Migration of Patients for Liver Transplantation and Waitlist Outcomes

Liver transplantation access and outcomes: Impact of variations in liver-specific specialty care

BACKGROUND

We sought to characterize the impact access to gastroenterologists/hepatologists has on liver transplantation listing, as well as time on the liver transplantation waitlist and post-transplant outcomes.

METHODS

Liver transplantation registrants aged >18 years between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2019 were identified from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Standard Analytic Files. The liver transplantation registration ratio was defined as the ratio of liver transplant waitlist registrations in a given county per 1,000 liver-related deaths.

RESULTS

A total of 150,679 liver transplantation registrants were included. Access to liver transplantation centers and liver-specific specialty physicians varied markedly throughout the United States. Of note, the liver transplantation registration ratio was lower in counties with poor access to liver-specific care versus counties with adequate access (poor access 137.2, interquartile range 117.8-163.2 vs adequate access 157.6, interquartile range 127.3-192.2, P < .001). Among patients referred for liver transplantation, the cumulative incidence of waitlist mortality and post-transplant graft survival was comparable among patients with poor versus adequate access to liver-specific care (both P > .05). Among liver transplantation recipients living in areas with poor access, after controlling for recipient and donor characteristics, cold ischemic time, and model for end-stage liver disease score, the area deprivation index predicted graft survival (referent, low area deprivation index; medium area deprivation index, hazard ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.03-12.23; high area deprivation index, 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.01-12.09, both P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Poor access to liver-specific care was associated with a reduction in liver transplantation registration, and individuals residing in counties with high social deprivation had worse graft survival among patients living in counties with poor access to liver-specific care.

Prolonged travel time to transplantation center is associated with poor outcomes following heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

This study aims to examine the impact of home-to-transplantation center travel time as a potential barrier to healthcare accessibility.

METHODS

Observational study examined adult heart transplant recipients who received a graft between 2012 and 2022 in the United States. Travel time was calculated using the Google Distance Matrix API between the recipient's residence and transplantation center. A multivariable parametric survival model was fitted to minimize confounding bias.

RESULTS

Among the 25,923 recipients that met the selection criteria, the median travel time was 51 ​min and 95 ​% of recipients lived within a 5-h radius of their center. White recipients experienced longer median travel times (62 ​min, p ​< ​0.001) compared to Black (36 ​min) or Hispanic (40 ​min) recipients. A travel time of 1-2 ​h (survival time ratio [STR] 0.867, p ​= ​0.035) or >2 ​h (STR 0.873, p ​= ​0.026) away from the transplantation center was independently associated with lower long-term survival rates.

CONCLUSION

Extended travel times to transplantation centers may negatively impact long-term survival outcomes for heart transplant recipients, suggesting the need to address this potential barrier to healthcare accessibility.

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.

Actionable Solutions to Achieve Health Equity in Chronic Liver Disease

There are well-described racial and ethnic disparities in the burden of chronic liver diseases. Hispanic persons are at highest risk for developing nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, the fastest growing cause of liver disease. Hepatitis B disproportionately affects persons of Asian or African descent. The highest rates of hepatitis C occur in American Indian and Alaskan Native populations. In addition to disparities in disease burden, there are also marked racial and ethnic disparities in access to treatments, including liver transplantation. Disparities also exist by gender and geography, especially in alcohol-related liver disease. To achieve health equity, we must address the root causes that drive these inequities. Understanding the role that social determinants of health play in the disparate health outcomes that are currently observed is critically important. We must forge and/or strengthen collaborations between patients, community members, other key stakeholders, health care providers, health care institutions, professional societies, and legislative bodies. Herein, we provide a high-level review of current disparities in chronic liver disease and describe actionable strategies that have potential to bridge gaps, improve quality, and promote equity in liver care.

Limitations of current liver donor allocation systems and the impact of newer indications for liver transplantation

Liver transplantation represents a life-saving treatment for patients with decompensated cirrhosis, a severe condition associated with a high risk of waiting list mortality. When decompensation occurs rapidly in the presence of extrahepatic organ failures, the condition is called acute-on-chronic liver failure, which is associated with an even higher risk of death, though liver transplantation can also markedly improve survival in affected patients. However, there are still gaps in our understanding of how to optimise prioritisation and organ allocation, as well as survival among patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (both before and after transplant). Moreover, it is urgent to address inequalities in access to liver transplantation in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Several controversies still exist regarding gender and regional disparities, as well as the use of suboptimal donor grafts. In this review, we aim to provide a critical perspective on the role of liver transplantation in patients with decompensated cirrhosis and address areas of ongoing uncertainty.

Patient Travel Distance and Post Lung Transplant Survival in the United States: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

In response to a longstanding Federal mandate to minimize the role of geography in access to transplant in the United States, we assessed whether patient travel distance was associated with lung transplant outcomes. We focused on the posttransplant time period, when the majority of patient visits to a transplant center occur.

METHODS

We present a cohort study of lung transplants in the United States between January 1, 2006, and May 31, 2017. Travel distance was measured from the patient's permanent home zip code to the transplant center using SAS URL access to GoogleMaps. We leveraged data from the US Census, US Department of Agriculture, and the Economic Innovations Group to assess socioeconomic status. Multivariable Cox models were used to assess graft survival.

RESULTS

We included 18 128 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Median distance was 69.6 miles. Among patients who traveled >60 miles to reach a transplant center, 41.8% bypassed a closer center and sought care at a more distant center. Patients traveling longer distances sought care at centers with a higher annual transplant volume. In the adjusted Cox Model, patients who traveled >360 miles had a slightly higher risk for posttransplant graft failure than patients traveling ≤60 miles (hazard ratio 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.18), and a higher risk for treated acute rejection (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Travel distance was significantly associated with post lung transplant survival. However, this effect was relatively modest. Patient travel distance is an important component of access to lung transplant care.

Lung transplant waitlist outcomes in the United States and patient travel distance

There is a broad range of patient travel distances to reach a lung transplant hospital in the United States. Whether patient travel distance is associated with waitlist outcomes is unknown. We present a cohort study of patients listed between January 1, 2006 and May 31, 2017 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Travel distance was measured from the patient's permanent zip code to the transplant hospital using shared access signature URL access to Google Maps, and assessed using multivariable competing risk regression models. There were 22 958 patients who met inclusion criteria. Median travel distance was 69.7 miles. Among patients who traveled > 60 miles, 41.2% bypassed a closer hospital and sought listing at a more distant hospital. In the adjusted models, when compared to patients who traveled ≤60 miles, patients who traveled >360 miles had a 27% lower subhazard ratio (SHR) for waitlist removal (SHR 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60, 0.89, P = .002), 16% lower subhazard for waitlist death (SHR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73-0.95, P = .07), and 13% increased likelihood for transplant (SHR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.20, P < .001). Many patients bypassed the nearest transplant hospital, and longer patient travel distance was associated with favorable waitlist outcomes.