Evaluation for liver transplantation: adherence to AASLD referral guidelines in a large Veterans Affairs center.

Houston Center for Quality of Care and Utilization Studies, Houston Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Liver Transplantation (Impact Factor: 3.79). 11/2005; 11(11):1370-8. DOI: 10.1002/lt.20434
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Access of patients to liver transplantation involves three levels: referral for evaluation for transplantation, placement on a waiting list for transplantation, and receipt of a liver transplant. No study has formally evaluated access to liver transplantation at the referral level. Therefore, we sought to estimate the magnitude and determinants of consideration of liver transplantation in patients at a single, large Veterans Affairs medical center. Patients with liver disease were identified between October 2002 and September 2003, and their entire medical records were examined for encounters involving potential indications for liver transplantation according to American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) guidelines, mention of liver transplantation, and potential contraindications. Liver transplantation was mentioned in only 59 (20%) of 300 encounters, constituting 41 (21%) of 199 patients satisfying AASLD guidelines for referral. The significant negative independent determinants of mention of liver transplantation were older age (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.77, P = 0.01), alcoholic liver disease (adjusted OR: 0.10; 95% CI: 0.02-0.57, P = 0.01), and black race (OR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.02-0.96, P = 0.045). Most patients had potential contraindications that were inferred (but not documented) as reasons for not being evaluated for transplantation; however, a small but significant proportion (7%) had no recorded evidence of contraindications. In conclusion, we found a low rate of mention of liver transplantation in patients who satisfied AASLD guidelines for referral, particularly among patients with alcoholic liver disease and blacks. Deficiencies at the referral level may lead to disparities at further levels of access to liver transplantation.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Higher rates of hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence and lower response to HCV anti-viral therapy contribute to the lower post-liver transplantation (LT) survival among African Americans with HCV. The current study aims to evaluate race/ethnicity-specific and etiology-specific factors contributing to lower post-LT survival among African Americans in the U.S. The 2002-2012 United Network for Organ Sharing registry was utilized to evaluate race/ethnicity-specific post-LT survival among patients with HCV, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), alcoholic liver disease (ALD), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, and cryptogenic cirrhosis. From 2002-2012, HCV was the leading indication for LT. While African Americans accounted for 9.5% of all LT during this period, they had the lowest overall and etiology-specific 5-year post-LT survival. On multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling, African Americans had significantly lower post-LT survival compared to non-Hispanic whites among patients with HCV (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.19–1.41), HCC (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.25–1.79) and ALD (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.19–1.94). In conclusion, African Americans had the lowest post-LT survival among patients with HCV, HCC and ALD. Race/ethnicity and the etiology of chronic liver disease were observed to have a combined detrimental effect leading to lower survival following LT in African Americans.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Clinical Transplantation 04/2014; 28(7). DOI:10.1111/ctr.12374 · 1.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Little is known about how alcohol causes liver disease and cirrhosis. The strongest evidence of the causality between alcohol and liver disease stems from epidemiological observations. Factors contributing to alcohol-induced fibrosis and cirrhosis include cytokines, oxidative stress, and toxic metabolites of ethanol. Patients with alcoholic cirrhosis generally have complications at diagnosis, and cirrhotic complications should be actively assessed because they are closely associated with subsequent morbidity as well as mortality. Abstinence is strictly required to prevent disease progression and is critical for eventual liver transplantation. In addition, nutritional therapy remains the mainstay of managing alcoholic cirrhosis.
    Hepatic Medicine: Evidence and Research 12/2011; 3:1-11. DOI:10.2147/HMER.S10265
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We sought to compare liver transplant waiting list access by demographics and geography relative to the pool of potential liver transplant candidates across the United States using a novel metric of access to care, termed a liver wait-listing ratio (LWR). We calculated LWRs from national liver transplant registration data and liver mortality data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the National Center for Healthcare Statistics from 1999 to 2006 to identify variation by diagnosis, demographics, geography, and era. Among patients with ALF and CLF, African Americans had significantly lower access to the waiting list compared with whites (acute: 0.201 versus 0.280; pre-MELD 0.201 versus 0.290; MELD era: 0.201 versus 0.274; all, P<0.0001) (chronic: 0.084 versus 0.163; pre-MELD 0.085 versus 0.179; MELD 0.084 versus 0.154; all, P<0.0001). Hispanics and whites had similar LWR in both eras (both P>0.05). In the MELD era, female subjects had greater access to the waiting list compared with male subjects (acute: 0.428 versus 0.154; chronic: 0.158 versus 0.140; all, P<0.0001). LWRs varied by three-fold by state (pre-MELD acute: 0.122-0.418, chronic: 0.092-0.247; MELD acute: 0.121-0.428, chronic: 0.092-0.243). The marked inequity in early access to liver transplantation underscores the need for local and national policy initiatives to affect this disparity.
    Transplantation 03/2014; DOI:10.1097/01.TP.0000443223.89831.85 · 3.78 Impact Factor