First Look: One Year Since Inception of Regional Share 35 Policy

Impact of Share 35 liver transplantation allocation in Australia and New Zealand

Patients with high model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores waiting for liver transplantation in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) have had limited access to deceased donor livers and therefore binational sharing of livers, for patients with a MELD score ≥35 was introduced in February 2016. Waiting list mortality, post-transplant outcomes and intention-to-treat survival were compared between patients whose MELD score reached 35 on the waiting list between October 2013 and April 2015 (Pre-Share 35 group, n = 23) and patients who were Share 35 listed between February 2016 and May 2022 (Share 35 group, n = 112). There was significantly reduced waiting list mortality in share 35 listed patients in comparison to the pre-Share 35 group (11.7% vs. 52.2%, OR .120 95% CI .044-.328, P < .001). Post-transplant patient and graft survival were not significantly different between the groups (5-year patient survival 82% vs. 84%, P = .991, 5-year graft survival 82% vs. 76%, P = .543). Intention-to-treat survival was superior in the Share 35 group (HR .302, 95% CI .149-.614, P < .001). Introduction of Share 35 in ANZ resulted in a 78% risk reduction in waiting list mortality, equivalent post-transplant survival and an improvement in intention-to-treat survival.

Perioperative mortality in liver transplantation before and after the implementation of the organ allocation policy Share 35

INTRODUCTION

In 2013, a new liver transplant allocation policy (Share 35) aimed to reduce waitlist-mortality was introduced in the United States. Regional organ sharing for recipients with a MELD score of ≥35 was prioritized over local allocation to those with lower MELD scores. Our aim was to assess the changes in perioperative mortality following the introduction of Share 35 as well as changes in patients' short-term 7-day survival, patients discharged alive and 1-year survival. Analyses were also carried out for the subgroups of patients with MELD scores ≥ and < 35.

METHODS

We used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and included liver transplants between March 2002 and December 2018 in this retrospective cohort study. Perioperative mortality was defined as death during and within two days of liver transplant. We used robust interrupted time series analyses to evaluate the impact of Share 35 on mortality.

RESULTS

We included 90 002 liver transplants in our analysis and observed a decreasing trend in perioperative mortality over time (-.061 deaths per 1000 cases per month, 95% CI -.084 to -.037, p < .001). Share 35 was not associated with a change in perioperative mortality (p = .33), short-term 7-day survival (p = .48), survival to discharge (p = .56), or 1-year survival (p = .27).

CONCLUSIONS

Prioritizing sicker recipients with a MELD score ≥35 for liver transplantation was not associated with a change in postoperative mortality.

Improved retransplant outcomes: early evidence of the share35 impact

BACKGROUND

Share 35 prioritizes offers of deceased donor livers to regional candidates with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥35 over local candidates with lower MELD scores. Analysis of Share35 has shown that overall 1- or 2-year post-transplant (LTx) outcomes have been unchanged while waitlist mortality has been reduced. However, these studies exclude retransplant (reLTx) recipients. This study aims to investigate the outcomes of liver retransplants in evaluating the impact of the Share35 policy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database over the period June 2011-June 2015 was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 19,748 LTx and 312 reLTx recipients were identified. Of the LTx recipients, 9626 (48.7%) underwent transplant pre-Share 35 and 10,122 (51.3%) post-Share 35. 123 (39.4%) reLTx recipients underwent retransplantation pre-Share 35 and 189 (60.6%) post-Share 35. ReLTx recipients experienced improved 2-year graft survival post-Share 35 compared to pre-Share 35 (67% vs. 21.1%). Patient survival also improved at 2-years for reLTx recipients post-Share 35 compared to pre-Share 35 (69.2% vs. 33.1%). Transplant post-Share 35 was protective for both 2-year graft (HR = 0.669, CI = 0.454-0.985, p = 0.04) and patient (HR = 0.659, CI = 0.44-0.987, p = 0.003) survival.

CONCLUSION

Share35 is associated with improved outcomes after retransplantation.

The Impact of Share 35 Policy on Patient Survival in Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation With Gender- and Race-Mismatched Donors: An Analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing Registry

INTRODUCTION

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) instituted the Share 35 policy in June 2013 in order to reduce death on liver transplant waitlist. The effect of this policy on patient survival among patients with gender- and race-mismatched donors has not been examined.

RESEARCH QUESTION

To assess the impact of Share 35 policy on posttransplantation patient survival among patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) transplanted with gender- and race-mismatched donors.

DESIGN

A total of 16 467 adult patients with ESLD who underwent liver transplantation between 2012 and 2015 were identified from UNOS. An overall Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for demographic, clinical, and geographic factors and separate models with a dummy variable of pre- and post-Share 35 periods as well as its interaction with other factors were performed to model the effect of gender and race mismatch on posttransplantation patient survival and to compare the patient survival differences between the first 18 months of Share 35 policy to an equivalent time period before.

RESULTS

Comparison of the pre- and post-Share 35 periods did not show significant changes in the numbers of gender- and race-mismatched transplants, or the risk of death for gender-mismatched recipients. However, black recipients with Hispanic donors (hazard ratio: 0.51, 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.90) had significantly increased patient survival after Share 35 policy took effect.

CONCLUSION

The Share 35 policy had a moderate impact on posttransplantation patient survival among recipients with racially mismatched donors according to the first 18-month experience. Future research is recommended to explore long-term transplantation.

Improved posttransplant mortality after share 35 for liver transplantation

The Share 35 policy was implemented in June 2013 to improve equity in access to liver transplantation (LT) between patients with fulminant liver failure and those with cirrhosis and severe hepatic decompensation. The aim of this study was to assess post-LT outcomes after Share 35. Relevant donor, procurement, and recipient data were extracted from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database. All adult deceased donor LTs from January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2016, were included in the analysis. One-year patient survival before and after Share 35 was assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, with adjustment for variables known to affect graft survival. Of 34,975 adult LT recipients, 16,472 (47.1%) were transplanted after the implementation of Share 35, of whom 4,599 (27.9%) had a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score ≥35. One-year patient survival improved from 83.9% to 88.4% after Share 35 (P < 0.01) for patients with MELD ≥35. There was no significant impact on survival of patients with MELD <35 (P = 0.69). Quality of donor organs, as measured by a donor risk index without the regional share component, improved for patients with MELD ≥35 (P < 0.01) and worsened for patients with lower MELD (P < 0.01). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, Share 35 was associated with improved 1-year patient survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.80) in recipients with MELD ≥35.

CONCLUSION

Share 35 has had a positive impact on survival after transplantation in patients with MELD ≥35, without a reciprocal detriment in patients with lower acuity; this was in part a result of more favorable donor-recipient matching. (Hepatology 2018;67:273-281).

Same policy, different impact: Center-level effects of share 35 liver allocation

Early studies of national data suggest that the Share 35 allocation policy increased liver transplants without compromising posttransplant outcomes. Changes in center-specific volumes and practice patterns in response to the national policy change are not well characterized. Understanding center-level responses to Share 35 is crucial for optimizing the policy and constructing effective future policy revisions. Data from the United Network for Organ Sharing were analyzed to compare center-level volumes of allocation-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (aMELD) ≥ 35 transplants before and after policy implementation. There was significant center-level variation in the number and proportion of aMELD ≥ 35 transplants performed from the pre- to post-Share 35 period; 8 centers accounted for 33.7% of the total national increase in aMELD ≥ 35 transplants performed in the 2.5-year post-Share 35 period, whereas 25 centers accounted for 65.0% of the national increase. This trend correlated with increased listing at these centers of patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥ 35 at the time of initial listing. These centers did not overrepresent the total national volume of liver transplants. Comparison of post-Share 35 aMELD to calculated time-of-transplant (TOT) laboratory MELD scores showed that only 69.6% of patients transplanted with aMELD ≥ 35 maintained a calculated laboratory MELD ≥ 35 at the TOT. In conclusion, Share 35 increased transplantation of aMELD ≥ 35 recipients on a national level, but the policy asymmetrically impacted practice patterns and volumes of a subset of centers. Longer-term data are necessary to assess outcomes at centers with markedly increased volumes of high-MELD transplants after Share 35. Liver Transplantation 23 741-750 2017 AASLD.

The Impact of the Share 35 Policy on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to Liver Transplantation for Patients with End Stage Liver Disease in the United States: An Analysis from UNOS Database

BACKGROUND

The Share 35 policy was instituted in June 2013 by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) in order to reduce death on liver transplant waiting list. The effect of this policy on racial and ethnic disparities in access to liver transplantation has not been examined.

METHODS

A total of 14,585 adult patients registered for liver transplantation between 2012 and 2015 were identified from UNOS database. Logistic and proportional hazards models were used to model the effects of race and ethnicity on access to liver transplantation. Stratification on pre- and post-Share 35 periods was performed to compare the first 18 months of Share 35 policy to an equivalent time period before.

RESULTS

Comparison of the pre- and post-Share 35 periods showed significantly decreased time on waiting list and increased numbers of minorities having access to liver transplantation. Hispanic recipients still experienced significantly longer waiting time (HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.88) before they received liver transplantation after Share 35 policy took effect.

CONCLUSION

The Share 35 policy did not lead to improved access to liver transplantation among minorities but eliminated the previously observed racial and ethnic disparities in transplant rates as well as shortened the waiting time.

Liver transplantation after share 35: Impact on pretransplant and posttransplant costs and mortality

Share 35 was implemented in 2013 to direct livers to the most urgent candidates by prioritizing Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥ 35 patients. We aim to evaluate this policy's impact on costs and mortality. Our study includes 834 wait-listed patients and 338 patients who received deceased donor, solitary liver transplants at Mayo Clinic between January 2010 and December 2014. Of these patients, 101 (30%) underwent transplantation after Share 35. After Share 35, 29 (28.7%) MELD ≥ 35 patients received transplants, as opposed to 46 (19.4%) in the pre-Share 35 era (P = 0.06). No significant difference in 90-day wait-list mortality (P = 0.29) nor 365-day posttransplant mortality (P = 0.68) was found between patients transplanted before or after Share 35. Mean costs were $3,049 (P = 0.30), $5226 (P = 0.18), and $10,826 (P = 0.03) lower post-Share 35 for the 30-, 90-, and 365-day pretransplant periods, and mean costs were $5010 (P = 0.41) and $5859 (P = 0.57) higher, and $9145 (P = 0.54) lower post-Share 35 for the 30-, 90-, and 365-day posttransplant periods. In conclusion, the added cost of transplanting more MELD ≥ 35 patients may be offset by pretransplant care cost reduction. Despite shifting organs to critically ill patients, Share 35 has not impacted mortality significantly. Liver Transplantation 23:11-18 2017 AASLD.

Predictors of Mortality in the Critically Ill Cirrhotic Patient: Is the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Enough?

BACKGROUND

Critically ill cirrhotics require liver transplantation urgently, but are at high risk for perioperative mortality. The Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, recently updated to incorporate serum sodium, estimates survival probability in patients with cirrhosis, but needs additional evaluation in the critically ill. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the predictive power of ICU admission MELD scores and identify clinical risk factors associated with increased mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective review of cirrhotic patients admitted to the ICU between January 2011 and December 2014. Patients who were discharged or underwent transplantation (survivors) were compared with those who died (nonsurvivors). Demographic characteristics, admission MELD scores, and clinical risk factors were recorded. Multivariate regression was used to identify independent predictors of mortality, and measures of model performance were assessed to determine predictive accuracy.

RESULTS

Of 276 patients who met inclusion criteria, 153 were considered survivors and 123 were nonsurvivors. Survivor and nonsurvivor cohorts had similar demographic characteristics. Nonsurvivors had increased MELD, gastrointestinal bleeding, infection, mechanical ventilation, encephalopathy, vasopressors, dialysis, renal replacement therapy, requirement of blood products, and ICU length of stay. The MELD demonstrated low predictive power (c-statistic 0.73). Multivariate analysis identified MELD score (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.05), mechanical ventilation (AOR = 4.55), vasopressors (AOR = 3.87), and continuous renal replacement therapy (AOR = 2.43) as independent predictors of mortality, with stronger predictive accuracy (c-statistic 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

The MELD demonstrated relatively poor predictive accuracy in critically ill patients with cirrhosis and might not be the best indicator for prognosis in the ICU population. Prognostic accuracy is significantly improved when variables indicating organ support (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and continuous renal replacement therapy) are included in the model.