procedures included in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients over a 7.5-year time period from July 1, 2000, through December 31, 2007. Pediatric liver transplant centers were divided into three volume categories (high, middle, low) based on absolute annual volume. Mean 1-year patient survival rates and aggregate 1-year observed-to-expected (O:E) patient death ratios were calculated for each hospital volume category and then compared using ordered logistic regression and chi square analyses.

RESULTS

High-volume pediatric liver transplant centers achieved significantly lower aggregate 1-year O:E patient death ratios than low-volume centers. When freestanding children's hospitals (FCH), children's hospitals within adult hospitals (CAH), and other centers (OC) were considered separately, we found that a significant volume-outcomes association existed among OC centers but not among FCH or CAH centers. Low-volume OC centers, which represent 41.6% of all pediatric liver transplant centers and perform 10% of all pediatric liver transplantation, had the least favorable aggregate 1-year O:E patient death ratio of all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that a significant center volume-outcomes relationship exists among OC pediatric liver transplant centers but not among FCH or CAH centers. These findings support the possible institution of minimum annual procedure volume requirements for OC pediatric liver transplant centers.

Temporal trends in liver transplant centre volume in the USA

BACKGROUND

Although prior studies have suggested an inverse association between liver transplant centre volume and postoperative patient mortality, more recent analyses have failed to confirm this association. To date, all studies of the relationship between centre volume and outcomes in liver transplantation have been cross-sectional in design.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to examine temporal trends in the volume-outcomes relationship for liver transplantation.

METHODS

We used information obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) programme-specific data reports to examine the outcomes of adult liver transplant recipients stratified by annual centre volume. This relationship between centre volume and patient outcomes was assessed over three consecutive time periods from 2000 through 2007.

RESULTS

The overall 25% increase in adult liver transplant volume in the USA from 2000 to 2007 appeared to be distributed fairly equally among existing transplant centres. In the earliest time period of our analysis, high-volume centres achieved superior risk-adjusted 1-year patient outcomes compared with low-volume centres. By the third and most recent time period of the analysis, this discrepancy between the outcomes of high- and low-volume centres was no longer statistically apparent.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between centre volume and patient outcomes for liver transplantation in the USA has become less pronounced over time, suggesting that the use of procedure volume as a marker of liver transplant centre quality cannot be justified. The performance-based review process currently utilized in the USA may have contributed to this diminishing influence of centre volume on liver transplant recipient outcomes. This type of review process should be considered as a potential alternative to the volume-based referral initiatives that have been developed for other non-transplant, complex surgical procedures.

Supply and demand for liver transplant surgery: are we training enough surgeons?

The purpose of our study is to determine whether the current level of transplant fellow training is sufficient to meet the future demand for liver transplantation in the United States. Historical data from the Nationwide Inpatient Samples (NIS) for the years 1998 through 2003 were used to construct an estimate of the annual number of liver transplant procedures currently being performed in the United States, and the number projected for each year through 2020. Estimates for the current and future number of surgeons performing liver transplant procedures were also constructed using the same database. The NIS database was used because current national transplant registries do not include information on the number of surgeons performing liver transplant procedures. Using historical data derived from the NIS database, we project that the estimated number of liver transplant procedures per surgeon will remain relatively stable through 2020, with each surgeon performing an average of 12.9 procedures in 2020 compared to 12.9 currently. We conclude that the relationship between demand for liver transplantation in the United States and the supply of liver transplant surgeons will remain stable over the next 15 years.