No abstract

Women are more likely than men to die on the liver transplant waitlist, more likely to be removed from the waitlist for being "too sick" for transplant, and less likely to receive a transplant. [1][2][3][4][5][6] Some of these sex differences might stem from lower serum creatinine (and hence a lower model for end-stage liver disease [MELD-Na] score) for women versus men with similar renal dysfunction. 1,3,5,[7][8][9][10][11][12] However, the contribution of creatinine to MELD-Na varies across the score spectrum because creatinine measurements are rounded up to 1.0 and capped at 4.0 mg/dl, 13 so it is likely that sex differences also vary across the MELD-Na score spectrum. While both Myers et al. and Locke et al. 5,14 have estimated the average difference (across all MELD-Na scores) between men and women in

Background. In December 2018, United Network for Organ Sharing approved an allocation scheme based on recipients’ geographic distance from a deceased donor (acuity circles [ACs]). Previous analyses suggested that ACs would reduce waitlist mortality overall, but their impact on pediatric subgroups was not considered. Methods. We applied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2011 to 2016 toward the Liver Simulated Allocation Model to compare outcomes by age and illness severity for the United Network for Organ Sharing–approved AC and the existing donor service area–/region-based allocation schemes. Means from each allocation scheme were compared using matched-pairs t tests. Results. During a 3-year period, AC allocation is projected to decrease waitlist deaths in infants (39 versus 55; P < 0.001), children (32 versus 50; P < 0.001), and teenagers (15 versus 25; P < 0.001). AC allocation would increase the number of transplants in infants (707 versus 560; P < 0.001), children (677 versus 547; P < 0.001), and teenagers (404 versus 248; P < 0.001). AC allocation led to decreased median pediatric end-stage liver disease/model for end-stage liver disease at transplant for infants (29 versus 30; P = 0.01), children (26 versus 29; P < 0.001), and teenagers (26 versus 31; P < 0.001). Additionally, AC allocation would lead to fewer transplants in status 1B in children (97 versus 103; P = 0.006) but not infants or teenagers. With AC allocation, 77% of pediatric donor organs would be allocated to pediatric candidates, compared to only 46% in donor service area–/region-based allocation (P < 0.001). Conclusions. AC allocation will likely address disparities for pediatric liver transplant candidates and recipients by increasing transplants and decreasing waitlist mortality. It is more consistent with federally mandated requirements for organ allocation.

No abstract

BaCKgRoUND aND aIMS: In February 2020, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network replaced donor service area-based allocation of livers with acuity circles, a system based on three homogeneous circles around each donor hospital. This system has been criticized for neglecting to consider varying population density and proximity to coast and national borders. appRoaCH aND ReSUltS: Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from July 2013 to June 2017, we designed heterogeneous circles to reduce both circle size and variation in liver supply/demand ratios across transplant centers. We weighted liver demand by Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)/Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) because higher MELD/PELD candidates are more likely to be transplanted. Transplant centers in the West had the largest circles; transplant centers in the Midwest and South had the smallest circles. Supply/demand ratios ranged from 0.471 to 0.655 livers per MELD-weighted incident candidate. Our heterogeneous circles had lower variation in supply/demand ratios than homogeneous circles of any radius between 150 and 1,000 nautical miles (nm). Homogeneous circles of 500 nm, the largest circle used in the acuity circles allocation system, had a variance in supply/demand ratios 16 times higher than our heterogeneous circles (0.0156 vs. 0.0009) and a range of supply/demand ratios 2.3 times higher than our heterogeneous circles (0.421 vs. 0.184). Our heterogeneous circles had a median (interquartile range) radius of only 326 (275-470) nm but reduced disparities in supply/demand ratios significantly by accounting for population density, national borders, and geographic variation of supply and demand.CoNClUSIoNS: Large homogeneous circles create logistical burdens on transplant centers that do not need them, whereas small homogeneous circles increase geographic disparity. Using carefully designed heterogeneous circles can reduce geographic disparity in liver supply/demand ratios compared with homogeneous circles of radius ranging from 150 to 1,000 nm.