Textbook outcome: A novel metric in heart transplantation outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Assessing heart transplant program quality using short-term survival is insufficient. We define and validate the composite metric textbook outcome and examine its association with overall survival. METHODS: We identified all primary, isolated adult heart transplants in the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files from May 1, 2005, to December 31, 2017. Textbook outcome was defined as length of stay 30 days or less; ejection fraction greater than 50% during 1-year follow-up; functional status 80% to 100% at 1 year; freedom from acute rejection, dialysis, and stroke during the index hospitalization; and freedom from graft failure, dialysis, rejection, retransplantation, and mortality during the first year post-transplant. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Factors independently associated with textbook outcome were used to create a predictive nomogram. Conditional survival at 1 year was measured. RESULTS: A total of 24,620 patients were identified with 11,169 (45.4%, 95% confidence interval, 44.7-46.0) experiencing textbook outcome. Patients with textbook outcome were more likely free from preoperative mechanical support (odds ratio, 3.504, 95% confidence interval, 2.766 to 4.439, P < .001), free from preoperative dialysis (odds ratio, 2.295, 95% confidence interval, 1.868-2.819, P < .001), to be not hospitalized (odds ratio, 1.264, 95% confidence interval, 1.183-1.349, P < .001), to be nondiabetic (odds ratio, 1.187, 95% confidence interval, 1.113-1.266, P < .001), and to be nonsmokers (odds ratio, 1.160, 95% confidence interval,1.097-1.228, P < .001). Patients with textbook outcome have improved long-term survival relative to patients without textbook outcome who survive at least 1 year (hazard ratio for death, 0.547, 95% confidence interval, 0.504-0.593, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Textbook outcome is an alternative means of examining heart transplant outcomes and is associated with long-term survival. The use of textbook outcome as an adjunctive metric provides a holistic view of patient and center outcomes.

Textbook Outcome as a Quality Metric in Living and Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Quality in kidney transplantation is measured using 1-year patient and graft survival. Because 1-year patient and graft survival exceed 95%, this metric fails to measure a spectrum of quality. Textbook outcomes (TO) are a composite quality metric offering greater depth and resolution. We studied TO after living donor (LD) and deceased donor (DD) kidney transplantation. STUDY DESIGN: United Network for Organ Sharing data for 69,165 transplant recipients between 2013 and 2017 were analyzed. TO was defined as patient and graft survival of 1 year or greater, 1-year glomerular filtration rate of greater than 40 mL/min, absence of delayed graft function, length of stay of 5 days or less, no readmissions during the first 6 months, and no episodes of rejection during the first year after transplantation. Bivariate analysis identified characteristics associated with TO, and covariates were incorporated into multivariable models. Five-year conditional survival was measured, and center TO rates were corrected for case complexity to allow center-level comparisons. RESULTS: The national average TO rates were 54.1% and 31.7% for LD and DD transplant recipients. The hazard ratio for death at 5 years for recipients who did not experience TO was 1.92 (95% CI 1.68 to 2.18, p ≤ 0.0001) for LD transplant recipients and 2.08 (95% CI 1.93 to 2.24, p ≤ 0.0001) for DD transplant recipients. Center-level comparisons identify 18% and 24% of centers under-performing in LD and DD transplantation. High rates of TO do not correlate with transplantation center volume. CONCLUSION: Kidney transplant recipients who experience TO have superior long-term survival. Textbook outcomes add value to the current standards of 1-year patient and graft survival.

Textbook Outcome as a Quality Metric in Liver Transplantation.

Quality in liver transplantation (LT) is currently measured using 1-y patient and graft survival. Because patient and graft survival rates now exceed 90%, more informative metrics are needed. Textbook outcomes (TOs) describe ideal patient outcomes after surgery. This study critically evaluates TO as a quality metric in LT. Methods: United Network for Organ Sharing data for 25 887 adult LT recipients were used to define TO as patient and graft survival >1 y, length of stay ≤10 d, 0 readmissions within 6 mo, absence of rejection, and bilirubin <3 mg/dL between months 2 and 12 post-LT. Univariate analysis identified donor and recipient characteristics associated with TO. Covariates were analyzed using purposeful selection to construct a multivariable model, and impactful variables were incorporated as linear predictors into a nomogram. Five-year conditional survival was tested, and center TO rates were corrected for case complexity to allow for center-level comparisons. Results: The national average TO rate is 37.4% (95% confidence interval, 36.8%-38.0%). The hazard ratio for death at 5 y for patients who do not experience TO is 1.22 (95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.34; P ≤ 0.0001). Our nomogram predicts TO with a C-statistic of 0.68. Center-level comparisons identify 31% of centers as high performing and 21% of centers as below average. High rates of TO correlate only weakly with center volume. Conclusions: The composite quality metric of TO after LT incorporates holistic outcome measures and is an important measure of quality in addition to 1-y patient and graft survival.

Dynamic impact of liver allocation policy change on donor utilization.

Liver allocation policy was changed to reduce variance in median MELD scores at transplant (MMaT) in February 2020. "Acuity circles" replaced local allocation. Understanding the impact of policy change on donor utilization is important. Ideal (I), standard (S), and non-ideal (NI) donors were defined. NI donors include older, higher BMI donors with elevated transaminases or bilirubin, history of hepatitis B or C, and all DCD donors. Utilization of I, S, and NI donors was established before and after allocation change and compared between low MELD (LM) centers (MMaT ≤ 28 before allocation change) and high MELD (HM) centers (MMaT > 28). Following reallocation, transplant volume increased nationally (67 transplants/center/year pre, 74 post, p .0006) and increased for both HM and LM centers. LM centers significantly increased use of NI donors and HM centers significantly increased use of I and S donors. Centers further stratify based on donor utilization phenotype. A subset of centers increased transplant volume despite rising MMaT by broadening organ acceptance criteria, increasing use of all donor types including DCD donors (98% increase), increasing living donation, and transplanting more frequently for alcohol associated liver disease. Variance in donor utilization can undermine intended effects of allocation policy change.