TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact of acuity circles on outcomes for pediatric liver transplant candidates
AU - Mogul, Douglas B.
AU - Perito, Emily R.
AU - Wood, Nicholas
AU - Mazariegos, George V.
AU - Vanderwerken, Douglas
AU - Ibrahim, Samar H.
AU - Mohammad, Saeed
AU - Valentino, Pamela L.
AU - Gentry, Sommer
AU - Hsu, Evelyn
N1 - Funding Information:
8Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. This work was supported by the Society for Pediatric Liver Transplantation, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Dr. Mogul, K08 HS023876), and the National Institutes of Health (Dr. Perito, K23 DK0990253; Dr. Gentry R01 DK111233). The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/8/1
Y1 - 2020/8/1
N2 - Background. In December 2018, United Network for Organ Sharing approved an allocation scheme based on recipients' geographic distance from a deceased donor (acuity circles [ACs]). Previous analyses suggested that ACs would reduce waitlist mortality overall, but their impact on pediatric subgroups was not considered. Methods. We applied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2011 to 2016 toward the Liver Simulated Allocation Model to compare outcomes by age and illness severity for the United Network for Organ Sharing-approved AC and the existing donor service area-/region-based allocation schemes. Means from each allocation scheme were compared using matched-pairs t tests. Results. During a 3-year period, AC allocation is projected to decrease waitlist deaths in infants (39 versus 55; P < 0.001), children (32 versus 50; P < 0.001), and teenagers (15 versus 25; P < 0.001). AC allocation would increase the number of transplants in infants (707 versus 560; P < 0.001), children (677 versus 547; P < 0.001), and teenagers (404 versus 248; P < 0.001). AC allocation led to decreased median pediatric end-stage liver disease/model for end-stage liver disease at transplant for infants (29 versus 30; P = 0.01), children (26 versus 29; P < 0.001), and teenagers (26 versus 31; P < 0.001). Additionally, AC allocation would lead to fewer transplants in status 1B in children (97 versus 103; P = 0.006) but not infants or teenagers. With AC allocation, 77% of pediatric donor organs would be allocated to pediatric candidates, compared to only 46% in donor service area-/region-based allocation (P < 0.001). Conclusions. AC allocation will likely address disparities for pediatric liver transplant candidates and recipients by increasing transplants and decreasing waitlist mortality. It is more consistent with federally mandated requirements for organ allocation.
AB - Background. In December 2018, United Network for Organ Sharing approved an allocation scheme based on recipients' geographic distance from a deceased donor (acuity circles [ACs]). Previous analyses suggested that ACs would reduce waitlist mortality overall, but their impact on pediatric subgroups was not considered. Methods. We applied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2011 to 2016 toward the Liver Simulated Allocation Model to compare outcomes by age and illness severity for the United Network for Organ Sharing-approved AC and the existing donor service area-/region-based allocation schemes. Means from each allocation scheme were compared using matched-pairs t tests. Results. During a 3-year period, AC allocation is projected to decrease waitlist deaths in infants (39 versus 55; P < 0.001), children (32 versus 50; P < 0.001), and teenagers (15 versus 25; P < 0.001). AC allocation would increase the number of transplants in infants (707 versus 560; P < 0.001), children (677 versus 547; P < 0.001), and teenagers (404 versus 248; P < 0.001). AC allocation led to decreased median pediatric end-stage liver disease/model for end-stage liver disease at transplant for infants (29 versus 30; P = 0.01), children (26 versus 29; P < 0.001), and teenagers (26 versus 31; P < 0.001). Additionally, AC allocation would lead to fewer transplants in status 1B in children (97 versus 103; P = 0.006) but not infants or teenagers. With AC allocation, 77% of pediatric donor organs would be allocated to pediatric candidates, compared to only 46% in donor service area-/region-based allocation (P < 0.001). Conclusions. AC allocation will likely address disparities for pediatric liver transplant candidates and recipients by increasing transplants and decreasing waitlist mortality. It is more consistent with federally mandated requirements for organ allocation.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088886073&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85088886073&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/TP.0000000000003079
DO - 10.1097/TP.0000000000003079
M3 - Article
C2 - 32732840
AN - SCOPUS:85088886073
SN - 0041-1337
VL - 104
SP - 1627
EP - 1632
JO - Transplantation
JF - Transplantation
IS - 8
ER -