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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Renal transplantation (Tx) represents the treatment of choice for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (ACKD), but the shortage of available organs for those with a high level of comorbidity can significantly increase mortality in patients who are candidates for Tx. This constitutes a worrying health care problem, given the increase in incident and prevalent patients with ACKD, and is especially concerning amongst those with ACKD that is secondary to conditions with a high level of comorbidity, such as diabetes or arterial hypertension. In addition, this can increase the number of patients on the waiting list (WL) and cause the rapid raising of mortality figures. Therefore, nowadays it is relevant to identify the causes of death and the mortality risk factors in this population, to know the barriers that limit access to Tx and to apply predictive mortality models, with the aim of improving survival rates from these illnesses. In this review on the mortality of the patients on the WL, the following aspects will be addressed: 1) the magnitude of this problem and the importance of certain epidemiological data; 2) the mortality risk factors in these patients and the barriers that exist against access to Tx, which could increase mortality rates amongst this population; 3) evaluation of the risk of death in patients on dialysis from comorbidity; 4) assessment of mortality on the WL, via regression analysis of competitive risks, and the generation of a compound risk model, which includes comorbidity and other uraemic factors.
    Nefrologia: publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola Nefrologia 01/2015; 35(1):18-27. DOI:10.3265/Nefrologia.pre2014.Oct.12681 · 1.44 Impact Factor
  • [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: Genetic factors seem to play a more important role early in the course of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), whereas nongenetic factors seem to play a more important role over the course of the disease. SLE is more frequent with less favorable outcomes in nonwhite populations. To overcome these differences and reduce the immediate-term, mediate-term, and long-term impact of SLE among disadvantaged populations, it is essential to increase disease awareness, to improve access to health care and to provide care to these patients in a consistent manner regardless of the severity of their disease.
    Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America 08/2014; 40(3). DOI:10.1016/j.rdc.2014.04.001 · 1.74 Impact Factor


Available from