Transplant center regulations--a mixed blessing? An ASTS Council viewpoint

Does prolonged cold ischemia affect outcomes in donation after cardiac death donor kidney transplants?

    : The purpose of this study was to analyze the combined effect of cold ischemia time (CIT) and donation after cardiac death (DCD, with requisite warm ischemia time, WIT) on kidney transplant (KT) outcomes.

METHODS

Single center retrospective review of DCD KT recipients stratified by CIT.

RESULTS

From 6/08 to 10/20, we performed 446 DCD KTs (115 CIT ≤20, 205 CIT 20-30, 88 CIT 30-40, 38 CIT ≥40 hours). Mean WITs (26/25/27/23 minutes) and KDPI values (59%/55%/55%/59%) were similar while mean CITs (16.4/23.6/33.4/42.5 hours) and pump times (10.3/13.6/16.1/20.4 hours) differed across groups (p < 0.05). With a mean 6-year follow-up, patient survival (84%/84%/74%/84%) was similar. Kidney graft survival (GS) (72%/72%/56%/58%) and death censored GS (DCGS) (82%/80%/63%/67%) rates decreased whereas rates of primary nonfunction (PNF, 0.9%/2.4%/9.1%/7.9%) and delayed graft function (DGF) (36%/48%/50%/69%) increased with longer CIT (≥30 hours, p<0.05). Meaningful years free of dialysis, which we refer to as Allograft Life Years, were achieved in all cohorts (4.5/4.3/3.9/4.3 years per patient transplanted).

CONCLUSION

DCD donor kidneys with prolonged CIT (≥30 hours) are associated with increased rates of DGF and PNF, along with decreased GS and DCGS. Despite this, Allograft Life Years were gained even with longer CITs, demonstrating the utility of using these allografts. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Current status: meeting the regulatory goals of your liver transplant program

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The regulatory framework set by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) and Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for practice of liver transplantation in US is periodically updated and risk adjusted. Therefore, it is prudent for transplant centers to know the rules of engagement as it pertains to their practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

OPTN besides providing the regulatory oversight for safe and continued practice of transplant centers, provides necessary tools like: advanced statistical models and technological platforms to aid, and guide transplant centers including the necessary safeguards for high-quality transplant care.CMS regulations although had different thresholds to flag underperformance, often covered common grounds similar to the OPTN, therefore considered duplicative and unnecessary. But with much deliberation and consideration CMS undertook a major overhaul to the final rule for re-approval applications, a giant leap in the positive direction for transplant innovation and growth.

SUMMARY

The duplicative regulatory framework of OPTN and CMS has although achieved the goal of improving 1-year patient outcomes, it has proven costly in terms of slowing innovation, increasing organ discard and stunting growth of transplant volume. But the new updates in effect and also in the pipeline are a long-awaited opportunity for waiting transplant patients.

Cardiovascular Disease Outcomes Related to Early Stage Renal Impairment After Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

In the general population, even mild renal disease is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) complications. Whether this is true in liver transplant recipients (LTR) is unknown.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 671 LTR (2002-2012) from a large urban tertiary care center and 37 322 LTR using Vizient hospitalization data linked to the United Network for Organ Sharing. The 4-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Outcomes were 1-year CV complications (death/hospitalization from myocardial infarction, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism, or stroke) and mortality. Latent mixture modeling identified trajectories in eGFR in the first liver transplantation (LT) year in the 671 patients.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) eGFR was 72.1 (45.7) mL/min per 1.73 m. Six distinct eGFR trajectories were identified in the local cohort (n = 671): qualitatively normal-slow decrease (4% of cohort), normal-rapid decrease (4%), mild-stable (18%), mild-slow decrease (35%), moderate-stable (30%), and severe-stable (9%). In multivariable analyses adjusted for confounders and baseline eGFR, the greatest odds of 1-year CV complications were in the normal-rapid decrease group (odds ratio, 10.6; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-36.9). Among the national cohort, each 5-unit lower eGFR at LT was associated with a 2% and 5% higher hazard of all-cause and CV-mortality, respectively (P < 0.0001), independent of multiple confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Even mild renal disease at the time of LT is a risk factor for posttransplant all-cause and CV mortality. More rapid declines in eGFR soon after LT correlate with risk of adverse CV outcomes, highlighting the need to study whether early renal preservation interventions also reduce CV complications.

Reported effects of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients 5-tier rating system on US transplant centers: results of a national survey

In the United States, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) provides publicly available quality report cards. These reports have historically rated transplant programs using a 3-tier system. In 2016, the SRTR temporarily transitioned to a 5-tier system, which classified more programs as under-performing. As part of a larger survey about transplant quality metrics, we surveyed members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and American Society of Transplantation (N = 280 respondents) on transplant center experiences with patient and payer responses to the 5-tier SRTR ratings. Over half of respondents (n = 137, 52.1%) reported ≥1 negative effect of the new 5-tier ranking system, including losing patients, losing insurers, increased concern among patients, and increased concern among referring providers. Few respondents (n = 35, 13.7%) reported any positive effects of the 5-tier ranking system. Lower SRTR-reported scores on the 5-tier scale were associated with increased risk of reporting at least one negative effect in a logistic model (P < 0.01). The change to a more granular rating system provoked an immediate response in the transplant community that may have long-term implications for transplant hospital finances and patient options for transplantation.

Quality measurement and improvement in liver transplantation

There is growing interest in the quality of health care delivery in liver transplantation. Multiple stakeholders, including patients, transplant providers and their hospitals, payers, and regulatory bodies have an interest in measuring and monitoring quality in the liver transplant process, and understanding differences in quality across centres. This article aims to provide an overview of quality measurement and regulatory issues in liver transplantation performed within the United States. We review how broader definitions of health care quality should be applied to liver transplant care models. We outline the status quo including the current regulatory agencies, public reporting mechanisms, and requirements around quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) activities. Additionally, we further discuss unintended consequences and opportunities for growth in quality measurement. Quality measurement and the integration of quality improvement strategies into liver transplant programmes hold significant promise, but multiple challenges to successful implementation must be addressed to optimise value.

A point-based prediction model for cardiovascular risk in orthotopic liver transplantation: The CAR-OLT score

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) complications are important causes of morbidity and mortality after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). There is currently no preoperative risk-assessment tool that allows physicians to estimate the risk for CVD events following OLT. We sought to develop a point-based prediction model (risk score) for CVD complications after OLT, the Cardiovascular Risk in Orthotopic Liver Transplantation risk score, among a cohort of 1,024 consecutive patients aged 18-75 years who underwent first OLT in a tertiary-care teaching hospital (2002-2011). The main outcome measures were major 1-year CVD complications, defined as death from a CVD cause or hospitalization for a major CVD event (myocardial infarction, revascularization, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism, and/or stroke). The bootstrap method yielded bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals for the regression coefficients of the final model. Among 1,024 first OLT recipients, major CVD complications occurred in 329 (32.1%). Variables selected for inclusion in the model (using model optimization strategies) included preoperative recipient age, sex, race, employment status, education status, history of hepatocellular carcinoma, diabetes, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary or systemic hypertension, and respiratory failure. The discriminative performance of the point-based score (C statistic = 0.78, bias-corrected C statistic = 0.77) was superior to other published risk models for postoperative CVD morbidity and mortality, and it had appropriate calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow P = 0.33).

CONCLUSION

The point-based risk score can identify patients at risk for CVD complications after OLT surgery (available at www.carolt.us); this score may be useful for identification of candidates for further risk stratification or other management strategies to improve CVD outcomes after OLT. (Hepatology 2017;66:1968-1979).

Measuring transplant center performance: The goals are not controversial but the methods and consequences can be

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Risks of regulatory scrutiny has generated widespread concern about increasingly risk averse transplant center behaviors regarding both donor and candidate acceptance patterns. To address potential unintended consequences threatening access to care, we discuss recent changes in regulatory metrics and potential improvements in quality oversight of transplant centers.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite many recent changes to one-year patient and graft survival regulatory criteria, the capacity to accurately identify true underperforming centers and avoiding false positive flagging remains an area of great concern. Numerous studies have demonstrated restrictions in transplant volume and access following transplant center flagging.

SUMMARY

Current regulatory criteria are limited in their capacity to accurately identify poorly performing centers and potentially encourage risk-averse behavior by transplant centers. Efforts to address these concerns should focus on (1) improving risk-adjustment models with better data which captures the acuity of candidate and donor risk, (2) reconsidering primary outcomes measured to assess comprehensive transplant center performance, (3) improving education to address rational or perceived disincentives, and (4) using data more effectively to share best practices.

Trends in Usage and Outcomes for Expanded Criteria Donor Kidney Transplantation in the United States Characterized by Kidney Donor Profile Index

There has been increasing concern in the kidney transplant community about the declining use of expanded criteria donors (ECD) despite improvement in survival and quality of life. The recent introduction of the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI), which provides a more granular characterization of donor quality, was expected to increase utilization of marginal kidneys and decrease the discard rates. However, trends and practice patterns of ECD kidney utilization on a national level based on donor organ quality as per KDPI are not well known. We, therefore, performed a trend analysis of all ECD recipients in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry between 2002 and 2012, after calculating the corresponding KDPI, to enable understanding the trends of usage and outcomes based on the KDPI characterization. High-risk recipient characteristics (diabetes, body mass index ≥30 kg/m², hypertension, and age ≥60 years) increased over the period of the study (trend test p<0.001 for all). The proportion of ECD transplants increased from 18% in 2003 to a peak of 20.4% in 2008 and then declined thereafter to 17.3% in 2012. Using the KDPI >85% definition, the proportion increased from 9.4% in 2003 to a peak of 12.1% in 2008 and declined to 9.7% in 2012. Overall, although this represents a significant utilization of kidneys with KDPI >85% over time (p<0.001), recent years have seen a decline in usage, probably related to regulations imposed by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

When comparing the hazards of graft failure by KDPI, ECD kidneys with KDPI >85% have a slightly lower risk of graft failure compared to standard criteria donor (SCD) kidneys with KDPI >85%, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.95, a confidence interval (CI) of 0.94-0.96, and statistical significance of p<0.001. This indicates that some SCD kidneys may actually have a lower estimated quality, with a higher Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI), than some ECDs. The incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) in ECD recipients has significantly decreased over time from 35.2% in 2003 to 29.6% in 2011 (p=0.007), probably related to better understanding of the donor risk profile along with increased use of hypothermic machine perfusion and pretransplant biopsy to aid in optimal allograft selection.

The recent decline in transplantation of KDPI >85% kidneys probably reflects risk-averse transplant center behavior. Whether discard of discordant SCD kidneys with KDPI >85% has contributed to this decline remains to be studied.

Factors Associated With Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events After Liver Transplantation Among a National Sample

Assessment of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after liver transplantation (LT) has been limited by the lack of a multicenter study with detailed clinical information. An integrated database linking information from the University HealthSystem Consortium and the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network was analyzed using multivariate Poisson regression to assess factors associated with 30- and 90-day MACE after LT (February 2002 to December 2012). MACE was defined as myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), atrial fibrillation (AF), cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism, and/or stroke. Of 32 810 recipients, MACE hospitalizations occurred in 8% and 11% of patients at 30 and 90 days, respectively. Recipients with MACE were older and more likely to have a history of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), alcoholic cirrhosis, MI, HF, stroke, AF and pulmonary and chronic renal disease than those without MACE. In multivariable analysis, age >65 years (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.8, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.8-4.4), alcoholic cirrhosis (IRR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.2), NASH (IRR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.4), pre-LT creatinine (IRR 1.1, 95% CI 1.04-1.2), baseline AF (IRR 6.9, 95% CI 5.0-9.6) and stroke (IRR 6.3, 95% CI 1.6-25.4) were independently associated with MACE. MACE was associated with lower 1-year survival after LT (79% vs. 88%, p < 0.0001). In a national database, MACE occurred in 11% of LT recipients and had a negative impact on survival. Pre-LT AF and stroke substantially increase the risk of MACE, highlighting potentially high-risk LT candidates.

Decade-Long Trends in Liver Transplant Waitlist Removal Due to Illness Severity: The Impact of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Policy

BACKGROUND

The central tenet of liver transplant organ allocation is to prioritize the sickest patients first. However, a 2007 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regulatory policy, Conditions of Participation (COP), which mandates publically reported transplant center performance assessment and outcomes-based auditing, critically altered waitlist management and clinical decision making. We examine the extent to which COP implementation is associated with increased removal of the "sickest" patients from the liver transplant waitlist.

STUDY DESIGN

This study included 90,765 adult (aged 18 years and older) deceased donor liver transplant candidates listed at 102 transplant centers from April 2002 through December 2012 (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). We quantified the effect of COP implementation on trends in waitlist removal due to illness severity and 1-year post-transplant mortality using interrupted time series segmented Poisson regression analysis.

RESULTS

We observed increasing trends in delisting due to illness severity in the setting of comparable demographic and clinical characteristics. Delisting abruptly increased by 16% at the time of COP implementation, and likelihood of being delisted continued to increase by 3% per quarter thereafter, without attenuation (p < 0.001). Results remained consistent after stratifying on key variables (ie, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and age). The COP did not significantly impact 1-year post-transplant mortality (p = 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the 2007 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services COP policy was a quality initiative designed to improve patient outcomes, in reality, it failed to show beneficial effects in the liver transplant population. Patients who could potentially benefit from transplantation are increasingly being denied this lifesaving procedure while transplant mortality rates remain unaffected. Policy makers and clinicians should strive to balance candidate and recipient needs from a population-benefit perspective when designing performance metrics and during clinical decision making for patients on the waitlist.

High early cardiovascular mortality after liver transplantation

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) contributes to excessive long-term mortality after liver transplantation (LT); however, little is known about early postoperative CVD mortality in the current era. In addition, there is no model for predicting early postoperative CVD mortality across centers. We analyzed adult recipients of primary LT in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database between February 2002 and December 2012 to assess the prevalence and predictors of early (30-day) CVD mortality, which was defined as death from arrhythmia, heart failure, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, thromboembolism, and/or stroke. We performed logistic regression with stepwise selection to develop a predictive model of early CVD mortality. Sex and center volume were forced into the final model, which was validated with bootstrapping techniques. Among 54,697 LT recipients, there were 1576 deaths (2.9%) within 30 days. CVD death was the leading cause of 30-day mortality (40.2%), and it was followed by infection (27.9%) and graft failure (12.2%). In a multivariate analysis, 9 significant covariates (6 recipient covariates, 2 donor covariates, and 1 operative covariate) were identified: age, preoperative hospitalization, intensive care unit status, ventilator status, calculated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, portal vein thrombosis, national organ sharing, donor body mass index, and cold ischemia time. The model showed moderate discrimination (C statistic = 0.66, 95% confidence interval = 0.63-0.68). In conclusion, we provide the first multicenter prognostic model for the prediction of early post-LT CVD death, the most common cause of early post-LT mortality in the current transplant era. However, evaluations of additional CVD-related variables not collected by the OPTN are needed in order to improve the model's accuracy and potential clinical utility.

Infrastructure, logistics and regulation of transplantation: UNOS

Organ transplantation has evolved into the standard of care for patients with end-stage organ failure. Despite considering increasingly complex transplant recipients for organs recovered from donors with increasing comorbid conditions, 1-year patient survival following kidney transplantation is 97% in the United States, whereas liver transplant recipient 1-year survival is 90%. There were 16,485 kidney recipients in the United States in 2012, and 6256 patients who underwent liver transplantation. The intent of this review is to highlight the logistics required for transplantation as well as reviewing the current oversight of transplantation.

The transplant center and business unit as a model for specialized care delivery

Transplant centers are valuable assets to a transplantation hospital and essential to organize the delivery of patient care. A transplant center defined around physicians and activities of caring for patients with organ failure creates a team better equipped to manage care across the continuum of the diseases treated by transplantation. Through monitoring of clinical and financial outcomes, the transplant center can better respond to the changing regulatory and financial landscape of health care. This article seeks to explain the major organizational challenges facing the transplant center and how a transplant center can best serve its patients and parent organization.

Rates of false flagging due to statistical artifact in CMS evaluations of transplant programs: results of a stochastic simulation

The recent CMS conditions of participation are based on risk-adjusted models produced by the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR). The accuracy of these models in identifying poor-performing centers is unknown. In this stochastic simulation study, 1-year mortality outcomes were simulated in virtual transplant centers, and used to flag centers according to the methods used by CMS, evaluating nine overlapping 2.5-year periods of simulated data. In a simulation where all centers had the same underlying risk, 10.2% were falsely flagged at least once during the 4.5 years of simulated evaluations. The probability of false-positive flagging was lowest in low-volume centers (2.5%) and highest in high-volume centers (16.2%). In another simulation where 5% of centers were assigned twofold risk ("poor-performing centers"), only 32% of poor-performing centers were correctly flagged. In a final simulation where each center was assigned a unique mortality risk, 94% of flagged centers had greater-than-median risk, but only 32% of flagged centers were among the 5% with highest risk. Even after disregarding known covariate limitations to the risk adjustment models, statistical noise alone leads to spurious flagging of many adequately-performing transplant centers, yet the methods used by CMS fail to flag most centers with true elevated risk.

Liver Transplant Center Performance Profiling: 2005–2011 Reports of the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients

Context

Transplant center performance profiling provides important information for various concerned parties. Comparing a transplant center's performance against the performance of the best-in-class centers may help in understanding the performance thresholds for the underperforming centers.

Objectives

(1) To identify and describe “Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-red-flag” performers and the “best-in-class” performers and (2) to examine the relationships between a center's performance profile and outcomes such as 1-year observed mortality, 1-month observed mortality, 1-year risk-adjusted mortality, and volume.

Methods

The data for analysis was obtained from the published reports on the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) website for adult liver transplant programs compiled for the rolling 2½-year cohorts of patients and included 7 cohorts of liver transplant recipients in the study from January through July 1, 2002, through December 31, 2010. We defined 4 performance profiles: CMS-red-flag, lower-than-expected, higher-than-expected, and best-in-class performers.

Results

The current SRTR methods classify approximately 7% of the adult liver centers as CMS-red-flag performers and 6% of the centers as best-in-class performers in every reported period. Neither of the low-volume centers (<30 liver transplants per 2½-year cohort) was profiled as CMS-red-flag until the 2010 reporting period. The transplant center's profile was significantly associated with the 1-year and 1-month observed mortality rates in every reported cohort ( P < .001).

Conclusion

The CMS-red-flag profile can be characterized with the following: (1) the highest observed 1-year mortality, (2) the highest observed 1-month mortality, (3) a very large difference between the observed and adjusted mortality rates, and (4) the center volume greater than 30 liver transplants per 2½-year cohort. The SRTR methods are not sensitive for performance profiling in the centers that perform fewer than 30 orthotopic liver transplants per 2½-year cohort.

National survey of provider opinions on controversial characteristics of liver transplant candidates

Candidate selection for liver transplantation presents challenging ethical issues that require balancing the principles of justice and utility. The goal of this study was to assess the opinions of U.S. transplant providers regarding the ways in which controversial medical and psychosocial characteristics influence patient eligibility for liver transplantation. An online, anonymous survey about adult patient characteristics was sent to providers (hepatologists, surgeons, psychiatrists, and social workers) at all 102 active adult liver transplant centers in the United States. A majority of the providers (251/444 or 56.5%) completed the survey. The providers were queried about 8 characteristics, and the 3 that were ranked most controversial were incarceration, marijuana use, and psychiatric diagnoses. Most providers identified a patient age ≥ 80 years (62.7%), a body mass index ≥ 45 kg/m2 (56.6%), and current incarceration with a lifetime sentence (54.7%) as absolute contraindications to liver transplantation. In a multivariate analysis, the identification of absolute contraindications varied significantly with the provider type, the center volume, and the geographical region. Less than half of the providers reported that their centers had written policies regarding most of the characteristics examined. In conclusion, providers differ significantly in their opinions on controversial patient characteristics and transplant contraindications. Along with a paucity of literature data on outcomes, these provider differences may play a role in the fact that many centers do not have formal policies for selecting patients with these characteristics. Evidence-based data on the outcomes of such patients are needed to guide the formation of written policies to better standardize eligibility criteria.

Program-specific reports: implications and impact on program behavior

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Measuring and monitoring transplant center performance is vital to ongoing quality assessment and performance improvement initiatives geared toward ensuring optimal care for patients with end-stage organ failure. The impact of regulatory oversight on transplant center behavior and programmatic decision-making is complex.

RECENT FINDINGS

Program-specific reports (PSRs) are published by the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and are publically available for use by a variety of stakeholders, including patients, regulators, insurers, and care providers. PSRs have been both groundbreaking and controversial. The principal areas of concern relate to potential unintended consequences of PSRs, limitations in both the data collected by the registry and the currently used statistical methodology employed by the SRTR for risk adjustment, and the subsequent impact on transplant program behavior.

SUMMARY

PSRs, which serve the purposes of fueling ongoing performance improvement initiatives and informing consumers and payers by fostering transparency in the communication of risk, also involve trade-offs because of their unintended use for regulatory oversight and subsequent impact on transplant center behavior. Future research is necessary to improve data integrity and risk-adjustment methodologies which will enhance regulation and preserve access to transplantation among vulnerable patient populations.

Transplantation at the nexus of behavioral economics and health care delivery

The transplant surgeon's decision to accept and utilize an organ typically is made within a constrained time window, explicitly cognizant of numerous health-related risks and under the potential influence of considerable regulatory and institutional pressures. This decision affects the health of two distinct populations, those patients receiving organ transplants and those waiting to receive a transplant; it also influences the physician's life and their institute's productivity. The numerous, at times nonaligned, incentives established by the complex clinical and regulatory environment, have been derived specifically to influence physicians' behaviors, and though well intended, may lead to responses that are nonoptimal when considering the myriad stakeholders being influenced. This may compromise the quality of care provided to the population at risk, and has potential to influence the physician-patient relationship. A synergistic collaboration between transplant physicians and economists that is focused on this decision environment may help to alleviate these strains. This viewpoint discusses behavioral economic principles and how they might be applied to transplantation. Specifically, the previous medical decision-making literature on transplantation will be reviewed and a discussion on how a behavioral model of physician decision making can be utilized will be explored. To date this approach has not been integrated into transplantation decision making.

The aggressive phenotype: center-level patterns in the utilization of suboptimal kidneys

Despite the fact that suboptimal kidneys have worse outcomes, differences in waiting times and wait-list mortality have led to variations in the use of these kidneys. It is unknown whether aggressive center-level use of one type of suboptimal graft clusters with aggressive use of other types of suboptimal grafts, and what center characteristics are associated with an overall aggressive phenotype. United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data from 2005 to 2009 for adult kidney transplant recipients was aggregated to the center level. An aggressiveness score was assigned to each center based on usage of suboptimal grafts. Deceased-donor transplant volume correlated with aggressiveness in lower volume, but not higher volume centers. Aggressive centers were mostly found in regions 2 and 9. Aggressiveness was associated with wait-list size (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.20-2.34, p = 0.002), organ shortage (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.57-3.37, p < 0.001) and waiting times (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20-2.57, p = 0.004). No centers in single-center OPOs were classified as aggressive. In cluster analysis, the most aggressive centers were aggressive in all metrics and vice versa; however, centers with intermediate aggressiveness had phenotypic patterns in their usage of suboptimal kidneys. In conclusion, wait-list size, waiting times, geographic region and OPO competition seem to be driving factors in center-level aggressiveness.

Derivation of the uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death protocol for New York city

Evidence from Europe suggests establishing out-of-hospital, uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (UDCDD) protocols has potential to substantially increase organ availability. The study objective was to derive an out-of-hospital UDCDD protocol that would be acceptable to New York City (NYC) residents. Participatory action research and the SEED-SCALE process for social change guided protocol development in NYC from July 2007 to September 2010. A coalition of government officials, subject experts and communities necessary to achieve support was formed. Authorized NY State and NYC government officials and their legal representatives collaboratively investigated how the program could be implemented under current law and regulations. Community stakeholders (secular and religious organizations) were engaged in town hall style meetings. Ethnographic data (meeting minutes, field notes, quantitative surveys) were collected and posted in a collaborative internet environment. Data were analyzed using an iterative coding scheme to discern themes, theoretical constructs and a summary narrative to guide protocol development. A clinically appropriate, ethically sound UDCDD protocol for out-of-hospital settings has been derived. This program is likely to be accepted by NYC residents since the protocol was derived through partnership with government officials, subject experts and community participants.

Access to kidney transplantation among the elderly in the United States: a glass half full, not half empty

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Few elderly ESRD patients are ever wait-listed for deceased-donor transplantation (DDTX), and waiting list outcomes may not reflect access to transplantation in this group. Our objective was to determine longitudinal changes in access to transplantation among all elderly patients with ESRD, not just those wait-listed for DDTX.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Using data from the US Renal Data System, we determined changes in the adjusted likelihood of transplantation from any donor source as an indicator of access to transplantation among all incident ESRD patients aged 60 to 75 years between 1995 and 2006.

RESULTS

Access to transplantation doubled between 1995 and 2006 despite an apparent decrease in the likelihood of DDTX after wait-listing. A threefold increase in the likelihood of living-donor transplantation, including a 1.5-fold increase in living-donor transplantation after wait-listing, was a key factor that led to increased access to transplantation. When a lead-time bias related to the increased practice of placing patients on the waiting list before dialysis initiation in more recent years was accounted for, there was no decrease in the likelihood of DDTX after wait-listing. The likelihood of receiving a DDTX after placement on the waiting list was maintained by a threefold increase in expanded-criteria-donor transplantation and a 26% reduction in the risk for death on the waiting list.

CONCLUSIONS

Although transplantation remains infrequent, elderly patients were twice as likely to undergo transplantation in 2006 versus 1995. Elderly patients with ESRD should not be dissuaded from pursuing transplantation.

US Health Care Reform and Transplantation, Part II: impact on the public sector and novel health care delivery systems

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in 2010 will result in dramatic expansion of publically funded health insurance coverage for low-income individuals. It is estimated that of the 32 million newly insured, 16 million will obtain coverage through expansion of the Medicaid Program, and the remaining 16 million will purchase coverage through their employer or newly legislated insurance exchanges. While the Act contains numerous provisions to improve access to private insurance as discussed in Part I of this analysis, public sector coverage will significantly be affected. The cost of health care reform will be borne disproportionately by Medicare, which faces nearly $500 billion in cuts to be identified by a new independent board. Transplant centers should be concerned about the impact of the reform on the financial aspects of transplantation. In addition, this legislation also utilizes the Medicare Program to drive reform of the health care delivery system, by encouraging the development of integrated Accountable Care Organizations, experimentation with new 'models' of healthcare delivery, and expanded support for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Transplant providers, including transplant centers and physicians/surgeons need to lead this movement, drawing on our experience providing comprehensive multidisciplinary care under global budgets with publically reported outcomes.

American Society of Transplant Surgeons transplant center outcomes requirements--a threat to innovation

The transplant center regulations recently published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) mandate that observed program-specific survival outcomes to fall within expected risk-adjusted outcomes. Meeting these outcomes is essential to continued participation in the Medicare program. Both donor and recipient variables not considered in current risk adjustment models can result in inferior outcomes and therefore may cause an overestimation of transplant center expected performance, precluding participation in the federally funded Medicare program. We reviewed the most recent four reporting periods published by the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients on their public website. We identified kidney, liver and heart transplant programs that were flagged for having outcomes statistically lower than expected as well as those that failed to meet CMS criteria. We also analyzed whether center volumes correlated with outcomes in these centers. We highlight the need for mitigating factors that could justify inferior outcomes under specific circumstances. Failure to reach consensus on such a mechanism for appeal may result in risk-averse behavior by transplant centers with respect to innovation and therefore hamper the ability to advance the field of transplantation. We propose a methodology that may address this emerging dilemma.