Browsing by Subject "organ allocation"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Ethical Considerations Surrounding Survival Benefit-Based Liver Allocation
    (Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, 2013-04-05) Keller, Eric J.; Helft, Paul R.; Kwo, Paul Y.
    The disparity between the demand for and supply of donor livers has continued to grow over the last two decades, placing greater weight on the need for efficient and effective allocation. Although the use of extended criteria donors (ECD) has shown greater potential, it remains unregulated. Schaubel et al. have recently proposed a survival benefit model which balances waitlist survival and potential transplantation benefit for a given quality of donor liver. The OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestinal Organ Transplantation Committee considered this and other models in a recent report, concluding that the current allocation method does not require modification. In order to further evaluate the survival benefit model, the various ethical concerns shaping organ allocation were discussed and used to identify strengths and shortcomings associated with the proposed model. Compared to the current MELD/PELD system, the survival benefit model incorporates a greater number of ethical principles, uses a sophisticated statistical model to increase efficiency and reduce waste, minimizes bias, and parallels developments in the allocation of other organs. Conversely, the model fails to address quality of life concerns, prioritization for younger patients, its less promising posttransplant prediction accuracy, and potential issues regarding informed consent and economic burdens. To remedy these issues, we suggested incorporating various improvements based on recent literature. Although limitations exist, the survival benefit model now exists as a better means of improving allocation. We support the model proposed by Schaubel et al., with the amendments we suggested, and urge the OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestinal Organ Transplantation Committee and the transplant community to strongly consider this model as another step toward better liver allocation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Impact of the acuity circle model for liver allocation on multivisceral transplant candidates
    (Elsevier, 2022-02) Ivanics , Tommy; Vianna , Rodrigo; Kubal , Chandrashekhar A.; Iyer , Kishore R.; Mazariegos , George V.; Matsumoto , Cal S.; Mangus , Richard; Beduschi, Thiago; Abouljoud , Marwan; Fridell , Jonathan A.; Nagai, Shunji; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Liver allocation was updated on February 4, 2020, replacing a Donor Service Area (DSA) with acuity circles (AC). The impact on waitlist outcomes for patients listed for combined liver-intestine transplantation (multivisceral transplantation [MVT]) remains unknown. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify all candidates listed for both liver and intestine between January 1, 2018 and March 5, 2021. Two eras were defined: pre-AC (2018–2020) and post-AC (2020–2021). Outcomes included 90-day waitlist mortality and transplant probability. A total of 127 adult and 104 pediatric MVT listings were identified. In adults, the 90-day waitlist mortality was not statistically significantly different, but transplant probability was lower post-AC. After risk-adjustment, post-AC was associated with a higher albeit not statistically significantly different mortality hazard (sub-distribution hazard ratio[sHR]: 8.45, 95% CI: 0.96–74.05; p = .054), but a significantly lower transplant probability (sHR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.15–0.75; p = .008). For pediatric patients, waitlist mortality and transplant probability were similar between eras. The proportion of patients who underwent transplant with exception points was lower post-AC both in adult (44% to 9%; p = .04) and pediatric recipients (65% to 15%; p = .002). A lower transplant probability observed in adults listed for MVT may ultimately result in increased waitlist mortality. Efforts should be taken to ensure equitable organ allocation in this vulnerable patient population.