Article

Factors Influencing Liver Transplant Length of Stay at Two Large-Volume Transplant Centers

Transplant Center, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Liver Transplantation (Impact Factor: 4.24). 11/2009; 15(11):1570-8. DOI: 10.1002/lt.21858
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Length of stay (LOS) is considered a reliable surrogate for liver transplant resource utilization. Little information exists about how donor and recipient variables interact to affect transplant LOS. Data for adult, non-status 1 transplants (1998-2005), including the donor risk index (DRI) and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, were collected from 2 institutions (n = 745 for center A and n = 710 for center B). Cox proportional hazards models identified variables associated with LOS for the separate and combined cohorts. The cohorts differed significantly in donor, recipient, and transplant factors. DRI (1.46 for center A and 1.40 for center B, P = 0.0013) and MELD (22.4 for center A and 20.4 for center B, P = 0.046) were both higher at center A, but LOS was comparable (13.7 days for center A and 13.3 days for center B, P = 0.052). Three factors at center A (nonlocal donor, recipient age, and MELD) and 7 factors at center B (donor age and weight, recipient female gender, retransplant status, international normalized ratio, MELD, and cold ischemia time) were associated with transplant LOS. For the combined cohort, donor age, weight, nonlocal status, recipient age, female gender, retransplant status, MELD, and transplant center were LOS risk factors. In conclusion, the impact of donor and recipient variables on LOS varies by institution. However, the MELD score exerts a potent and consistent effect across institutions, emphasizing the dominant role of disease severity in liver transplant resource utilization.

0 Followers
 · 
97 Views
 · 
2 Downloads
  • Source
    Liver Transplantation 11/2009; 15(11):1387-8. DOI:10.1002/lt.21935 · 4.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are three possible policies for prioritization for liver transplantation: medical urgency, utility and transplant benefit. The first is based on the severity of cirrhosis, using Child-Turcotte-Pugh score and, more recently, the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, or variants of MELD, for allocation. Although prospectively developed and validated, the MELD score has several limitations, including interlaboratory variations for measurement of serum creatinine and international normalized ratio of prothrombin time, and a systematic adverse female gender bias. Adjustments to the original MELD equation and new scoring systems have been proposed to overcome these limitations; incorporation of serum sodium improves its predictive accuracy. The MELD score poorly predicts outcomes after liver transplantation due to the absence of donor factors incorporated into the scoring system. Several utility models are based on donor and recipient characteristics. Combined poor recipient and donor characteristics lead to very poor outcomes, which in a utility system would be considered unacceptable. Finally, transplant benefit models rank patients according to the net survival benefit that they would derive from transplantation. However, complex statistical models are required, and unmeasured characteristics may unduly affect the models. Well-designed prospective studies and simulation models are necessary to establish the optimal allocation system in liver transplantation.
    Nature Reviews Gastroenterology &#38 Hepatology 11/2010; 7(12):659-68. DOI:10.1038/nrgastro.2010.169 · 10.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The progressive increase in the demand for liver transplantation has led to changes in donor selection and allocation, such as the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score (MELD). Characteristics related to the donor, recipient, and transplantation procedure influence the results. The use of expanded-criteria donors (ECDs) and the donor risk index (DRI) are strategies that have been proposed to increase the donors pool. We sought to study liver recipient survival before and after MELD implementation as well as the use of DRI. This retrospective study of prospectively collected data analyzed 1,786 liver recipients and their donors according to gender, age, cause of brain death, intensive care unit time, split liver, infection, ECD, cardiac arrest, cold ischemia time, waiting list time, and donor origin. MELD (without special scoring) and DRI were calculated from the recorded data. The periods of this study were 2004-2006 (pre-MELD) and 2006-2008 (post-MELD). For survival times, we performed the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests and Cox regression analysis (prediction). The Kolmogorov-Sminorv test was used for sample comparisons. The 1-year survivals were similar in the 2 periods (65.4% vs 67.6%). The predictive factors for death among the whole population were DRI >1.5, cold ischemia time ≥9 hours, MELD ≥25, female recipient, and longer waiting list time. MELD is an important tool for allocation, resulting in a reduced waiting list, increased number of split-liver procedures, and use of ECDs without deterioration of survival times. DRI >1.7 was associated with shorter survival.
    Transplantation Proceedings 12/2010; 42(10):4113-5. DOI:10.1016/j.transproceed.2010.09.092 · 0.95 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview

Download
2 Downloads