Article

Rates of solid-organ wait-listing, transplantation, and survival among residents of rural and urban areas.

Department of Surgery, Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 01/2008; 299(2):202-7. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2007.50
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Disparities in access to organ transplantation exist for racial minorities, women, and patients with lower socioeconomic status or inadequate insurance. Rural residents represent another group that may have impaired access to transplant services.
To assess the association of rural residence with waiting list registration for heart, liver, and kidney transplant and rates of transplantation among wait-listed candidates.
Five-year US cohort of 174,630 patients who were wait-listed and who underwent heart, liver, or kidney transplantation between 1999 and 2004.
Rates of new waiting list registrations and transplants per million population for residents of 3 residential classifications (rural/small town population, <10,000; micropolitan, 10,000-50,000; and metropolitan >50,000 or suburb of major city).
Compared with urban residents, waiting list registration rates for rural/small town residents were significantly lower for heart (covariate-adjusted rate ratio [RR] = 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.96; P<.002), liver (RR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89; P<.001), and kidney transplants (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90-0.95; P<.001). Compared with residents in urban areas, rural/small town residents had lower relative transplant rates for heart (RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94; P = .004), liver (RR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.77-0.84; P<.001), and kidney transplantation (covariate-adjusted RR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93; P<.001). These disparities were consistent across national organ allocation regions. Significantly longer waiting times among rural patients wait-listed for heart transplantation were observed but not for liver and kidney transplantation. There were no significant differences in posttransplantation outcomes between groups.
Patients living in rural areas had a lower rate of wait-lisiting and transplant of solid organs, but did not experience significantly different outcomes following transplant. Differences in rates of wait-listing and transplant may be due to variations in the burden of disease between different patient groups or barriers to evaluation and waiting list entry for rural residents with organ failure.

0 Followers
 · 
114 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an important treatment option for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but whether recurrence and survival in LDLT differ from those in deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) remains controversial. A retrospective analysis was performed between patients with HCC who underwent LDLT in a Japanese institute (n = 133) and those who underwent DDLT in a United States institute (n = 362). Although there was a difference in patient background characteristics (eg, body mass index, donor age, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD] score), tumor aggressiveness represented by Milan criteria and microscopic vascular invasion were comparable between the 2 groups. The cumulative 5-year recurrence rates of the LDLT group and the DDLT group were similar (14.8% vs 19.0%, p = 0.638), but overall survival in the LDLT group was significantly better than that in the DDLT group (84.2% vs 63.5%, p < 0.0001). Separate multivariate analysis identified different preoperative predictive factors for HCC recurrence (salvage transplantation and Des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin >300 in the LDLT group, beyond Milan criteria in the DDLT group). Combined multivariate analysis of the 2 groups identified recipient's body mass image >30 kg/m(2) as an independent risk factor for overall survival; the technique of transplantation (LDLT or DDLT) was not found to be a risk factor. When compared between the institutes where LDLT or DDLT were the first treatment choices for unresectable HCC, recurrence rates were comparable. Living donor liver trasplantation is a viable treatment option for unresectable HCC, providing recurrence rates similar to those achieved with DDLT. Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of the American College of Surgeons 12/2014; 220(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.12.009 · 4.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the impact of market competition on patient mortality and graft failure after kidney transplantation.
    Annals of Surgery 09/2014; 260(3):550-7. DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000000896 · 7.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose of this study is to test whether maternal deceased organ donation is associated with rates of subsequent acute injuries among surviving children after their mother's death. Methods: This is alongitudinal cohort analysis of children linked to mothers who died of a catastrophic brain event in Ontario, Canada, between April 1988 and March 2012. Surviving children were distinguished by whether their mother was an organ donor after death. The primary outcome was an acute injury event in surviving children during the year after their mother's death. Results: Surviving children (n = 454) had a total of 293 injury events during the year after their mother's death, equivalent to an average of 65 events per 100 children per year and a significant difference comparing children of mothers who were organ donors to children of mothers who were not organ donors (21 vs 82, P < .001). This difference in subsequent injury rates between groups was equal to a 76% relative reduction in risk (95% confidence interval, 62%-85%). Conclusions: Deceased organ donation was associated with a reduction in excess acute injuries among surviving children after their mother's death. An awareness of this positive association provides some reassurance about deceased organ donation programs.
    Journal of Critical Care 07/2014; 29(6). DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.07.017 · 2.19 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from