Beyond median waiting time: Development and validation of a competing risk model to predict outcomes on the kidney transplant waiting list

Transplantation

Volumn 100, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 1564-1570

  Hart, Allyson ^a   Salkowski, Nicholas ^b   Snyder, Jon J ^b,c   Israni, Ajay K ^a,b,c   Kasiske, Bertram L ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b MINNEAPOLIS MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PANEL REACTIVE ANTIBODY;

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; BLOOD GROUP; BODY MASS; CADAVER KIDNEY; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMORBIDITY; COMPETING RISK MODEL; DEATH; DETERIORATION; FEMALE; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; KIDNEY DONOR; KIDNEY GRAFT; LIVING DONOR; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODEL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SEX; TIME TO TREATMENT; TREATMENT DURATION; VALIDATION STUDY; ADOLESCENT; AGED; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; PROCEDURES; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; REGISTER; RENAL INSUFFICIENCY; RISK; STATISTICAL MODEL; TIME FACTOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROBABILITY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; REGISTRIES; RENAL INSUFFICIENCY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK; TIME FACTORS; TIME-TO-TREATMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; WAITING LISTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84973573396     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001185     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Matas AJ, Smith JM, Skeans MA, et al. OPTN/SRTR 2012 annual data report: kidney. Am J Transplant. 2014;14:11-44.
2. Schold JD, Srinivas TR, Sehgal AR, et al. Half of kidney transplant candidates who are older than 60 years now placed on the waiting list will die before receiving a deceased-donor transplant. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4:1239-1245.
3. Gaston RS, Danovitch GM, Adams PL, et al. The report of a national conference on the wait list for kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2003;3:775-785.
4. 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.
5. Andersen P, Geskus R, deWitte T, et al. Competing risks in epidemiology: possibilities and pitfalls. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:861-870.
6. Smits JM, van Houwelingen HC, De Meester J, et al. Analysis of the renal transplant waiting list: Application of a parametric competing risk method. Transplantation. 1998;66:1146-1153.
7. KimWR, Therneau TM, Benson JT, et al. Deaths on the liver transplant waiting list: An analysis of competing risks. Hepatology. 2006;43: 345-351.
8. Washburn K, Harper A, Klintmalm G, et al. Regional sharing for adult status 1 candidates: reduction in waitlist mortality. Liver Transpl. 2006; 12:470-474.
9. Ravaioli M, Masetti M, Ridolfi L, et al. Laboratory test variability and model for end-stage liver disease score calculation: effect on liver allocation and proposal for adjustment. Transplantation. 2007;83:919-924.
10. Cucchetti A1, Cescon M, Bigonzi E, et al. Priority of candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma awaiting liver transplantation can be reduced after successful bridge therapy. Liver Transpl. 2011;17:1344-1354.
11. McGiffin DC, Naftel DC, Kirklin JK, et al. Predicting outcome after listing for heart transplantation in children: comparison of Kaplan-Meier and parametric competing risk analysis. Pediatric Heart Transplant Study Group. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1997;16:713-722.
12. Wachterman MW, Marcantonio ER, Davis RB, et al. Relationship between the prognostic expectations of seriously ill patients undergoing hemodialysis and their nephrologists. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173: 1206-1214.
13. Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Patients' expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: A systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:274-286.
14. Davison SN. End-of-life care preferences and needs: perceptions of patients with chronic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5: 195-204.
15. Calestani M, Tonkin-Crine S, Pruthi R, et al. Patient attitudes towards kidney transplant listing: qualitative findings from the ATTOM study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014;29:2144-2150.
16. van der Veer SN, Bekker HL, van Biesen W. How to enhance patient experiences of decision-making about kidney transplantation Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014;29:1991-1993.
17. Stegall MD. The right kidney for the right recipient: The status of deceased donor kidney allocation reform. Semin Dial. 2010;23:248-252.
18. Hippen BE, Thistlethwaite JR Jr, Ross LF. Risk, prognosis, and unintended consequences in kidney allocation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364: 1285-1287.
19. Israni AK, Salkowski N, Gustafson S, et al. New national allocation policy for deceased donor kidneys in the United States and possible effect on patient outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;25:1842-1848.
20. Hibbard JH, Perters EM. Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2003;24:413-433.
21. Cook N. Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation. 2007;115:928-935.