Early changes in liver distribution following implementation of Share 35

American Journal of Transplantation

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 659-667

  Massie, A B ^a,b   Chow, E K H ^a   Wickliffe, C E ^a   Luo, X ^a   Gentry, S E ^c,d   Mulligan, D C ^e   Segev, Dorry L ^a,b,d  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY   (United States)

^d MINNEAPOLIS MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION   (United States)

^e YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

epidemiology; ethics and public policy; health services and outcomes research; liver transplantation hepatology; organ allocation; organ procurement and allocation; social sciences; United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CADAVER DONOR; CODING ALGORITHM; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOLLOW UP; GRAFT RECIPIENT; HEALTH CARE AVAILABILITY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; LIVER GRAFT; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MODEL FOR END STAGE LIVER DISEASE SCORE; MORTALITY; ORGAN DONOR; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETRANSPLANTATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES;

HUMANS; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; UNITED STATES; WAITING LISTS;

EID: 84923224008     PISSN: 16006135     EISSN: 16006143     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13099     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Washburn K, Pomfret E, Roberts J., Liver allocation and distribution: Possible next steps. LLiver Transpl 2011; 17: 1005-1012.
2. Wedd JP, Harper AM, Biggins SW., MELD score, allocation, and distribution in the United States. Clin Liver Dis 2013; 2: 148-151.
3. Leppke S, Leighton T, Zaun D, et al. Scientific registry of transplant recipients: Collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on transplantation in the United States. Transplant Rev (Orlando) 2013; 27: 50-56.
4. Massie AB, Caffo B, Gentry SE, et al. MELD exceptions and rates of waiting list outcomes. Am J Transplant 2011; 11: 2362-2371.
5. Feng S, Goodrich NP, Bragg-Gresham JL, et al. Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: The concept of a donor risk index. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 783-790.
6. Gentry SE, Chow EK, Wickliffe CE, Massie AB, Leighton T, Segev DL., Impact of broader sharing on transport time for deceased donor livers. Liver Transpl 2014.
7. Massie AB, Zeger SL, Montgomery RA, Segev DL., The effects of DonorNet 2007 on kidney distribution equity and efficiency. Am J Transplant 2009; 9: 1550-1557.
8. Massie AB, Gentry SE, Montgomery RA, Bingaman AA, Segev DL., Center-level utilization of kidney paired donation. Am J Transplant 2013; 13: 1317-1322.
9. Putter H, Fiocco M, Geskus RB., Tutorial in biostatistics: Competing risks and multi-state models. Stat Med 2007; 26: 2389-2430.
10. Coviello V, Boggess M., Cumulative incidence estimation in the presence of competing risks. Stata J 2004; 4: 103-112.
11. Fine JP, Gray RJ., A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 1999; 496-509.
12. Kucirka LM, Grams ME, Lessler J, et al. Association of race and age with survival among patients undergoing dialysis. JAMA 2011; 306: 620-626.
13. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL., Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008.
14. Louis TA, Zeger SL., Effective communication of standard errors and confidence intervals. Biostatistics 2009; 10: 1-2.
15. Bittermann T, Makar G, Goldberg D., Exception point applications for 15 points: An unintended consequence of the share 15 policy. Liver Transpl 2012; 18: 1302-1309.
16. Freeman RB, Wiesner RH, Edwards E, et al. Results of the first year of the new liver allocation plan. Liver Transpl 2004; 10: 7-15.
17. Volk ML, Lok AS, Pelletier SJ, Ubel PA, Hayward RA., Impact of the model for end-stage liver disease allocation policy on the use of high-risk organs for liver transplantation. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1568-1574.
18. Washburn K, Edwards E, Harper A, Freeman R., Hepatocellular carcinoma patients are advantaged in the current liver transplant allocation system. Am J Transplant 2010; 10: 1643-1648.
19. Freeman RB Jr, Gish RG, Harper A, et al. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exception guidelines: results and recommendations from the MELD Exception Study Group and Conference (MESSAGE) for the approval of patients who need liver transplantation with diseases not considered by the standard MELD formula. Liver transplan 2006; 12: (12 Suppl 3): S128-136.