Decade-Long Trends in Liver Transplant Waitlist Removal Due to Illness Severity: The Impact of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Policy. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:1054-1065. [PMID: 27178368 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.03.021]

The Spread Pattern of New Practice in Liver Transplantation in the United States

BACKGROUND

Introducing new liver transplantation (LT) practices, like unconventional donor use, incurs higher costs, making evaluation of their prognostic justification crucial. This study reexamines the spread pattern of new LT practices and its prognosis across the United States.

METHODS

The study investigated the spread pattern of new practices using the UNOS database (2014-2023). Practices included LT for hepatitis B/C (HBV/HCV) nonviremic recipients with viremic donors, LT for COVID-19-positive recipients, and LT using onsite machine perfusion (OMP). One year post-LT patient and graft survival were also evaluated.

RESULTS

LTs using HBV/HCV donors were common in the East, while LTs for COVID-19 recipients and those using OMP started predominantly in California, Arizona, Texas, and the Northeast. K-means cluster analysis identified three adoption groups: facilities with rapid, slow, and minimal adoption rates. Rapid adoption occurred mainly in high-volume centers, followed by a gradual increase in middle-volume centers, with little increase in low-volume centers. The current spread patterns did not significantly affect patient survival. Specifically, for LTs with HCV donors or COVID-19 recipients, patient and graft survivals in the rapid-increasing group was comparable to others. In LTs involving OMP, the rapid- or slow-increasing groups tended to have better patient survival (p = 0.05) and significantly improved graft survival rates (p = 0.02). Facilities adopting new practices often overlap across different practices.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis revealed three distinct adoption groups across all practices, correlating the adoption aggressiveness with LT volume in centers. Aggressive adoption of new practices did not compromise patient and graft survivals, supporting the current strategy. Understanding historical trends could predict the rise in future LT cases with new practices, aiding in resource distribution.

Sarcopenia in chronic advanced liver diseases: A sex-oriented analysis of the literature

Sarcopenia, defined as progressive and generalized loss of muscle mass and strength, is common in chronic liver disease. It significantly impacts the quality of life and increases the risk of liver-related complications and mortality in cirrhotic patients. Moreover, recent studies showed a negative impact of sarcopenia on patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT), on post-LT outcomes, and on response to hepatocellular carcinoma therapies. Data about the influence of sex on the incidence, prevalence, diagnosis and treatment of sarcopenia in chronic liver diseases are poor and conflicting. The aims of this review of the literature are to define sex differences in sarcopenic cirrhotic patients and to highlight the necessity of a sex stratified analysis in future studies. This analysis of the literature showed that most of the studies are retrospective, with a higher prevalence of sarcopenia in males, probably due to anatomical differences between the sexes. Moreover, diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia are different between studies, as there is not a defined cut-off and, as a consequence, no comparable results. In conclusion, sex seems to have an impact on sarcopenia, and future studies must accurately investigate its role in identifying and treating high-risk patients, reducing the negative impact of sarcopenia on the survival and quality of life of cirrhotic patients.

Associations Among Different Domains of Quality Among US Liver Transplant Programs

Importance

US liver transplant programs have traditionally been evaluated on 1-year patient and graft survival. However, there is concern that a narrow focus on recipient outcomes may not incentivize programs to improve in other ways that would benefit patients with end-stage liver disease.

Objective

To determine the correlation among different potential domains of quality for adult liver transplant programs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study was conducted from 2014 to 2019 among adult liver transplant programs included in the United Network for Organ Sharing and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients program-specific reports. Liver transplant programs in the United States completing at least 10 liver transplants per year were included. Data were analyzed from March 2 to August 13, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The potential domains of quality examined included recipient outcomes (1-year graft and patient survival), aggressiveness (ie, marginal graft use, defined as the rate of use of donors with body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared] greater than 40, age older than 65 years, or deceased by cardiac death), and waiting list management (ie, waiting list mortality). The correlation among measures, aggregated at the center level, was evaluated using linear regression to control for mean Model for End Stage Liver Disease-Sodium score at organ allocation. The extent to which programs were able to achieve high quality across multiple domains was also evaluated.

Results

Among 114 transplant programs that performed a total of 44 554 transplants, the mean (SD) 1-year graft and patient survival was 90.3% (3.0%) with a total range of 75.9% to 96.6%. The mean (SD) waiting list mortality rate was 16.7 (6.1) deaths per 100 person-years, with a total range of 6.3 to 53.0 deaths per 100 person years. The mean (SD) marginal graft use rate was 15.8 (8.8) donors per 100 transplants, with a total range of 0 to 49.3 donors. There was no correlation between 1-year graft and patient survival and waiting list mortality (β = -0.053; P = .19) or marginal graft use (β = -0.007; P = .84) after correcting for mean allocation Model for End Stage Liver Disease-Sodium scores. There were 2 transplant programs (1.8%) that performed in the top quartile on all 3 measures, while 4 transplant programs (3.6%) performed in the bottom quartile on all 3 measures.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that among US liver transplant programs, there were no correlations among 1-year recipient outcomes, measures of program aggressiveness, or waiting list management. These findings suggest that a program's performance in one domain may be independent and unrelated to its performance on others and that the understanding of factors contributing to these domains is incomplete.

Association of low center performance evaluations and pediatric heart transplant center behavior in the United States

BACKGROUND

To date, no study has evaluated the effects of low center performance evaluations (CPE) on pediatric heart transplant center behavior. We sought to assess the impact of low CPE flags on pediatric heart transplant center listing and transplant volumes and center recipient and donor characteristics.

METHODS

We included centers performing at least 10 pediatric (age <18 years) transplants during the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients reporting period January 2009-June 2011 and evaluated consecutive biannual program specific reports until the last reporting period January 2016-June 2018. We evaluated changes in center behavior at following time points: a year before flagging, a year and two years after the flag; and at last reporting period.

RESULTS

During our study period, 24 pediatric centers were non-flagged and 6 were flagged. Compared to non-flagged centers, there was a decline in candidate listings in flagged centers at the last reporting period (mean increase of 5.5 ± 12.4 listings vs"?> mean decrease of 14.0 ± 14.9 listings; p = .003). Similarly, the number of transplants declined in flagged centers (mean increase of 2.6 ± 9.6 transplants vs"?> mean decrease of 10.0 ± 12.8 transplants; p = .012). Flagged centers had declines in listings for patients with restrictive cardiomyopathy, re-transplant, renal dysfunction, those on mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. There was no significant change in donor characteristics between flagged and non-flagged centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Low CPE may have unintended negative consequences on center behavior leading to declines in listing and transplant volumes and potentially leading to decreased listing for higher risk recipients.

Can reporting more lead to less? The role of metrics in assessing liver transplant program performance

Appropriate metrics for performance analysis is an active topic of debate within the transplant community. This study explores current proposals on metric expansion as well as potential metrics and prospective collaborations that have not received widespread discussion within the transplant community. The premature introduction of additional, nonvalidated metrics risks behaviors that may undermine donor utilization and patient access to transplantation.

Impact of recipient functional status on 1-year liver transplant outcomes

BACKGROUND

The Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scale has been widely validated for clinical practice for over 60 years.

AIM

To examine the extent to which poor pre-transplant functional status, assessed using the KPS scale, is associated with increased risk of mortality and/or graft failure at 1-year post-transplantation.

METHODS

This study included 38278 United States adults who underwent first, non-urgent, liver-only transplantation from 2005 to 2014 (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). Functional impairment/disability was categorized as severe, moderate, or none/normal. Analyses were conducted using multivariable-adjusted Cox survival regression models.

RESULTS

The median age was 56 years, 31% were women, median pre-transplant Model for End-Stage for Liver Disease score was 18. Functional impairment was present in 70%; one-quarter of the sample was severely disabled. After controlling for key recipient and donor factors, moderately and severely disabled patients had a 1-year mortality rate of 1.32 [confidence interval (CI): 1.21-1.44] and 1.73 (95%CI: 1.56-1.91) compared to patients with no impairment, respectively. Subjects with moderate and severe disability also had a multivariable-adjusted 1-year graft failure rate of 1.13 (CI: 1.02-1.24) and 1.16 (CI: 1.02-1.31), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Pre-transplant functional status is a useful prognostic indicator for 1-year post-transplant patient and graft survival.

Poor Performance Flagging Is Associated With Fewer Transplantations at Centers Flagged Multiple Times

BACKGROUND

Lung transplantation outcomes are heavily scrutinized, given the high stakes of these operations, yet the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) method of using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) risk-adjusted outcomes to identify underperforming centers is controversial. We hypothesized that CMS flagging results in conservative behavior for recipient and organ selection, resulting in fewer patients added to the waitlist and fewer transplantations performed.

METHODS

SRTR reports from July 2012 through July 2017 were included. Center characteristics were compared, stratified by number of flagging events. The impact of flagging for underperformance on risk aversion outcomes was analyzed using a mixed-effects regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 72 centers had reported SRTR data during the study period. Of these, 21 centers (29%) met flagging criteria a median of 2 times (interquartile range, 1 to 4 times) for a total of 53 events. Flagging had no statistically significant impact on waitlist or transplantation volume and patient selection by mixed-effects modeling. Despite similar average expected 1-year survival (86.6% versus 87.7%, p = 0.27), centers that were flagged only once added more patients per year to the waitlist (16.3 patients versus 7.8 patients, p = 0.01) and performed more transplantations per year (28.4 transplantations versus 11.1 transplantations, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis defines center-level trends in lung transplantation after CMS flagging. Contrary to our primary hypothesis, flagging did not result in temporal center-level changes. However, programs on prolonged probation demonstrated reduced activity, which likely indicates a shift to higher performing centers.

Expanding clarity or confusion? Volatility of the 5-tier ratings assessing quality of transplant centers in the United States

Outcomes of patients receiving solid organ transplants in the United States are systematically aggregated into bi-annual Program-Specific Reports (PSRs) detailing risk-adjusted survival by transplant center. Recently, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) issued 5-tier ratings evaluating centers based on risk-adjusted 1-year graft survival. Our primary aim was to examine the reliability of 5-tier ratings over time. Using 10 consecutive PSRs for adult kidney transplant centers from June 2012 to December 2016 (n = 208), we applied 5-tier ratings to center outcomes and evaluated ratings over time. From the baseline period (June 2012), 47% of centers had at least a 1-unit tier change within 6 months, 66% by 1 year, and 94% by 3 years. Similarly, 46% of centers had at least a 2-unit tier change by 3 years. In comparison, 15% of centers had a change in the traditional 3-tier rating at 3 years. The 5-tier ratings at 4 years had minimal association with baseline rating (Kappa 0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.002 to 0.158). Centers had a median of 3 different 5-tier ratings over the period (q1 = 2, q3 = 4). Findings were consistent for center volume, transplant rate, and baseline 5-tier rating. Cumulatively, results suggest that 5-tier ratings are highly volatile, limiting their utility for informing potential stakeholders, particularly transplant candidates given expected waiting times between wait listing and transplantation.

Rapid Recovery of Liver Transplantation Recipients by Implementation of Fast-Track Care Steps: What Is Holding Us Back?

A body of scientific studies has shown that early extubation is safe and cost-effective in a large number of liver transplant (LT) recipients including pediatric patients. However, fast-track practices are not universally accepted, and debate still lingers about whether these interventions are safe and serve the patients' best interest. In this article, we focus on reasons why physicians still have a persistent, although diminishing, reluctance to adopt fast-track protocols. We stress the importance of collection/analysis of perioperative data, adoption of a consensus-based standardized protocol for perioperative care, and formation of LT anesthesia focused teams and leadership. We conclude that the practice of early extubation and fast-tracking after LT surgery could help improve anesthesia performance, safety, and cost-effectiveness.

Significant burden of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with advanced fibrosis in the US: a cross-sectional analysis of 2011-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

BACKGROUND

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a leading cause of chronic liver disease in the US. Understanding the epidemiology of NAFLD, with specific focus on individuals with hepatic fibrosis is important to guide healthcare resource planning.

AIM

To evaluate prevalence and predictors of hepatic fibrosis among US adults with NAFLD.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study using data from the updated 2011-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a national, stratified, multistage sampling survey of non-institutionalised US adults age ≥ 20. METAVIR F2 or greater fibrosis among individuals with NAFLD was assessed using AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI) score > 0.7. METAVIR F3 or greater fibrosis was assessed using NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) > 0.676 and FIB-4 score > 3.25. Multivariate logistic regression models evaluated for predictors of fibrosis among individuals with NAFLD.

RESULTS

Overall prevalence of NAFLD among US adults was 21.9% (95% CI 20.6-23.3), representing 51.6 million adults. Among individuals with NAFLD, we observed a 23.8% prevalence of ≥F2 fibrosis, representing 12.2 million individuals, and we observed a 2.3%-9.7% prevalence of ≥F3 fibrosis, representing as many as 5.0 million adults. On multivariate regression analyses, increasing age, obesity and concurrent diabetes mellitus were associated with increased risk of ≥F3 fibrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

NAFLD represents a major healthcare burden among US adults with as many as 5 million adults estimated to have NAFLD with ≥F3 fibrosis. Age and the components of the metabolic syndrome are independently associated with higher risk of fibrosis.

Trends in Characteristics of Patients Listed for Liver Transplantation Will Lead to Higher Rates of Waitlist Removal Due to Clinical Deterioration

BACKGROUND

Changes in the epidemiology of end-stage liver disease may lead to increased risk of dropout from the liver transplant waitlist. Anticipating the future of liver transplant waitlist characteristics is vital when considering organ allocation policy.

METHODS

We performed a discrete event simulation to forecast patient characteristics and rate of waitlist dropout. Estimates were simulated from 2015 to 2025. The model was informed by data from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network, 2003 to 2014. National data are estimated along with forecasts for 2 regions.

RESULTS

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis will increase from 18% of waitlist additions to 22% by 2025. Hepatitis C will fall from 30% to 21%. Listings over age 60 years will increase from 36% to 48%. The hazard of dropout will increase from 41% to 46% nationally. Wait times for transplant for patients listed with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) between 22 and 27 will double. Region 5, which transplants at relatively higher MELD scores, will experience an increase from 53% to 64% waitlist dropout. Region 11, which transplants at lower MELD scores, will have an increase in waitlist dropout from 30% to 44%.

CONCLUSIONS

The liver transplant waitlist size will remain static over the next decade due to patient dropout. Liver transplant candidates will be older, more likely to have nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and will wait for transplantation longer even when listed at a competitive MELD score. There will continue to be significant heterogeneity among transplant regions where some patients will be more likely to drop out of the waitlist than receive a transplant.