Impact of outcomes monitoring on innovation and risk in liver transplantation

University of California San Francisco. .
Liver Transplantation (Impact Factor: 4.24). 11/2012; 18(S2). DOI: 10.1002/lt.23539
Source: PubMed


Key Points
1. The reporting of liver transplant center outcomes is required by the final rule of the Department of Health and Human Services. The reported patient and graft survival outcomes are risk-adjusted for specific donor and recipient factors, and the observed survival is compared to the expected survival. Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network flag programs for corrective action when the observed survival is significantly less than the expected survival. Both agencies can take action up to the closure of a center. In the last 5 years, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network has not taken an adverse action that required the closure of a liver transplant center because of outcomes.
2. Center survey data suggest that centers may try to select donors and recipients to minimize poor outcomes. This strategy may not be effective if centers stop accepting donors or recipients according to factors that are included in the risk adjustment model. For example, limiting recipients to those less than 65 years old may improve the observed outcomes, but the expected outcomes will also improve because a recipient 65 years or older is included in the model's risk adjustment.
3. For factors such as cardiovascular risk that are not included in the model, it may be reasonable to exclude patients in an attempt to improve the observed outcomes without affecting the expected outcomes. Other examples of these types of factors are smoking, nutritional status, and donor liver biopsy findings.
4. Currently, there is no exemption for patients undergoing experimental protocols. Down-staging for hepatocellular carcinoma, transplantation for human immunodeficiency virus–positive recipients, and the use of left lobe grafts with inflow modification are relatively recent areas of innovation in liver transplantation. Because innovation is frequently associated with a learning curve and, therefore, poor outcomes, the inclusion of patients in innovative protocols potentially could lead to centers being subjected to an adverse action by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Active consideration is being given to the exclusion of patients in innovative protocols from center-specific outcomes. Liver Transpl, 2012.

4 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Liver transplantation (LT) has evolved rapidly since the first successful liver transplant performed in1967. Despite a humble beginning, this procedure gained widespread acceptance in the western world as a suitable option for patients with end stage liver disease (ESLD) by the beginning of the 1980s. At present, approximately 25,000 liver transplants are being performed worldwide every year with approximately 90% one year survival. The techniques of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) developed in East Asia in the 1990s to overcome the shortage of suitable grafts for children and scarcity of deceased donors. While deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) constitutes more than 90% of LT in the western world, in India and other Asian countries, most transplants are LDLT. Despite the initial disparity, outcomes following LDLT in eastern countries have been quite satisfactory when compared to the western programs. The etiologies of liver failure requiring LT vary in different parts of the world. The commonest etiology for acute liver failure (ALF) leading to LT is drugs in the west and acute viral hepatitis in Asia. The most common indication for LT due to ESLD in west is alcoholic cirrhosis and hepatitis C virus (HCV), while hepatitis B virus (HBV) predominates in the east. There is a variation in prognostic models for assessing candidature and prioritizing organ allocation across the world. Model for end–stage liver disease (MELD) is followed in United States and some European centers. Other European countries rely on the Child–Turcotte–Pugh (CTP) score. Some parts of Asia still follow chronological order of listing. The debate regarding the best model for organ allocation is far from over.
    Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology 09/2013; 3(3):243–253. DOI:10.1016/j.jceh.2013.08.004
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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 (R2 = 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.
    American Journal of Transplantation 08/2014; 14(9). DOI:10.1111/ajt.12826 · 5.68 Impact Factor
  • Liver Transplantation 11/2014; 20(S2). DOI:10.1002/lt.23998 · 4.24 Impact Factor
Show more