Outcomes and disparities in liver transplantation will be improved by redistricting-cons

Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization

Liver allocation policy was changed to reduce variance in median MELD scores at transplant (MMaT) in February 2020. "Acuity circles" replaced local allocation. Understanding the impact of policy change on donor utilization is important. Ideal (I), standard (S), and non-ideal (NI) donors were defined. NI donors include older, higher BMI donors with elevated transaminases or bilirubin, history of hepatitis B or C, and all DCD donors. Utilization of I, S, and NI donors was established before and after allocation change and compared between low MELD (LM) centers (MMaT ≤ 28 before allocation change) and high MELD (HM) centers (MMaT > 28). Following reallocation, transplant volume increased nationally (67 transplants/center/year pre, 74 post, p .0006) and increased for both HM and LM centers. LM centers significantly increased use of NI donors and HM centers significantly increased use of I and S donors. Centers further stratify based on donor utilization phenotype. A subset of centers increased transplant volume despite rising MMaT by broadening organ acceptance criteria, increasing use of all donor types including DCD donors (98% increase), increasing living donation, and transplanting more frequently for alcohol associated liver disease. Variance in donor utilization can undermine intended effects of allocation policy change.

Patterns of geographic variability in mortality and eligible deaths between organ procurement organizations

Eligible deaths are currently used as the denominator of the donor conversion ratio to mitigate the effect of varying mortality patterns in the populations served by different organ procurement organizations (OPOs). Eligible death is an OPO-reported metric rather than a product of formal epidemiological analysis, however, and may be confounded with OPO performance. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, patterns of mortality and eligible deaths within each OPO were analyzed with the use of formal geostatistical analysis to determine whether eligible deaths truly reflect the geographic patterns they are intended to mitigate. There was a 2.1-fold difference in mortality between the OPOs with the highest and lowest rates, with significant positive spatial autocorrelation evident in mortality rates (Moran I = .110; P < .001), meaning geographically proximate OPOs tended to have similar mortality rates. The eligible death ratio demonstrated greater variability, with a 4.5-fold difference between the OPOs with the highest and lowest rates. Contrary to the pattern of mortality rates, the geographic distribution of eligible deaths among OPOs was random (Moran I = -.002; P = .410). This finding suggests geographic patterns do not play a significant role in eligible deaths, thus questioning its continuing use in OPO performance comparisons.

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).

Sociodemographic Determinants of Waitlist and Posttransplant Survival Among End-Stage Liver Disease Patients

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.