Balancing accountable care with risk aversion: transplantation as a model

Don't Throw Your Heart Away: Increased Transparency of Donor Utilization Practices in Transplant Center Report Cards Alters How Center Performance Is Evaluated

BACKGROUND

Publicly available report cards for transplant centers emphasize posttransplant survival and obscure the fact that some centers reject many of the donor organs they are offered (reflecting a conservative donor acceptance strategy), while others accept a broader range of donor offers (reflecting an open donor acceptance strategy).

OBJECTIVE

We assessed how the provision of salient information about donor acceptance practices and waitlist survival rates affected evaluation judgments of hospital report cards given by laypeople and medical trainees.

METHODS

We tested 5 different report card formats across 4 online randomized experiments (n1 = 1,003, n2 = 105, n3 = 123, n4 = 807) in the same hypothetical decision. The primary outcome variable was a binary choice between transplant hospitals (one with an open donor acceptance strategy and the other with a conservative donor acceptance strategy).

RESULTS

Report cards featuring salient information about donor organ utilization rates (transplant outcomes categorized by quality of donor offers accepted) or overall survival rates (outcomes from both waitlist and transplanted patients) led lay participants (studies 1, 3, and 4) and medical trainees (study 2) to evaluate transplant centers with open donor acceptance strategies more favorably than centers with conservative strategies.

LIMITATIONS

Due to the nature of the decision, a hypothetical scenario was necessary for both ethical and practical reasons. Results may not generalize to transplant clinicians or patients faced with the decision of where to join the transplant waitlist.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that performance evaluations for transplant centers may vary significantly based not only on what outcome information is presented in report cards but also how the information is displayed.

Variation in Racial Disparities in Liver Transplant Outcomes Across Transplant Centers in the United States

Little is known about the role that transplant centers may play in perpetuating racial disparities after liver transplantation, which are unexplained by patient-level factors. We examined variation in between-center and within-center disparities among 34,114 Black and White liver transplant recipients in the United States from 2010 to 2017 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient (SRTR) data. We used Cox proportional hazards models to calculate transplant center-specific Black-White hazard ratios and hierarchical survival analysis to examine potential effect modification of the race-survival association by transplant center characteristics, including transplant volume, proportion of Black patients, SRTR quality rating, and region. Models were sequentially adjusted for clinical, socioeconomic, and center characteristics. After adjustment, Black patients experienced 1.11 excess deaths after liver transplant per 100 person-years compared with White patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.56), corresponding to a 21% increased mortality risk (95% CI, 1.12-1.31). Although there was substantial variation in this disparity across transplant centers, there was no evidence of effect modification by transplant center volume, proportion of minority patients seen, quality rating, or region. We found significant racial disparities in survival after transplant, with substantial variation in this disparity across transplant centers that was not explained by selected center characteristics. This is the first study to directly evaluate the role transplant centers play in racial disparities in transplant outcomes. Further assessment of the qualitative factors that may drive disparities, such as selection processes and follow-up care, is needed to create effective center-level interventions to address health inequity.

Using Geographic Catchment Areas to Measure Population-based Access to Kidney Transplant in the United States

BACKGROUND

Monitoring efforts to improve access to transplantation requires a definition of the population attributable to a transplant center. Previously, assessment of variation in transplant care has focused on differences between administrative units-such as states-rather than units derived from observed care patterns. We defined catchment areas (transplant referral regions [TRRs]) from transplant center care patterns for population-based assessment of transplant access.

METHODS

We used US adult transplant listings (2006-2016) and Dartmouth Atlas catchment areas to assess the optimal method of defining TRRs. We used US Renal Data System and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data to compare waitlist- and population-based kidney transplant rates.

RESULTS

We identified 110 kidney, 67 liver, 85 pancreas, 68 heart, and 43 lung TRRs. Most patients were listed in their assigned TRR (kidney: 76%; liver: 75%; pancreas: 75%; heart: 74%; lung: 72%), although the proportion varied by organ (interquartile range for kidney, 65.7%-82.5%; liver, 58.2%-78.8%; pancreas, 58.4%-81.1%; heart, 63.1%-80.9%; lung, 61.6%-76.3%). Patterns of population- and waitlist-based kidney transplant rates differed, most notably in the Northeast and Midwest.

CONCLUSIONS

Patterns of TRR-based kidney transplant rates differ from waitlist-based rates, indicating that current metrics may not reflect transplant access in the broader population. TRRs define populations served by transplant centers and could enable future studies of how transplant centers can improve access for patients in their communities.

A comprehensive strategy in donor acceptance: Impact on pediatric waitlist and heart transplant outcomes

Significant inter- and intra-center practice variability is present in pediatric donor heart acceptability. This may contribute to variation in the donor refusal rate and may impact waitlist time, morbidity, mortality, and transplant rates. In order to reduce practice variability, our center developed and implemented a comprehensive strategy regarding donor acceptance in September 2017. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of this strategy on waitlist time and outcomes as well as early post-transplant outcomes. We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis of all pediatric (<18 years) patients listed for single-organ heart transplant at our center from September 2015 to September 2018. Patients were divided into those listed before (Group 1) and after implementation of the comprehensive strategy (Group 2). The primary end-point was waitlist time. Secondary end-points included waitlist removal due to death or clinical deterioration, donor refusals per listed patient, early post-transplant outcomes (graft failure, mechanical ventilation time, inotropic support, length of hospital stay) and 1-year post-transplant survival. Of 78 listed patients, 54 were transplanted (29 in Group 1), 9 were removed due to death or clinical deterioration (7 in Group 1) and 15 were removed due to clinical improvement (12 in Group 1). The waitlist time was significantly shorter in Group 2 (17 days, IQR 7-53) vs Group 1 (90 days, IQR 14-162); P = .006. The number of donor refusals was lower in Group 2 (1, IQR 0-2.2) vs Group 1 (4, IQR 2-19); P < .001. The percentage of refused donors with normal function (Left ventricular ejection fraction > 50%) was lower in Group 2 vs Group 1 (53% vs 84%; P < .001). Difference in removal from the waitlist for death or deterioration in Group 2 vs Group 1 (n = 2, 7% vs n = 7, 20%, P = .18) did not reach statistical significance. There was no difference in post-transplant outcomes between groups. The waitlist time and donor refusals significantly decreased after implementation of a comprehensive donor acceptance strategy without impacting transplant outcomes. This analysis supports the need for a comprehensive approach to donor organ acceptance within a pediatric transplant center.

Deceased Brain Dead Donor Liver Transplantation and Utilization in the United States: Nighttime and Weekend Effects

BACKGROUND

Understanding factors that contribute to liver discards and nonusage is urgently needed to improve organ utilization.

METHODS

Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data, we studied a national cohort of all US adult, deceased brain dead donor, isolated livers available for transplantation from 2003 to 2016, including organ-specific and system-wide factors that may affect organ procurement and discard rates.

RESULTS

Of 73 686 available livers, 65 316 (88.64%) were recovered for transplant, of which 6454 (9.88%) were ultimately discarded. Livers that were not procured or, on recovery, discarded were more frequently from older, heavier, hepatitis B virus (HCV)+, and more comorbid donors (P < 0.001). However, even after adjustment for organ quality, the odds of liver nonusage were 11% higher on the weekend (defined as donor procurements with cross-clamping occurring from 5:00 PM Friday until 11:59 AM Sunday) compared with weekdays (P < 0.001). Nonuse rates were also higher at night (P < 0.001), defined as donor procurements with cross-clamping occurring from 5:00 PM to 5:00 AM; however, weekend nights had significantly higher nonuse rates compared with weekday nights (P = 0.005). After Share 35, weekend nonusage rates decreased from 21.77% to 19.51% but were still higher than weekday nonusage rates (P = 0.065). Weekend liver nonusage was higher in all 11 United Network of Organ Sharing regions, with an absolute average of 2.00% fewer available livers being used on the weekend compared with weekdays.

CONCLUSIONS

Although unused livers frequently have unfavorable donor characteristics, there are also systemic and operational factors, including time of day and day of the week a liver becomes available, that impact the chance of liver nonprocurement and discard.

Behavioral economics-A framework for donor organ decision-making in pediatric heart transplantation

The high discard rate of pediatric donor hearts presents a major challenge for children awaiting heart transplantation. Recent literature identifies several factors that contribute to the disparities in pediatric donor heart usage, including regulatory oversight, the absence of guidelines on pediatric donor heart acceptance, and variation among transplant programs. However, a likely additional contributor to this issue are the behavioral factors influencing transplant team decisions in donor offer scenarios, a topic that has not yet been studied in detail. Behavioral economics and decision psychology provide an excellent foundation for investigating decision-making in the pediatric transplant setting, offering key insights into the behavior of transplant professionals. We conducted a systematic review of published literature in pediatric heart transplant related to behavioral economics and the psychology of decision-making. In this review, we draw on paradigms from these two domains in order to examine how existing aspects of the transplant environment, including regulatory oversight, programmatic variation, and allocation systems, may precipitate potential biases surrounding donor offer decisions. Recognizing how human decision behavior influences donor acceptance is a first step toward improving utilization of potentially viable pediatric donor hearts.

ISHLT consensus statement on donor organ acceptability and management in pediatric heart transplantation

The number of potential pediatric heart transplant recipients continues to exceed the number of donors, and consequently the waitlist mortality remains significant. Despite this, around 40% of all donated organs are not used and are discarded. This document (62 authors from 53 institutions in 17 countries) evaluates factors responsible for discarding donor hearts and makes recommendations regarding donor heart acceptance. The aim of this statement is to ensure that no usable donor heart is discarded, waitlist mortality is reduced, and post-transplant survival is not adversely impacted.

Time for reform in transplant program-specific reporting: AST/ASTS transplant metrics taskforce

In accordance with the National Organ Transplant Act and Department of Health and Human Services' Final Rule, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) publicly releases biannual program-specific reports that include analyses of transplant centers' risk-adjusted waitlist mortality, organ acceptance ratios, transplant rates, and graft and patient survival. Since the inception of these center metrics, 1-year posttransplant graft and patient survival have improved, and center variation has decreased, casting uncertainty on their clinical relevance. The SRTR has recently modified center evaluations by ranking centers into 5 tiers rather than 3 tiers in an attempt to discriminate between programs performing within a tight range, further exacerbating this uncertainty. The American Society of Transplantation/American Society of Transplant Surgeons convened an expert taskforce to examine both the utility and unintended consequences of transplant center metrics. Estimates of center variation in outcomes in adjacent tiers are imprecise and fleeting, but can result in consequential changes in clinician and center behavior. The taskforce has concerns that current metrics, based principally on 1-year graft and patient survival, provide minimal if any benefit in informing patient choice and access to transplantation, with the untoward effect of decreased utilization of organs and restriction of research and innovation.

Maximizing Utilization in Pancreas Transplantation: Phenotypic Characteristics Differentiating Aggressive From Nonaggressive Transplant Centers

BACKGROUND

Maximizing pancreas utilization requires a balance between judicious donor selection and transplant center aggressiveness. We sought to determine how such aggressiveness affects transplant outcomes.

METHODS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we studied 28 487 deceased-donor adult pancreas transplants. Donor and recipient demographic factors indicative of aggressiveness were used to score center aggressiveness. We compared outcomes of low (> 1 SD below mean), medium (± 1 SD from mean), and high (> 1 SD above mean) aggressiveness centers using bivariate and multivariable regressions.

RESULTS

Donor and recipient aggressiveness demonstrated a roughly linear relationship (R = 0.20). Center volume correlated moderately with donor (rs = 0.433) and recipient (rs = 0.270) aggressiveness. In bivariate analysis, there was little impact of donor selection aggressiveness on graft survival. Further, for simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplants, centers with greater recipient aggressiveness selection had better graft survival. High-volume centers had better graft survival than low-volume centers. In multivariable analysis, donor aggressiveness did not have an effect on graft survival, whereas graft survival for medium (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66, 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.53-0.83) and high (HR, 0.67; CI, 0.51-0.86) recipient aggressiveness performed better than low-aggressiveness centers. There was a clear volume effect, with high-volume centers (>20 transplants/year; HR, 0.69; CI, 0.61-0.79) performing better than low-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Center practice patterns using higher-risk donors and recipients did not negatively affect outcomes. This effect is likely mediated through efficiencies gained with the increased transplant volumes at these centers.

The impact of time-varying clinical surrogates on disparities in African-American kidney transplant recipients - a retrospective longitudinal cohort study

An improved understanding of the impact of clinical surrogates on disparities in African-American (AA) kidney transplantation (KTX) is needed. We conducted a 10-year retrospective longitudinal cohort study of electronically abstracted clinical data assessing the impact of surrogates on disparities in KTX. Clinical surrogates were assessed by posttransplant year (1, 2, 3 or 4) and defined as acute rejection (Banff ≥1A), mean SBP >140 mmHg, tacrolimus variability (CV) >40%, mean glucose >160 mg/dl and mean hemoglobin <10 g/dl. We utilized landmark methodology to minimize immortal time bias and logistic and survival regression to assess outcomes; 1610 KTX were assessed (54.2% AAs), with 1000, 468, 368 and 303 included in the year 1, 2, 3 and 4 complete case analyses, respectively. AAs had significantly higher odds of developing a clinical surrogate, which increased in posttransplant years three and four [OR year 1 1.99 (1.38-2.88), year 2 1.77 (1.20-2.62), year 3 2.35 (1.49-3.71), year 4 2.85 (1.72-4.70)]. Adjusting for the five clinical surrogates in survival models explained a significant portion of the higher risks of graft loss in AAs in post-transplant years three and four. Results suggest focusing efforts on improving late clinical surrogate management within AAs may help mitigate racial disparities in KTX.

The Lifetime Health Burden of Delayed Graft Function in Kidney Transplant Recipients in the United States

Background. Although delayed graft function (DGF) is associated with an increased risk of acute rejection and decreased graft survival, there are no estimates of the long-term or lifetime health burden of DGF. Objectives. To estimate the long-term and lifetime health burden of DGF, defined as the need for at least one dialysis session within the first week after transplantation, for a cohort representative of patients who had their first kidney transplant in 2014. Methods. Data from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS; 2001–2014) were used to estimate a semi-Markov parametric multi-state model with three disease states. Maximum length of follow-up was 13.7 years, and a microsimulation model was used to extrapolate results over a lifetime. The impact of DGF was assessed by simulating the model for each patient in the cohort with and without DGF. Results. At the end of 13.7 years of follow-up, DGF reduces the probability of having a functioning graft from 52% to 32%, increases the probability of being on dialysis from 10% to 19%, and increases the probability of death from 38% to 50% relative to transplant recipients who do not experience DGF. A typical transplant recipient with DGF (median age = 53) is observed to lose 0.87 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Extrapolated over a lifetime, the same 53-year-old DGF patient is projected to lose 3.01 (95% confidence interval: 2.33, 3.70) QALYs relative to a transplant recipient with the same characteristics who does not experience DGF. Conclusions. The lifetime health burden of DGF is substantial. Understanding these consequences will help health care providers weigh kidney transplant decisions and inform policies for patients in the context of varying risks of DGF.

Evaluation of Flagging Criteria of United States Kidney Transplant Center Performance: How to Best Define Outliers?

BACKGROUND

Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients report cards of US organ transplant center performance are publicly available and used for quality oversight. Low center performance (LP) evaluations are associated with changes in practice including reduced transplant rates and increased waitlist removals. In 2014, Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients implemented new Bayesian methodology to evaluate performance which was not adopted by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In May 2016, CMS altered their performance criteria, reducing the likelihood of LP evaluations.

METHODS

Our aims were to evaluate incidence, survival rates, and volume of LP centers with Bayesian, historical (old-CMS) and new-CMS criteria using 6 consecutive program-specific reports (PSR), January 2013 to July 2015 among adult kidney transplant centers.

RESULTS

Bayesian, old-CMS and new-CMS criteria identified 13.4%, 8.3%, and 6.1% LP PSRs, respectively. Over the 3-year period, 31.9% (Bayesian), 23.4% (old-CMS), and 19.8% (new-CMS) of centers had 1 or more LP evaluation. For small centers (<83 transplants/PSR), there were 4-fold additional LP evaluations (52 vs 13 PSRs) for 1-year mortality with Bayesian versus new-CMS criteria. For large centers (>183 transplants/PSR), there were 3-fold additional LP evaluations for 1-year mortality with Bayesian versus new-CMS criteria with median differences in observed and expected patient survival of -1.6% and -2.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of kidney transplant centers are identified as low performing with relatively small survival differences compared with expected. Bayesian criteria have significantly higher flagging rates and new-CMS criteria modestly reduce flagging. Critical appraisal of performance criteria is needed to assess whether quality oversight is meeting intended goals and whether further modifications could reduce risk aversion, more efficiently allocate resources, and increase transplant opportunities.

Survival Benefit in Older Patients Associated With Earlier Transplant With High KDPI Kidneys

BACKGROUND

Given high dialysis mortality rates for patients older than 60 years, accepting a kidney with a high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) score could enable earlier and potentially preemptive transplantation (preKT). However, evidence regarding the risks of high KDPI allografts in older patients is limited. Our objective was to determine the relative benefit for older patients of KDPI greater than 85% transplant either preemptively or not compared with remaining on the waitlist.

METHODS

United Network of Organ Sharing data from 2003 to 2012 for adult deceased donor kidney transplant candidates was analyzed to evaluate patient survival in patients older than 60 years for preKT and non-preKT KDPI greater than 85% transplants compared with candidates remaining on the waitlist including patients who received KDPI 0% to 85% transplants according to multivariate Cox regression models.

RESULTS

In the first year posttransplant for KDPI greater than 85% of transplants in recipients older than 60 years, preKT had a reduced mortality hazard (hazards ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.41-0.90) and non-preKT an increased mortality hazard (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.27) compared with the waitlist including KDPI 0% to 85% transplant recipients. At 1 to 2 years and after 2 years, both KDPI greater than 85% groups had significant reductions in mortality (1-2 years: preKT HR, 0.38; 95% CI, [0.23-0.60] and non-preKT HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45-0.61; and 2+ years: preKT HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66 and non-preKT HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.58-0.70, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

PreKT and non-preKT KDPI greater than 85% transplant was associated with lower mortality hazard after the first year compared with the waitlist including KDPI 0% to 85% transplants in patients older than 60 years. Further consideration should be given to increased utilization of high KDPI grafts in older patients with the goal of avoiding or limiting time on dialysis.

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.

Nephrologists' Perspectives on Recipient Eligibility and Access to Living Kidney Donor Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Wide variations in access to living kidney donation are apparent across transplant centers. Such disparities may be in part explained by nephrologists' beliefs and decisions about recipient eligibility. This study aims to describe nephrologists' attitudes towards recipient eligibility and access to living kidney donor transplantation.

METHODS

Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted from June to October 2013 with 41 nephrologists from Australia and New Zealand. Transcripts were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

We identified five major themes: championing optimal recipient outcomes (maximizing recipient survival, increasing opportunity, accepting justified risks, needing control and certainty of outcomes, safeguarding psychological wellbeing), justifying donor sacrifice (confidence in reasonable utility, sparing the donor, ensuring reciprocal donor benefit), advocating for patients (being proactive and encouraging, addressing ambivalence, depending on supportive infrastructure, avoiding selective recommendations), maintaining professional boundaries (minimizing conflict of interest, respecting shared decision-making, emphasizing patient accountability, restricted decisional power, protecting unit interests), and entrenched inequities (exclusivity of living donors, inherently advantaging self-advocates, navigating language barriers, increasing center transparency, inevitable geographical disadvantage, understanding cultural barriers).

CONCLUSIONS

Nephrologists' decisions about recipient suitability for living donor transplantation aimed to achieve optimal recipient outcomes, but were constrained by competing priorities to ensure reasonable utility derived from the donor kidney and protect the integrity of the transplant program. Comprehensive guidelines that provide explicit recommendations for complex medical and psychosocial risk factors might promote more equitable and transparent decision-making. Psychosocial support and culturally sensitive educational resources are needed to help nephrologists advocate for disadvantaged patients and address disparities in access to living kidney donor transplantation.

National Survey of UK Consultant Surgeons’ Opinions on Surgeon-Specific Mortality Data in Cardiothoracic Surgery

Background—

In the United Kingdom, cardiothoracic surgeons have led the outcome reporting revolution seen over the last 20 years. The objective of this survey was to assess cardiothoracic surgeons’ opinions on the topic, with the aim of guiding future debate and policy making for all subspecialties.

Methods and Results—

A questionnaire was developed using interviews with experts in the field. In January 2015, the survey was sent out to all consultant cardiothoracic surgeons in the United Kingdom (n=361). Logistic regression, bivariate correlation, and the χ 2 test were used to assess whether there was a relationship between answers and demographic variables. Free-text responses were analyzed using the grounded theory approach. The response rate was 73% (n=264). The majority of respondents (58.1% oppose, 34.1% favor, and 7.8% neither) oppose the public release of surgeon-specific mortality data and associate it with several adverse consequences. These include risk-averse behavior, gaming of data, and misinterpretation of data by the public. Despite this, the majority overwhelmingly supports publication of team-based measures of outcome. The free-text responses suggest that this is because most believe that quality of care is multifactorial and not represented by an individual’s mortality rate.

Conclusions—

There is evident opposition to surgeon-specific mortality data among UK cardiothoracic surgeons who associate this with several unintended consequences. Policy makers should refine their strategy behind publication of surgeon-specific mortality data and possibly consider shift toward team-based results for which there will be the required support. Stakeholder feedback and inclusive strategy should be completed before introducing major initiatives to avoid unforeseen consequences and disagreements.

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.

Association of Candidate Removals From the Kidney Transplant Waiting List and Center Performance Oversight

Approximately 59 000 kidney transplant candidates have been removed from the waiting list since 2000 for reasons other than transplantation, death, or transfers. Prior studies indicate that low-performance (LP) center evaluations by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) are associated with reductions in transplant volume. There is limited information to determine whether performance oversight impacts waitlist management. We used national SRTR data to evaluate outcomes of 315 796 candidates on the kidney transplant waiting list (2007-2014). Compared to centers without LP, rates of waitlist removal (WLR) were higher at centers with LP evaluations (44.6/1000 follow-up years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 44.0, 45.1 versus 68.0/1000 follow-up years, 95% CI 66.6, 69.4), respectively, which was consistent after risk adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 1.59, 95% CI 1.55, 1.63). Candidate mortality following waitlist removal was lower at LP centers (AHR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87, 0.94). Analyses limited to LP centers indicated a significant increase in WLR (+28.6 removals/1000 follow-up years, p < 0.001), a decrease in transplant rates (-11.9/1000 follow-up years, p < 0.001) and a decrease in mortality after removal (-67.5 deaths/1000 follow-up years, p < 0.001) following LP evaluation. There is a significant association between LP evaluations and transplant center processes of care for waitlisted candidates. Further understanding is needed to determine the impact of performance oversight on transplant center quality of care and patient outcomes.

Critical Factors Associated With Missing Follow-Up Data for Living Kidney Donors in the United States

Follow-up care for living kidney donors is an important responsibility of the transplant community. Prior reports indicate incomplete donor follow-up information, which may reflect both donor and transplant center factors. New UNOS regulations require reporting of donor follow-up information by centers for 2 years. We utilized national SRTR data to evaluate donor and center-level factors associated with completed follow-up for donors 2008-2012 (n = 30 026) using multivariable hierarchical logistic models. We compared center follow-up compliance based on current UNOS standards using adjusted and unadjusted models. Complete follow-up at 6, 12, and 24 months was 67%, 60%, and 50% for clinical and 51%, 40%, and 30% for laboratory data, respectively, but have improved over time. Donor risk factors for missing laboratory data included younger age 18-34 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.03, 1.58-2.60), black race (AOR = 1.17, 1.05-1.30), lack of insurance (AOR = 1.25, 1.15-1.36), lower educational attainment (AOR = 1.19, 1.06-1.34), >500 miles to center (AOR = 1.78, 1.60-1.98), and centers performing >40 living donor transplants/year (AOR = 2.20, 1.21-3.98). Risk-adjustment moderately shifted classification of center compliance with UNOS standards. There is substantial missing donor follow-up with marked variation by donor characteristics and centers. Although follow-up has improved over time, targeted efforts are needed for donors with selected characteristics and at centers with higher living donor volume. Adding adjustment for donor factors to policies regulating follow-up may function to provide more balanced evaluation of center efforts.

Projections in donor organs available for liver transplantation in the United States: 2014-2025

With the aging US population, demographic shifts, and obesity epidemic, there is potential for further exacerbation of the current liver donor shortage. We aimed to project the availability of liver grafts in the United States. We performed a secondary analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database of all adult donors from 2000 to 2012 and calculated the total number of donors available and transplanted donor livers stratified by age, race, and body mass index (BMI) group per year. We used National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention historical data to stratify the general population by age, sex, race, and BMI. We then used US population age and race projections provided by the US Census Bureau and the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service and made national and regional projections of available donors and donor liver utilization from 2014 to 2025. We performed sensitivity analyses and varied the rate of the rise in obesity, proportion of Hispanics, population growth, liver utilization rate, and donation after cardiac death (DCD) utilization. The projected adult population growth in the United States from 2014 to 2025 will be 7.1%. However, we project that there will be a 6.1% increase in the number of used liver grafts. There is marked regional heterogeneity in liver donor growth. Projections were significantly affected by changes in BMI, DCD utilization, and liver utilization rates but not by changes in the Hispanic proportion of the US population or changes in the overall population growth. Overall population growth will outpace the growth of available donor organs and thus potentially exacerbate the existing liver graft shortage. The projected growth in organs is highly heterogeneous across different United Network for Organ Sharing regions. Focused strategies to increase the liver donor pool are warranted.

Association between kidney transplant center performance and the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Despite the benefits of kidney transplantation, the total number of transplants performed in the United States has stagnated since 2006. Transplant center quality metrics have been associated with a decline in transplant volume among low-performing centers. There are concerns that regulatory oversight may lead to risk aversion and lack of transplantation growth.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A retrospective cohort study of adults (age≥18 years) wait-listed for kidney transplantation in the United States from 2003 to 2010 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was conducted. The primary aim was to investigate whether measured center performance modifies the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis. Center performance was on the basis of the most recent Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients evaluation at the time that patients were placed on the waiting list. The primary outcome was the time-dependent adjusted hazard ratio of death compared with remaining on the transplant waiting list.

RESULTS

Among 223,808 waitlisted patients, 59,199 and 32,764 patients received a deceased or living donor transplant, respectively. Median follow-up from listing was 43 months (25th percentile=25 months, 75th percentile=67 months), and there were 43,951 total patient deaths. Deceased donor transplantation was independently associated with lower mortality at each center performance level compared with remaining on the waiting list; adjusted hazard ratio was 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.27) among 11,972 patients listed at high-performing centers, adjusted hazard ratio was 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.33) among 203,797 patients listed at centers performing as expected, and adjusted hazard ratio was 0.40 (95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.45) among 8039 patients listed at low-performing centers. The survival benefit was significantly different by center performance (P value for interaction <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that measured center performance modifies the survival benefit of kidney transplantation, but the benefit of transplantation remains highly significant even at centers with low measured quality. Policies that concurrently emphasize improved center performance with access to transplantation should be prioritized to improve ESRD population outcomes.

Association between liver transplant center performance evaluations and transplant volume

There has been increased oversight of transplant centers and stagnation in liver transplantation nationally in recent years. We hypothesized that centers that received low performance (LP) evaluations were more likely to alter protocols, resulting in reduced rates of transplants and patients placed on the waiting list. We evaluated the association of LP evaluations and transplant activity among liver transplant centers in the United States using national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data (January 2007 to July 2012). We compared the average change in recipient and candidate volume and donor and patient characteristics based on whether the centers received LP evaluations. Of 92 eligible centers, 27 (29%) received at least one LP evaluation. Centers without an LP evaluation (n = 65) had an average increase of 9.3 transplants and 14.9 candidates while LP centers had an average decrease of 39.9 transplants (p < 0.01) and 67.3 candidates (p < 0.01). LP centers reduced the use of older donors, donations with longer cold ischemia, and donations after cardiac death (p-values < 0.01). There was no association between the change in transplant volume and measured performance (R(2)  = 0.002, p = 0.91). Findings indicate a strong association between performance evaluations and changes in candidate listings and transplants among liver transplant centers, with no measurable improvement in outcomes associated with reduction in transplant volume.

Patient selection and volume in the era surrounding implementation of Medicare conditions of participation for transplant programs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate evidence of practice changes affecting kidney transplant program volumes, and donor, recipient and candidate selection in the era surrounding the introduction of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) conditions of participation (CoPs) for organ transplant programs.

DATA

Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients; CMS ESRD and Medicare claims databases.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of national registry data.

METHODS

A Cox proportional hazards model of 1-year graft survival was used to derive risks associated with deceased-donor kidney transplants performed from 2001 to 2010.

FINDINGS

Among programs with ongoing noncompliance with the CoPs, kidney transplant volumes declined by 38 percent (n = 766) from 2006 to 2011, including a 55 percent drop in expanded criteria donor transplants. Volume increased by 6 percent (n = 638) among programs remaining in compliance. Aggregate risk of 1-year graft failure increased over time due to increasing recipient age and obesity, and longer ESRD duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Although trends in aggregate risk of 1-year kidney graft loss do not indicate that the introduction of the CoPs has systematically reduced opportunities for marginal candidates or that there has been a systematic shift away from utilization of higher risk deceased donor kidneys, total volume and expanded criteria donor utilization decreased overall among programs with ongoing noncompliance.