Dataset Information

Mortality Risk Factors Among Patients With Cirrhosis and a Low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium Score (?15): An Analysis of Liver Transplant Allocation Policy Using Aggregated Electronic Health Record Data.

ABSTRACT: Although the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease sodium (MELD Na) score is now used for liver transplant allocation in the United States, mortality prediction may be underestimated by the score. Using aggregated electronic health record data from 7834 adult patients with cirrhosis, we determined whether the cause of cirrhosis or cirrhosis complications was associated with an increased risk of death among patients with a MELD Na score ?15 and whether patients with the greatest risk of death could benefit from liver transplantation (LT). Over median follow-up of 2.3 years, 3715 patients had a maximum MELD Na score ?15. Overall, 3.4% were waitlisted for LT. Severe hypoalbuminemia, hepatorenal syndrome, and hepatic hydrothorax conferred the greatest risk of death independent of MELD Na score with 1-year predicted mortality >14%. Approximately 10% possessed these risk factors. Of these high-risk patients, only 4% were waitlisted for LT, despite no difference in nonliver comorbidities between waitlisted patients and those not listed. In addition, risk factors for death among waitlisted patients were the same as those for patients not waitlisted, although the effect of malnutrition was significantly greater for waitlisted patients (hazard ratio 8.65 [95% CI 2.57-29.11] vs. 1.47 [95% CI 1.08-1.98]). Using the MELD Na score for allocation may continue to limit access to LT.

SUBMITTER: Atiemo K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5769449 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mortality Risk Factors Among Patients With Cirrhosis and a Low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium Score (≤15): An Analysis of Liver Transplant Allocation Policy Using Aggregated Electronic Health Record Data.

Atiemo K K Skaro A A Maddur H H Zhao L L Montag S S VanWagner L L Goel S S Kho A A Ho B B Kang R R Holl J L JL Abecassis M M MM Levitsky J J Ladner D P DP

American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons 20170404 9

Although the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease sodium (MELD Na) score is now used for liver transplant allocation in the United States, mortality prediction may be underestimated by the score. Using aggregated electronic health record data from 7834 adult patients with cirrhosis, we determined whether the cause of cirrhosis or cirrhosis complications was associated with an increased risk of death among patients with a MELD Na score ≤15 and whether patients with the greatest risk of death could b ...[more]

PMID: 28226199

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLiver allocation is determined by the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), a scoring system based on 4 laboratory measurements. During the MELD era, sex disparities in liver transplant have increased and there are no modifications to MELD based on sex.ObjectiveTo use laboratory values stored in electronic health records to describe population-level sex differences in all MELD laboratory values (in healthy individuals and patients with liver disease) and propose a sex adjustment.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study was conducted from March 2019 to April 2020 to evaluate sex differences in laboratory values in liver transplant patients, patients with liver disease who did not undergo transplant, and healthy controls. Primary analyses were conducted in Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC)'s deidentified electronic health record system. Replication analyses were conducted in the All of Us Research Program. Simulations of a sex-adjusted sodium-adjusted MELD (MELDNa) score were completed using liver transplant waiting list data from the liver simulated allocation modeling system. Patients who regularly used VUMC with measurements for any MELDNa component laboratory were included in the analyses. Analysis took place from November 2019 to March 2021.ExposuresElectronic health record-reported sex.Main outcomes and measureCreatinine, bilirubin, international normalized ratio, and sodium levels.ResultsThe VUMC sample was composed of 623 931 individuals (359 976 [57.7%] female) with a median (IQR) age of 44 (23-61) years. All component MELDNa laboratory values and calculated MELDNa scores yielded significant sex differences within VUMC (mean [SD] creatinine: male, 0.99 [0.39] mg/dL; female, 0.79 [0.30] mg/dL; P < .001; bilirubin: male, 0.76 [0.83] mg/dL; female, 0.58 [0.64] mg/dL; P < .001; international normalized ratio of prothrombin rate: male, 1.24 [0.42]; female, 1.20 [0.40]; P < .001; sodium: male, 139.00 [2.36] mEq/L; female, 139.03 [2.28] mEq/L; P < .001), resulting in MELDNa scoring that disadvantaged female individuals. This pattern persisted when the sample was divided into healthy controls, individuals with liver disease who did not undergo transplant, and patients who did undergo liver transplant. Female transplant patients had a greater number of decompensation traits (mean [SD]: male, 1.34 [1.11]; female, 1.60 [1.09]; P = .005), despite having lower MELDNa scores (mean [SD]: male, 21.72 [6.11]; female, 20.21 [6.15]; P = .005), indicating MELDNa scores are not accurately representing disease severity in female individuals. In simulations, the sex-adjusted MELDNa score modestly increased female transplant rate and decreased overall death.Conclusions and relevanceThese results demonstrate pervasive sex differences in all laboratory values used in MELDNa scoring and highlight the need and utility of a sex-adjustment to the MELDNa protocol.

Project description:ImportanceThe Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) approved changes to the US kidney allocation system in 2019. The potential effects of this policy change using transplant rates normalized to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) incidence have not been investigated.ObjectiveTo estimate how the OPTN kidney allocation policy will affect areas of the US currently demonstrating low rates of kidney transplant, when accounting for the regional burden of ESKD.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional population-based economic evaluation analyzed access of patients with ESKD to kidney transplant in the US. Participants included patients with incident ESKD, those on the kidney transplant wait list, and those who received a kidney transplant. Data were collected from January 1 to December 31, 2017, and were analyzed in 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe probability of a patient with ESKD being placed on the transplant wait list or receiving a deceased donor kidney transplant. States and donor service areas (DSAs) were compared for gains and losses in rates of transplanted kidneys under the new allocation system. Transplant rates were normalized for ESKD burden.ResultsA total of 122 659 patients had incident ESKD in the US in 2017 (58.2% men; mean [SD] age, 62.8 [15.1] years). The probability of a patient with ESKD receiving a deceased donor kidney transplant varied 3-fold across the US (from 6.36% in West Virginia to 18.68% in the District of Columbia). Modeling of the OPTN demonstrates that DSAs from New York (124%), Georgia (65%), and Illinois (56%) are estimated to experience the largest increases in deceased donor kidney allocation. Other than Georgia, these states have kidney transplant rates per incident ESKD cases above the mean (of 50 states plus the District of Columbia, New York is 16th and Illinois is 24th). In contrast, DSAs from Nevada (-74%), Ohio (-67%), and North Carolina (-61%)-each of which has a transplant rate per incident ESKD cases significantly below the mean-are estimated to experience the largest decreases in deceased donor allocation (of 50 states plus the District of Columbia, North Carolina is 34th, Ohio is 38th, and Nevada is 47th).Conclusions and relevanceThe new OPTN-approved kidney allocation policy may result in worsening geographic disparities in access to transplants when measured against the burden of ESKD within a particular region of the US.

Project description:ImportanceWide state-level variability in waiting list outcomes have been noted for patients listed for heart transplant in the US, but little is known regarding center-level transplant rates since the heart allocation policy change.ObjectiveTo evaluate center-level transplant rates following the recent allocation policy change for heart transplant.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database from October 18, 2015, to March 1, 2020, for a nationwide analysis of transplant centers in the US. Transplant candidates were stratified into 2 time cohorts, with era 1 denoting the 3-year period before the policy change (October 18, 2018), and era 2 representing the 500-day period after the policy change but before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were analyzed from May to June 2021.ExposureThe heart allocation policy change enacted on October 18, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresCompeting risk regression for waiting list outcomes was performed to calculate adjusted era 1 and era 2 center-level transplant rates. Rates were compared across regions and states, as well as within organ procurement organizations. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess center-level factors associated with era 2 transplant rates.ResultsOf 15 940 transplant candidates included for analysis, 5063 (median [IQR] age, 56 [45-63] years; 1385 women [27.4%]) comprised the era 2 cohort. The proportion of patients with temporary mechanical circulatory support increased between era 1 and era 2 (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 2.00% vs 3.42%; percutaneous ventricular assist device, 0.66% vs 1.86%; intra-aortic balloon pump, 5.21% vs 13.10%). The adjusted mean center-level likelihood of transplant increased after the rule change (from 48.1% in era 1 to 78.0% in era 2). Significant variation in transplant rates was observed across regions and states even among centers with shared organ procurement organizations. The largest absolute difference in transplant rates was 27.1% for 2 centers belonging to the same organ procurement organization. Centers with higher transplant volumes in era 2 and with a greater proportion of candidates with intra-aortic balloon pump were observed to have higher transplant rates.Conclusions and relevanceDespite sharing organ supply and having a small geographical distance, these findings suggest that intercenter disparities in the likelihood of transplant have persisted following the heart allocation policy change. Further work is necessary to ensure equitable allocation of organs in heart transplant.

Project description:Background and aimsIn some states, liver transplantation (LT) for alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is covered by Medicaid only with documentation of abstinence and/or alcohol rehabilitation. Different Medicaid policies may affect the distribution of LT for ALD, particularly post-2011, as centers have adopted early (i.e., specific abstinence period not required) LT practices.Approach and resultsWe surveyed Medicaid policies in all states actively performing LT and linked state policies to prospectively collected national registry data on LT recipients from 2002 to 2017 with ALD as the primary listing diagnosis. We categorized Medicaid policies for states as "restrictive" (requiring documentation of a specific abstinence period and/or rehabilitation) versus "unrestrictive" (deferring to center eligibility policies). Difference-of-differences analysis, comparing 2002-2011 versus 2012-2017, evaluated whether restrictive policies were associated with decreased proportion of LTs paid by Medicaid among patients with ALD post-2011. We performed sensitivity analyses to account for any differences by diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatitis C virus, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or Medicare insurance. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to account for any difference by prevalence of ALD among restrictive versus unrestrictive states. Of 10,836 LT recipients in 2002-2017, 7,091 were from 24 states in the restrictive group and 3,745 from 14 states in the unrestrictive group. The adjusted proportion (95% confidence interval) of LTs paid by Medicaid among restrictive versus unrestrictive states between 2002 and 2011 was 17.6% (15.4%-19.8%) versus 18.9% (15.4%-22.3%) (P = 0.54) and between 2012 and 2017, 17.2% (14.7%-19.7%) versus 23.2% (19.8%-26.6%) (P = 0.005). In difference-of-differences analysis, restrictive (versus unrestrictive) policies were associated with a 4.7% (0.8%-8.6%) (P = 0.02) absolute lower adjusted proportion of LTs for ALD paid by Medicaid post-2011.ConclusionsRestrictive Medicaid policies are present in most states with active LT centers and are associated with lower proportions of LTs for ALD paid by Medicaid post-2011 compared to states with unrestrictive Medicaid policies. Reevaluation of Medicaid alcohol use policies may be warranted, to align more closely with contemporary center-level practices.

Project description:ImportanceThe US heart allocation policy was changed on October 18, 2018. The association of this change with recipient and donor selection and outcomes remains to be elucidated.ObjectiveTo evaluate changes in patient characteristics, wait list outcomes, and posttransplant outcomes after the recent allocation policy change in heart transplant.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study, all 15 631 adults undergoing heart transplants, excluding multiorgan transplants, in the US as identified by the United Network for Organ Sharing multicenter, national registry were reviewed. Patients were stratified according to prepolicy change (October 1, 2015, to October 1, 2018) and postpolicy change (October 18, 2018 or after). Follow-up data were available through March 31, 2020.ExposuresHeart transplants after the policy change.Main outcomes and measuresCompeting risk regression for wait list outcomes was performed. Posttransplant survival was compared using the Kaplan-Meier method, and risk adjustment was performed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.ResultsIn this cohort study, of the 15 631 patients undergoing transplant, 10 671 (mean [SD] age, 53.1 [12.7] years; 7823 [73.3%] male) were wait listed before and 4960 (mean [SD] age, 52.7 [13.0] years; 3610 [72.8%] male) were wait listed after the policy change. Competing risk regression demonstrated reduced likelihood of mortality or deterioration (subhazard ratio [SHR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.52-0.69; P < .001), increased likelihood of transplant (SHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.32-1.45; P < .001), and reduced likelihood of recovery (SHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40-0.73; P < .001) for wait listed patients after the policy change. A total of 6078 patients underwent transplant before and 2801 after the policy change. Notable changes after the policy change included higher frequency of bridging with temporary mechanical circulatory support and lower frequency of bridging with durable left ventricular assist devices. Posttransplant survival was reduced after the policy change (1-year: 92.1% vs 87.5%; log-rank P < .001), a finding that persisted after risk adjustment (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.55; P = .008).Conclusions and relevanceSubstantial changes have occurred in adult heart transplant in the US after the policy change in October 2018. Wait list outcomes have improved, although posttransplant survival has decreased. These data confirm findings from earlier preliminary analyses and demonstrate that these trends have persisted to 1-year follow-up, underscoring the importance of continued reevaluation of the new heart allocation policy.

Dataset Information

Mortality Risk Factors Among Patients With Cirrhosis and a Low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium Score (?15): An Analysis of Liver Transplant Allocation Policy Using Aggregated Electronic Health Record Data.

Publications

Mortality Risk Factors Among Patients With Cirrhosis and a Low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium Score (≤15): An Analysis of Liver Transplant Allocation Policy Using Aggregated Electronic Health Record Data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets