Same-teams versus different-teams for long distance lung procurement: A cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In an era of broader lung sharing, different-team transplantation (DT, procuring team from nonrecipient center) may streamline procurement logistics; however, safety and cost implications of DT remain unclear. To understand whether DT represents a safe means to reduce lung transplant (LTx) costs, we compared posttransplant outcomes and lung procurement and index hospitalization costs among matched DT and same-team transplantation (ST, procuring team from recipient center) cohorts at a single, high-volume institution. We hypothesized that DT reduces costs without compromising outcomes after LTx. METHODS: Patients who underwent DT between January 2016 to May 2020 were included. A cohort of patients who underwent ST was matched 1:3 (nearest neighbor) based on recipient age, disease group, lung allocation score, history of previous LTx, and bilateral versus single LTx. Posttransplant outcomes and costs were compared between groups. RESULTS: In total, 23 DT and 69 matched ST recipients were included. Perioperative outcomes and posttransplant survival were similar between groups. Compared with ST, DT was associated with similar lung procurement and index hospitalization costs (DT vs ST, procurement: median $65,991 vs $58,847, P = .16; index hospitalization: median $294,346 vs $322,189, P = .7). On average, procurement costs increased $3263 less per 100 nautical miles for DT versus ST; DT offered cost-savings when travel distances exceeded approximately 363 nautical miles. CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, DT and ST were associated with similar post-LTx outcomes; DT offered cost-savings with increasing procurement travel distance. These findings suggest that DT may mitigate logistical and financial burdens of lung procurement; however, further investigation in a multi-institutional cohort is warranted.

Lung transplantation after ex vivo lung perfusion versus static cold storage: An institutional cost analysis.

Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) is a novel lung preservation strategy that facilitates the use of marginal allografts; however, it is more expensive than static cold storage (SCS). To understand how preservation method might affect postoperative costs, we compared outcomes and index hospitalization costs among matched EVLP and SCS preserved lung transplant (LTx) recipients at a single, high-volume institution. A total of 22 EVLP and 66 matched SCS LTx recipients were included; SCS grafts were further stratified as either standard-criteria (SCD) or extended-criteria donors (ECD). Median total preservation time was 857, 409, and 438 min for EVLP, SCD, and ECD lungs, respectively (p < .0001). EVLP patients had similar perioperative outcomes and posttransplant survival compared to SCS SCD and ECD recipients. Excluding device-specific costs, total direct variable costs were similar among EVLP, SCD, and ECD recipients (median $200,404, vs. $154,709 vs. $168,334, p =  .11). The median direct contribution margin was positive for EVLP recipients, and similar to that for SCD and ECD graft recipients (all p > .99). These findings demonstrate that the use of EVLP was profitable at an institutional level; however, further investigation is needed to better understand the financial implications of EVLP in facilitating donor pool expansion in an era of broader lung sharing.

The association of candidate mortality rates with kidney transplant outcomes and center performance evaluations.

Timely access to transplantation for eligible patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is critical. However, pressures exist to improve efficiencies in transplantation and to achieve high center performance ratings, including the recently submitted "Final Rule" by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This policy may affect the availability of public funding for as many as 10% of kidney transplant centers in the United States. This study examined adult solitary kidney transplant candidates from 1995 to 2005 using a national database. Mortality rates were calculated for candidates at individual centers prior to transplantation. Posttransplant survival and center's standardized mortality ratios were then calculated and compared to rates of candidate mortality. Candidate mortality rates varied substantially across centers (highest quartile with almost 2-fold elevated mortality). Recipients at centers with the highest candidate mortality rates had approximately 1.9 years reduced median graft survival for deceased donor transplants and decreased patient survival even after risk adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio=1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.25-1.41). This association was greater among living transplants (adjusted hazard ratio=1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.31-1.70). For 1-year outcomes, 19% (43/224) of centers met criteria for low performance for either graft loss or patient death in living or deceased donor transplants. Of these, 51% were among centers with the highest candidate mortality as compared to 7% of centers with the lowest candidate mortality. The health status of centers' transplant candidate pool is a significant determinant of outcomes and performance ratings. Centers with a higher risk candidate pool are significantly more likely to be identified for poor performance and could potentially lose public funding. Pressures to enhance outcomes may lead centers to exclude high-risk but otherwise viable transplant candidates.