A comparison of the costs and effects of liver transplantation for acute and for chronic liver failure

Transplant International (Impact Factor: 3.16). 03/2001; 14(2):87-94. DOI:10.1007/s001470050852

ABSTRACT Little is known about costs and cost-effectiveness of liver transplantation (LTx) for acute liver failure compared to costs
and cost-effectiveness of LTx for chronic liver failure. In this study, costs of acute and of chronic LTx patients were determined
in a retrospective study. Files of 100 consecutive patients who underwent LTx in 1993–1997 were studied. Costs up to 1 year
after LTx were Euro 107,675 (chronic liver failure) and Euro 90,792 (acute liver failure). The difference was mainly caused
by higher hospitalisation costs and higher personnel costs for chronic liver failure. Medication costs for acute liver failure
were higher, due to a high administration rate of expensive anti-HBs immunoglobulin therapy in patients with viral hepatitis
B. LTx for chronic liver failure is more costly and seems to be more cost-effective than LTx for acute liver failure, since
1-year survival is higher in patients who underwent transplantation for chronic liver failure.

0 0
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We report the results of a retrospective review of the outpatient pretransplantation workup for United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) 3 patients adopted at a liver transplantation (LT) center and illustrate the efficiency indicators used for quality evaluation and cost-analysis. A single-center, pre-LT evaluation workup was performed on an outpatient basis at a cost per patient evaluation of 2,770 Euros (). Objective measures were: the number of patients admitted to and excluded from each phase of the algorithm; the rate of patients admitted to pre-LT evaluation out of the total of referred patients (the referral efficiency rate); the rate of waitlisted patients out of those admitted to pre-LT evaluation (the evaluation efficiency rate); the rate of waitlisted patients out of those referred for LT (the process efficiency rate); and the cost per waitlisted patient, as the ratio of the cost per patient evaluation to the evaluation efficiency rate. From January 1, 1996, to October 1, 2004, 1,837 patients were referred for LT on an outpatient basis. Based on preemptive evaluation of the available clinical data, 412 patients (22.4%) were excluded from pre-LT evaluation and 1,425 (77.6%) were admitted to preliminary consultation. Among these, 603 (42.3%) were excluded from and 822 (57.7%) were admitted to pre-LT evaluation with a referral efficiency rate of 44.7% (822 of 1,837). Out of the patients evaluated for LT, 484 were waitlisted with a cost-utility and evaluation efficiency rate of 58.8% each (484 of 822). Of the 1,837 patients originally addressed for LT 484 were waitlisted, yielding a process efficiency rate of 26.3% (484 of 1,837) and a cost per waitlisted patient of 4,710.8. In conclusion, the 3 indicators allowed monitoring of the efficiency of the pre-LT evaluation algorithm. The current process efficiency rate at our center is low (26.3%), but avoiding early referrals we might increase it to 31.6%, with a 12% net saving on costs per waitlisted patient (from 4,710.8 to 4,165.4).
    Liver Transplantation 10/2005; 11(9):1080-5. · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Economic issues are important in transplantation. We reviewed the literature about health economics as well as transplantation and highlighted areas for further development.
    Transplantation Reviews. 01/2006; 20(2):61-75.
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Liver failure, whether acute or acute-on-chronic, remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality. The lack of liver detoxification, metabolic and regulatory functions of the liver leads to life-threatening complications, such as renal failure, altered immune response, hepatic coma and systemic haemodynamic dysfunction, eventually culminating in multiorgan failure. Current medical therapy involves the management of the precipitating event and treatment of complications until the liver eventually recovers, leaving us with no other treatment options than transplantation if these attempts fail. However, the shortage in cadaveric organs and other transplant-related problems, have prompted the need for alternative methods to provide liver support. As liver failure is often potentially reversible, considerable effort has been invested in the development of liver support systems. Currently, most of the experience is available for non-biological support systems. They represent the focus of this review, which aims to define the goals of liver support, to describe the design of the different existing devices and to analyse the available data to determine their current status in the management of patients with liver failure.
    Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 03/2006; 23(3):351-63. · 4.55 Impact Factor