Cost Analysis of Liver Acquisition Fees Before and After Acuity Circle Policy Implementation

A cost comparison of liver acquisition fees for donation after circulatory death versus donation after brain death donors

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors now represent over 30% of the deceased donor pool in the United States. Compared to donation after brain death, DCD is less likely to result in transplantation. For each potential donor whose organs cannot be utilized for transplantation (ie, dry run), fees are associated with the attempted donation, which add to the overall costs of organ acquisition. To better characterize the true costs of DCD liver acquisition, we performed a cost comparison of the fees associated with organ acquisition for DCD versus donation after brain death at a single transplant institute that comprises 2 liver transplant centers. Cost, recipient, and transportation data for all cases, including fees associated with liver acquisition from July 1, 2019, to October 31, 2021, were collected. We found that the total cost of DCD liver acquisition per liver transplant was $15,029 more than that for donation after brain death donation, with 18% of the costs of the DCD transplant attributed to dry runs. Overall, the costs associated with DCD transplantation accounted for 34.5% of the total organ acquisition costs; however, DCD transplantation accounted for 30.3% of the transplantation volume. Because the expansion of DCD is essential to increasing the availability of liver grafts for transplantation, strategies need to be implemented to decrease the costs associated with dry runs, including using local recovery, transferring donors to hospitals close to transplant centers, and performing more prerecovery organ analysis. Moreover, these strategies are needed to ensure that financial disincentives to DCD procurement and utilization do not reverse the gains made by expanding the organ donor pool using machine perfusion technologies.

Liver Transplant Costs and Activity After United Network for Organ Sharing Allocation Policy Changes

Importance

A new liver allocation policy was implemented by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) in February 2020 with the stated intent of improving access to liver transplant (LT). There are growing concerns nationally regarding the implications this new system may have on LT costs, as well as access to a chance for LT, which have not been captured at a multicenter level.

Objective

To characterize LT volume and cost changes across the US and within specific center groups and demographics after the policy implementation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study collected and reviewed LT volume from multiple centers across the US and cost data with attention to 8 specific center demographics. Two separate 12-month eras were compared, before and after the new UNOS allocation policy: March 4, 2019, to March 4, 2020, and March 5, 2020, to March 5, 2021. Data analysis was performed from May to December 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Center volume, changes in cost.

Results

A total of 22 of 68 centers responded comparing 1948 LTs before the policy change and 1837 LTs postpolicy, resulting in a 6% volume decrease. Transplants using local donations after brain death decreased 54% (P < .001) while imported donations after brain death increased 133% (P = .003). Imported fly-outs and dry runs increased 163% (median, 19; range, 1-75, vs 50, range, 2-91; P = .009) and 33% (median, 3; range, 0-16, vs 7, range, 0-24; P = .02). Overall hospital costs increased 10.9% to a total of $46 360 176 (P = .94) for participating centers. There was a 77% fly-out cost increase postpolicy ($10 600 234; P = .03). On subanalysis, centers with decreased LT volume postpolicy observed higher overall hospital costs ($41 720 365; P = .048), and specifically, a 122% cost increase for liver imports ($6 508 480; P = .002). Transplant centers from low-income states showed a significant increase in hospital (12%) and import (94%) costs. Centers serving populations with larger proportions of racial and ethnic minority candidates and specifically Black candidates significantly increased costs by more than 90% for imported livers, fly-outs, and dry runs despite lower LT volume. Similarly, costs increased significantly (>100%) for fly-outs and dry runs in centers from worse-performing health systems.

Conclusions and Relevance

Based on this large multicenter effort and contrary to current assumptions, the new liver distribution system appears to place a disproportionate burden on populations of the current LT community who already experience disparities in health care. The continuous allocation policies being promoted by UNOS could make the situation even worse.

Safety and use of late-turndown liver allografts to increase rate of transplantation

BACKGROUND

The demand for liver transplants (LT) in the United States far surpasses the availability of allografts. New allocation schemes have resulted in occasional difficulties with allograft placement and increased intraoperative turndowns. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes related to use of late-turndown liver allografts.

METHODS

A review of prospectively collected data of LTs at a single center from July 2019 to July 2023 was performed. Late-turndown placement was defined as an open offer 6 h prior to donation, intraoperative turndown by primary center, or post-cross-clamp turndown.

RESULTS

Of 565 LTs, 25.1% (n = 142) received a late-turndown liver allograft. There were no significant differences in recipient age, gender, BMI, or race (all p > 0.05), but MELD was lower for the late-turndown LT recipient group (median 15 vs 21, p < 0.001). No difference in 30-day, 6-month, or 1-year survival was noted on logistic regression, and no difference in patient or graft survival was noted on Cox proportional hazard regression. Late-turndown utilization increased during the study from 17.2% to 25.8%, and median waitlist time decreased from 77 days in 2019 to 18 days in 2023 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Use of late-turndown livers has increased and can increase transplant rates without compromising post-transplant outcomes with appropriate selection.

2023 Clinical Update in Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation continues to provide life-saving treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease. Advances in the field of transplant anesthesia continue to support the care of more complex patients. The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has been described in critical care settings and cardiac surgery but may be a valuable option for specific conditions for patients undergoing liver transplantation. Changes to the allocation process for liver grafts now focus on acuity circles to reduce regional disparities. As the number of life-saving transplant surgeries increases, so does the need for specialty knowledge in the anesthetic considerations of these procedures. The specialty of transplant anesthesia continues to grow and develop to meet the demands of complex patients and the increased number of transplants performed. Liver transplantation can be a resource-demanding procedure, and predicting the need for massive transfusion can aid in planning and preparing for significant blood loss.

Post-transplant outcomes and financial burden of donation after circulatory death donor liver transplant after the implementation of acuity circle policy

BACKGROUND

After implementation of the Acuity Circles (AC) allocation policy, use of DCD liver grafts has increased in the United States.

METHODS

We evaluated the impact of AC on rates of DCD-liver transplants (LT), their outcomes, and medical costs in a single practice. Adult LT patients were classified into three eras: Era 1 (pre-AC, 1/01/2015-12/31/2017); Era 2 (late pre-AC era, 1/01/2018-02/03/2020); and Era 3 (AC era, 05/10/2020-09/30/2021).

RESULTS

A total of 520 eligible LTs were performed; 87 were DCD, and 433 were DBD. With each successive era, the proportion of DCD increased (Era 1: 11%; Era 2: 20%; Era 3: 24%; p < .001). DCD recipients had longer ICU stays, higher re-admission/re-operation rates, and higher incidence of ischemic cholangiopathy compared to those with DBD. Direct, surgical, and ICU costs during first admission were higher with DCD than DBD (+8.0%, p < .001; +4.2%, p < .001; and +33.3%, p = .001). DCD-related costs increased after Era 1 (Direct: +4.9% [Era 2 vs. 1] and +12.4% [Era 3 vs. 1], p = .04; Surgical: +17.7% and +21.7%, p < .001). In the AC era, there was a significantly higher proportion of donors ≥50 years, and more national organ sharing. Compared to DCD from donors <50 years, DCD from donors ≥50 years was associated with significantly higher total direct, surgical, and ICU costs (+12.6%, p = .01; +9.5%, p = .01; +84.6%, p = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of DCD-LT, especially from older donors, has increased after the implementation of AC policies. These changes are likely to be associated with higher costs in the AC era.

The history of ethical principles in liver transplant organ allocation in the United States: how historical and proposed allocations system fare in balancing utility vs. urgency and justice vs. pragmatism

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The United States (US) liver transplant community is processing changes to the allocation system and developing a new proposal that will result in even greater change. This review evaluates the ethical implications of these decisions, focusing on two sets of competing ethical principles (Urgency vs. Utility and Justice vs. Pragmatism).

RECENT FINDINGS

About four years ago, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) implemented the Acuity Circle Model to replace the geographic boundaries of organ procurement organizations (OPOs). Here, we review how effectively this model reduced regional variation in access and improved waitlist survival. Likewise, the OPTN is planning to transition to a continuous distribution model which will redefine the scoring systems for allocation. We will discuss how the ethical priorities discussed above should be considered while developing the new system.

SUMMARY

Every change in organ allocation policy must balance competing ethical imperatives. Although our community's emphasis on urgency over utility is appropriate, we should study the potential benefits of considering utility in the system. Meanwhile, our push for more Justice in the system should remain our imperative and Pragmatism should only be considered to minimize the costs of these changes.

The effects of acuity circle policy on racial disparity in liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

A new deceased donor liver allocation policy using an acuity circle-based model was implemented with the goal of providing equitable access to liver transplantation. We assessed the effect of the acuity circle policy on racial disparities in liver transplantation by analyzing waitlist mortality, transplant probability, and post-transplant outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 23,717 adult liver transplantation candidates listed during the pre-acuity circle period and 21,051 during the post-acuity circle period (N = 44,768) in the United Network for Organ Sharing database from February 2020 to December 2021.

RESULTS

Acuity circle-policy implementation was not associated with any significant difference in 90-day waitlist mortality but increased the 90-day probability of all candidates. Implementation did not decrease 90-day waitlist mortality but increased the 90-day transplant probability for all patients. One-year patient and liver graft survival were comparable between the study periods for all recipients, but Black recipients had higher rates of 1-year post-liver transplantation mortality and liver graft failure in both periods.

CONCLUSION

Although the implementation of the acuity circle policy is associated with an increase in transplant probability in White, Black, and Hispanic liver transplantation candidates, it did not change their waitlist mortality, nor did it lead to any improvement in the preexistent worse post-transplant outcomes in Black liver transplantation recipients.

Non-invasive evaluation of hepatic macrosteatosis in deceased donors

INTRODUCTION

Liver allocation changes have led to increased travel and expenditures, highlighting the need to efficiently identify marginal livers suitable for transplant. We evaluated the validity of existing non-invasive liver quality tests and a novel machine learning-based model at predicting deceased donor macrosteatosis >30%.

METHODS

We compared previously-validated non-invasive tests and a novel machine learning-based model to biopsies in predicting macrosteatosis >30%. We also tested them in populations enriched for macrosteatosis.

RESULTS

The Hepatic Steatosis Index area-under-the-curve (AUC) was 0.56. At the threshold identified by Youden's J statistic, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were 49.6%, 58.9%, 14.0%, and 89.7%. Other tests demonstrated comparable results. Machine learning produced the highest AUC (0.71). Even in populations enriched for macrosteatosis, no test was sufficiently predictive.

CONCLUSION

Commonly used clinical scoring systems and a novel machine learning-based model were not clinically useful, highlighting the importance of pre-procurement biopsies to facilitate allocation.

Global liver transplantation: emerging trends and ethical challenges

PURPOSE

Liver transplant (LT) is the only definitive treatment for end-stage liver disease (ESLD). This review aims to explore current global LT practices, with an emphasis on challenges and disparities that limit access to LT in different regions of the world.

METHODS

A detailed analysis was performed of present-day liver transplant practices throughout the world, including the etiology of liver disease, patient access to transplantation, surgical costs, and ongoing ethical concerns.

RESULTS

Annually, only 10% of the patients needing a liver transplant receive an organ. Currently, the USA performs the highest volume of liver transplants worldwide, followed by China and Brazil. In both North America and Europe, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is becoming the most common indication for LT, compared to hepatitis B and C in most Asian, South American, and African countries. While deceased donor liver transplant remains the most performed type of LT, living donor liver transplant is becoming increasingly popular in some parts of the world where it is often the only option due to a lack of well-developed infrastructure for deceased organ donation. Ethical concerns in liver transplantation fundamentally revolve around the definition of a deceased donor and the exploitation of living donor liver donation systems.

CONCLUSION

Globally, liver transplant practices and outcomes are varied, with differences driven by healthcare policies, inequities in healthcare access, and ethical concerns.

Geographic disparities in access to liver transplantation

Since the Final Rule regarding transplantation was published in 1999, organ distribution policies have been implemented to reduce geographic disparity. While a recent change in liver allocation, termed acuity circles, eliminated the donor service area as a unit of distribution to decrease the geographic disparity of waitlisted patients to liver transplantation, recently published results highlight the complexity of addressing geographic disparity. From geographic variation in donor supply, as well as liver disease burden and differing model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores of candidates and MELD scores necessary to receive liver transplantation, to the urban-rural disparity in specialty care access, and to neighborhood deprivation (community measure of socioeconomic status) in liver transplant access, addressing disparities of access will require a multipronged approach at the patient, transplant center, and national level. Herein, we review the current knowledge of these disparities-from variation in larger (regional) to smaller (census tract or zip code) levels to the common etiologies of liver disease, which are particularly affected by these geographic boundaries. The geographic disparity in liver transplant access must balance the limited organ supply with the growing demand. We must identify patient-level factors that contribute to their geographic disparity and incorporate these findings at the transplant center level to develop targeted interventions. We must simultaneously work at the national level to standardize and share patient data (including socioeconomic status and geographic social deprivation indices) to better understand the factors that contribute to the geographic disparity. The complex interplay between organ distribution policy, referral patterns, and variable waitlisting practices with the proportion of high MELD patients and differences in potential donor supply must all be considered to create a national policy strategy to address the inequities in the system.

Reassessing the survival benefit of deceased donor liver transplantation: retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Currently in the United States, deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) allocation priority is based on the model for end-stage liver disease including sodium (MELD-Na) score. The United Network for organ sharing's 'Share-15' policy states that candidates with MELD-Na scores of 15 or greater have priority to receive local organ offers compared to candidates with lower MELD-Na scores. Since the inception of this policy, major changes in the primary etiologies of end-stage liver disease have occurred and previous assumptions need to be recalibrated.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively analyzed the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database between 2012 and 2021 to determine life years saved by DDLT at each interval of MELD-Na score and the time-to-equal risk and time-to-equal survival versus remaining on the waitlist. The authors stratified our analysis by MELD exception points, primary disease etiology, and MELD score.

RESULTS

On aggregate, compared to remaining on the waitlist, a significant 1-year survival advantage of DDLT at MELD-Na scores as low as 12 was found. The median life years saved at this score after a liver transplant was estimated to be greater than 9 years. While the total life years saved were comparable across all MELD-Na scores, the time-to-equal risk and time-to-equal survival decreased exponentially as MELD-Na scores increased.

CONCLUSION

Herein, the authors challenge the perception as to the timing of DDLT and when that benefit occurs. The national liver allocation policy is transitioning to a continuous distribution framework and these data will be instrumental to defining the attributes of the continuos allocation score.

Logistical burden of offers and allocation inefficiency in circle-based liver allocation

Recent changes to liver allocation replaced donor service areas with circles as the geographic unit of allocation. Circle-based allocation might increase the number of transplantation centers and candidates required to place a liver, thereby increasing the logistical burden of making and responding to offers on organ procurement organizations and transplantation centers. Circle-based allocation might also increase distribution time and cold ischemia time (CIT), particularly in densely populated areas of the country, thereby decreasing allocation efficiency. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data from 2019 to 2021, we evaluated the number of transplantation centers and candidates required to place livers in the precircles and postcircles eras, nationally and by donor region. Compared with the precircles era, livers were offered to more candidates (5 vs. 9; p  < 0.001) and centers (3 vs. 5; p  < 0.001) before being accepted; more centers were involved in the match run by offer number 50 (9 vs. 14; p  < 0.001); CIT increased by 0.2 h (5.9 h vs. 6.1 h; p  < 0.001); and distribution time increased by 2.0 h (30.6 h vs. 32.6 h; p  < 0.001). Increased burden varied geographically by donor region; livers recovered in Region 9 were offered to many more candidates (4 vs. 12; p  < 0.001) and centers (3 vs. 8; p  < 0.001) before being accepted, resulting in the largest increase in CIT (5.4 h vs. 6.0 h; p  < 0.001). Circle-based allocation is associated with increased logistical burdens that are geographically heterogeneous. Continuous distribution systems will have to be carefully designed to avoid exacerbating this problem.

Perceptions and Early Outcomes of the Acuity Circles Allocation Policy Among Liver Transplant Centers in the United States

Recently, a new liver allocation policy called the acuity circles (AC) framework was implemented to decrease geographic disparities in transplant metrics across donor service areas. Early analyses have examined the changes in outcomes because of the AC policy. However, perceptions among transplant surgeons and staff regarding the new policy remain unknown.

Methods

A 28-item survey was sent to division chiefs and surgical directors of liver transplantation across the United States. Questions assessed the respondents' perceptions regarding center-level metrics and staff satisfaction. We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data to study differences in allocation between the pre-AC implementation period (2019) and the post-AC implementation period (2020-2021).

Results

A total of 40 participants completed this ongoing survey study. Most responses were from region 8 (13%), region 10 (15%), and region 11 (13%). Sixty-three percent of respondents stated that the wait time for a suitable offer for recipients with model of end-stage liver disease score <30 has decreased, whereas 50% stated that wait time for a suitable offer for recipients with model of end-stage liver disease score >30 has increased. However, most respondents (75%) felt that the average cost per transplant had increased and that the rate of surgical complications and 1-y graft survival had remained the same. In most states, an observable decrease in in-state liver transplantations occurred each year between 2019 and 2021. In addition, most allocation regions reported an increase in donations after circulatory deaths between 2019 and 2021.

Conclusions

Perceptions of the new AC policy among liver transplant surgeons in the United States remain mixed, highlighting the potential strengths and concerns regarding its future impact. Further studies should assess the effects of the AC policy on clinical outcomes and liver transplantation access.

Single-center analysis of organ offers and workload for liver and kidney allocation

The volume of abdominal organ offers received by the Baylor Simmons Transplant Institute has increased over time, resulting in a higher workload for our donor call team. To quantify the increase in organ offers, determine the characteristics of these offers, and estimate the impact on our transplant center workload, we collected center-specific organ offer data from May 2019 to July 2021 using the UNOS Center Acceptance and Refusal Evaluation Report and performed a time study that collected the number of communications and time spent on communications for organ offers made during a typical week. The total offers per month increased by 140% (270/month to 648/month), while the number of transplanted organs remained stable. In addition, the percentage of offers for organs that were never transplanted increased from 54% to 75%. In a representative week-long time study, surgeons made 505, center coordinators 590, and answering service coordinators 318 distinct communications, averaging 3, 4, and 2 communications/hour. Between November 2019 and July 2021, offer-related workload increased by an estimated 97%. These results demonstrate a sizeable inefficiency in abdominal organ allocation associated with a nonrecoverable cost to our transplant center.

Disparities in the Effects of Acuity Circle-based Liver Allocation on Waitlist and Transplant Practice Between Centers

Liver allocation in the United States was updated on February 4, 2020, by introducing the acuity circle (AC)–based model. This study evaluated the early effects of the AC-based allocation on waitlist outcomes.

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.

Trends and Outcomes of Hypothermic Machine Perfusion Preservation of Kidney Allografts in Simultaneous Liver and Kidney Transplantation in the United States

Optimal kidney graft outcomes after simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplant may be threatened by the increased cold ischemia time and hemodynamic perturbations of dual organ transplantation. Hypothermic machine perfusion (MP) of kidney allografts may mitigate these effects. We analyzed U.S. trends and renal outcomes of hypothermic non-oxygenated MP vs. static cold storage (CS) of kidney grafts from 6,689 SLK transplants performed between 2005 and 2020 using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Outcomes included delayed graft function (DGF), primary non-function (PNF), and kidney graft survival (GS). Overall, 17.2% of kidney allografts were placed on MP. Kidney cold ischemia time was longer in the MP group (median 12.8 vs. 10.0 h; p < 0.001). Nationally, MP utilization in SLK increased from <3% in 2005 to >25% by 2019. Center preference was the primary determinant of whether a graft underwent MP vs. CS (intraclass correlation coefficient 65.0%). MP reduced DGF (adjusted OR 0.74; p = 0.008), but not PNF (p = 0.637). Improved GS with MP was only observed with Kidney Donor Profile Index <20% (HR 0.71; p = 0.030). Kidney MP has increased significantly in SLK in the U.S. in a heterogeneous manner and with variable short-term benefits. Additional studies are needed to determine the ideal utilization for MP in SLK.