Geographic disparities in transplantation

Effects of the March 2021 Allocation Policy Change on Key Deceased-donor Kidney Transplant Metrics

BACKGROUND

A major change to deceased-donor kidney allocation in the United States, Kidney Allocation System 250 (KAS250), was implemented on March 15, 2021. Evaluating the consequences of this policy on critical system performance metrics is critical to determining its success.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of critical performance measures of the kidney transplant system by reviewing all organs procured during a 4-y period in the United States. To mitigate against possible effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients records were stratified into 2 pre- and 2 post-KAS250 eras: (1) 2019; (2) January 1, 2020-March14, 2021; (3) March 15, 2021-December 31, 2021; and (4) 2022. Between-era differences in rates of key metrics were analyzed using chi-square tests with pairwise z -tests. Multivariable logistic regression and analysis of variations methods were used to evaluate the effects of the policy on rural and urban centers.

RESULTS

Over the period examined, among kidneys recovered for transplant, nonuse increased from 19.7% to 26.4% (all between-era P < 0.05) and among all Kidney Donor Profile Index strata. Cold ischemia times increased ( P < 0.001); however, the distance between donor and recipient hospitals decreased ( P < 0.05). Kidneys from small-metropolitan or nonmetropolitan hospitals were more likely to not be used over all times ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of KAS250 was associated with increased nonuse rates across all Kidney Donor Profile Index strata, increased cold ischemic times, and shorter distance traveled.

Mitigating Health Disparities in Transplantation Requires Equity, Not Equality

Despite decades of research and evidence-based mitigation strategies, disparities in access to transplantation persist for all organ types and in all stages of the transplant process. Although some strategies have shown promise for alleviating disparities, others have fallen short of the equity goal by providing the same tools and resources to all rather than tailoring the tools and resources to one's circumstances. Innovative solutions that engage all stakeholders are needed to achieve equity regardless of race, sex, age, socioeconomic status, or geography. Mitigation of disparities is paramount to ensure fair and equitable access for those with end-stage disease and to preserve the trust of the public, upon whom we rely for their willingness to donate organs. In this overview, we present a summary of recent literature demonstrating persistent disparities by stage in the transplant process, along with policies and interventions that have been implemented to combat these disparities and hypotheses for why some strategies have been more effective than others. We conclude with future directions that have been proposed by experts in the field and how these suggested strategies may help us finally arrive at equity in transplantation.

Geography, inequities, and the social determinants of health in transplantation

Among the causes of inequity in organ transplantation, geography is oft-cited but rarely defined with precision. Traditionally, geographic inequity has been characterized by variation in distance to transplant centers, availability of deceased organ donors, or the consequences of allocation systems that are inherently geographically based. Recent research has begun to explore the use of measures at various geographic levels to better understand how characteristics of a patient's geographic surroundings contribute to a broad range of transplant inequities. Within, we first explore the relationship between geography, inequities, and the social determinants of health. Next, we review methodologic considerations essential to geographic health research, and critically appraise how these techniques have been applied. Finally, we propose how to use geography to improve access to and outcomes of transplantation.

Deceased Organ Donor Management and Organ Distribution From Organ Procurement Organization-Based Recovery Facilities Versus Acute-Care Hospitals

Introduction: Organ recovery facilities address the logistical challenges of hospital-based deceased organ donor management. While more organs are transplanted from donors in facilities, differences in donor management and donation processes are not fully characterized. Research Question: Does deceased donor management and organ transport distance differ between organ procurement organization (OPO)-based recovery facilities versus hospitals? Design: Retrospective analysis of Organ Procurement and Transplant Network data, including adults after brain death in 10 procurement regions (April 2017-June 2021). The primary outcomes were ischemic times of transplanted hearts, kidneys, livers, and lungs. Secondary outcomes included transport distances (between the facility or hospital and the transplant program) for each transplanted organ. Results: Among 5010 deceased donors, 51.7% underwent recovery in an OPO-based recovery facility. After adjustment for recipient and system factors, mean differences in ischemic times of any transplanted organ were not significantly different between donors in facilities and hospitals. Transplanted hearts recovered from donors in facilities were transported further than hearts from hospital donors (median 255 mi [IQR 27, 475] versus 174 [IQR 42, 365], P = .002); transport distances for livers and kidneys were significantly shorter (P < .001 for both). Conclusion: Organ recovery procedures performed in OPO-based recovery facilities were not associated with differences in ischemic times in transplanted organs from organs recovered in hospitals, but differences in organ transport distances exist. Further work is needed to determine whether other observed differences in donor management and organ distribution meaningfully impact donation and transplantation outcomes.

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.

Disparities in heart transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heart transplantation remains the gold standard therapy for end stage heart failure, but barriers remain, preventing equitable access to and affecting outcomes following transplantation. The objective of this review is to summarize current and historical literature on the disparities that persist, and to highlight the gaps in evidence for further investigation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although progress has been made to increase the rates of advanced heart failure therapies to racial/ethnic minority populations and those with lower socioeconomic status, differential access and outcomes remain. The disparities that persist are categorized by patient demographics, social influences, geopolitical factors, and provider bias.

SUMMARY

Disparities in heart transplantation exist, which span a wide spectrum. Healthcare professionals need to be cognizant of these disparities that patients face in terms of access to and outcomes for heart transplantation. Further research and system changes are needed to make heart transplantation a fairer option for patients of varying backgrounds with end stage heart failure.

Editorial: Disparities in transplantation access and outcomes: mind the gap!

Organ transplantation still remains a problem of supply and demand and presents multiple ethical challenges to our society. Despite numerous targeted interventions and policy reforms, women, underrepresented minorities and patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) continue to have unequal access to transplant. The purpose of this special edition is to highlight disparities in access to transplantation and posttransplant outcomes. Acknowledging that these disparities exist is the first step toward interventions aimed at mitigating this long-standing inequity. This issue provides 10 articles that give the background and summarize relevant literature describing these disparities and identify potential areas of intervention. Most of the data relates to the United States but may reflect patterns encounter in most societies. Each manuscript was written by leaders of international teams in the field of patient advocacy, public health or outcome research in transplantation.