Faculty Bibliography

U.S. organ allocation policy sequesters livers from deceased donors within arbitrary geographic boundaries, frustrating the intent of those who wish to offer the livers to transplant candidates based on medical urgency. We used a zero-one integer program to partition 58 donor service areas into between four and eight sharing districts that minimize the disparity in liver availability among districts. Because the integer program necessarily suppressed clinically significant differences among patients and organs, we tested the optimized district maps with a discrete-event simulation tool that represents liver allocation at a per-person, per-organ level of detail. In April 2014, the liver committee of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) decided in a unanimous vote of 22-0-0 to write a policy proposal based on our eight-district and four-district maps. The OPTN board of directors could implement the policy after the proposal and public-comment period.Redistricting liver allocation would save hundreds of lives over the next five years and would attenuate the serious geographic inequity in liver transplant offers.

In June 2013, a change to the liver waitlist priority algorithm was implemented. Under Share 35, regional candidates with MELD ≥ 35 receive higher priority than local candidates with MELD < 35. We compared liver distribution and mortality in the first 12 months of Share 35 to an equivalent time period before. Under Share 35, new listings with MELD ≥ 35 increased slightly from 752 (9.2% of listings) to 820 (9.7%, p = 0.3), but the proportion of deceased-donor liver transplants (DDLTs) allocated to recipients with MELD ≥ 35 increased from 23.1% to 30.1% (p < 0.001). The proportion of regional shares increased from 18.9% to 30.4% (p < 0.001). Sharing of exports was less clustered among a handful of centers (Gini coefficient decreased from 0.49 to 0.34), but there was no evidence of change in CIT (p = 0.8). Total adult DDLT volume increased from 4133 to 4369, and adjusted odds of discard decreased by 14% (p = 0.03). Waitlist mortality decreased by 30% among patients with baseline MELD > 30 (SHR = 0.70, p < 0.001) with no change for patients with lower baseline MELD (p = 0.9). Posttransplant length-of-stay (p = 0.2) and posttransplant mortality (p = 0.9) remained unchanged. In the first 12 months, Share 35 was associated with more transplants, fewer discards, and lower waitlist mortality, but not at the expense of CIT or early posttransplant outcomes.

Whether the liver allocation system shifts organs from better performing organ procurement organizations (OPOs) to poorer performing OPOs has been debated for many years. Models of OPO performance from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients make it possible to study this question in a data-driven manner. We investigated whether each OPO's net liver import was correlated with 2 performance metrics [observed to expected (O:E) liver yield and liver donor conversion ratio] as well as 2 alternative explanations [eligible deaths and incident listings above a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 15]. We found no evidence to support the hypothesis that the allocation system transfers livers from better performing OPOs to centers with poorer performing OPOs. Also, having fewer eligible deaths was not associated with a net import. However, having more incident listings was strongly correlated with the net import, both before and after Share 35. Most importantly, the magnitude of the variation in OPO performance was much lower than the variation in demand: although the poorest performing OPOs differed from the best ones by less than 2-fold in the O:E liver yield, incident listings above a MELD score of 15 varied nearly 14-fold. Although it is imperative that all OPOs achieve the best possible results, the flow of livers is not explained by OPO performance metrics, and instead, it appears to be strongly related to differences in demand.

Recent allocation policy changes have increased the sharing of deceased donor livers across local boundaries, and sharing even broader than this has been proposed as a remedy for persistent geographic disparities in liver transplantation. It is possible that broader sharing may increase cold ischemia times (CITs) and thus harm recipients. We constructed a detailed model of transport modes (car, helicopter, and fixed-wing aircraft) and transport times between all hospitals, and we investigated the relationship between the transport time and the CIT for deceased donor liver transplants. The median estimated transport time was 2.0 hours for regionally shared livers and 1.0 hour for locally allocated livers. The model-predicted transport mode was flying for 90% of regionally shared livers but for only 22% of locally allocated livers. The median CIT was 7.0 hours for regionally shared livers and 6.0 hours for locally allocated livers. Variation in the transport time accounted for only 14.7% of the variation in the CIT, and the transport time on average composed only 21% of the CIT. In conclusion, nontransport factors play a substantially larger role in the CIT than the transport time. Broader sharing will have only a marginal impact on the CIT but will significantly increase the fraction of transplants that are transported by flying rather than driving.

Severe geographic disparities exist in liver transplantation; for patients with comparable disease severity, 90-day transplant rates range from 18% to 86% and death rates range from 14% to 82% across donation service areas (DSAs). Broader sharing has been proposed to resolve geographic inequity; however, we hypothesized that the efficacy of broader sharing depends on the geographic partitions used. To determine the potential impact of redistricting on geographic disparity in disease severity at transplantation, we combined existing DSAs into novel regions using mathematical redistricting optimization. Optimized maps and current maps were evaluated using the Liver Simulated Allocation Model. Primary analysis was based on 6700 deceased donors, 28 063 liver transplant candidates, and 242 727 Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) changes in 2010. Fully regional sharing within the current regional map would paradoxically worsen geographic disparity (variance in MELD at transplantation increases from 11.2 to 13.5, p = 0.021), although it would decrease waitlist deaths (from 1368 to 1329, p = 0.002). In contrast, regional sharing within an optimized map would significantly reduce geographic disparity (to 7.0, p = 0.002) while achieving a larger decrease in waitlist deaths (to 1307, p = 0.002). Redistricting optimization, but not broader sharing alone, would reduce geographic disparity in allocation of livers for transplant across the United States.

With many multicenter consortia and a United Network for Organ Sharing program, participation in kidney paired donation (KPD) has become mainstream in the United States and should be feasible for any center that performs live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Lack of participation in KPD may significantly disadvantage patients with incompatible donors. To explore utilization of this modality, we analyzed adjusted center-specific KPD rates based on casemix of adult LDKT-eligible patients at 207 centers between 2006 and 2011 using SRTR data. From 2006 to 2008, KPD transplants became more evenly distributed across centers, but from 2008 to 2011 the distribution remained unchanged (Gini coefficient = 0.91 for 2006, 0.76 for 2008 and 0.77 for 2011), showing an unfortunate stall in dissemination. At the 10% of centers with the highest KPD rates, 9.9-38.5% of LDKTs occurred through KPD during 2009-2011; if all centers adopted KPD at rates observed in the very high-KPD centers, the number of KPD transplants per year would increase by a factor of 3.2 (from 494 to 1593). Broader implementation of KPD across a wide number of centers is crucial to properly serve transplant candidates with healthy but incompatible live donors.

While kidney paired donation (KPD) enables the utilization of living donor kidneys from healthy and willing donors incompatible with their intended recipients, the strategy poses complex challenges that have limited its adoption in United States and Canada. A consensus conference was convened March 29-30, 2012 to address the dynamic challenges and complexities of KPD that inhibit optimal implementation. Stakeholders considered donor evaluation and care, histocompatibility testing, allocation algorithms, financing, geographic challenges and implementation strategies with the goal to safely maximize KPD at every transplant center. Best practices, knowledge gaps and research goals were identified and summarized in this document.

BACKGROUND:Disparity in access to liver transplantation (LT) in the United States persists despite directives from the federal government to reduce geographic variation. We assessed the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) and traveling to alternative donation service areas (DSAs) on patient survival. METHODS:A prospective cohort study integrating transplant registry and U.S. Census data was analyzed using multivariate linear Cox proportional hazards models. A separate matched-pairs analysis was used to assess the benefit of traveling on patient survival and transplantation rate. RESULTS:High SES is associated with increased access to LT (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.01-1.08) and reduced mortality after waitlisting (aHR [95% CI], 0.88 [0.85-0.93]). Increased access is mediated, in part, through inter-DSA travel. Travel was associated with high SES, white race, blood group O, private insurance, and residence in regions 1, 5, and 11. Transplant candidates in the highest SES quartile were approximately 70% more likely to travel (aHR [95% CI], 1.67 [1.43-1.97]) than those in the lowest SES quartile. Compared with matched control patients, travelers were 74% more likely to be transplanted (aHR [95% CI], 1.74 [1.56-1.94]) and 20% less likely to die after listing (aHR [95% CI], 0.79 [0.69-0.92]). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:High SES and inter-DSA travel are strongly associated with increased LT access and reduced mortality. Travelers are more likely to be sociodemographically advantaged and privately insured and to live in regions with reduced access to deceased-donor organs.

For 7 years, the Kidney Transplantation Committee of the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplantation Network has attempted to revise the kidney allocation algorithm for adults (≥18 years) in end-stage renal disease awaiting deceased donor kidney transplants. Changes to the kidney allocation system must conform to the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) which clearly states that allocation must take into account both efficiency (graft and person survival) and equity (fair distribution). In this article, we evaluate three allocation models: the current system, age-matching and a two-step model that we call "Equal Opportunity Supplemented by Fair Innings (EOFI)". We discuss the different conceptions of efficiency and equity employed by each model and evaluate whether EOFI could actually achieve the NOTA criteria of balancing equity and efficiency given current conditions of growing scarcity and donor-candidate age mismatch.