Prevalence and outcomes of multiple-listing for cadaveric kidney and liver transplantation.

Transplant candidates are permitted to register on multiple waiting lists. We examined multiple-listing practices and outcomes, using data on 81 481 kidney and 26 260 liver candidates registered between 7/1/95 and 6/30/00. Regression models identified factors associated with multiple-listing and its effect on relative rates of transplantation, waiting list mortality, kidney graft failure, and liver transplant mortality. Overall, 5.8% (kidney) and 3.3% (liver) of candidates multiple-listed. Non-white race, older age, non-private insurance, and lower educational level were associated with significantly lower odds of multiple-listing. While multiple-listed, transplantation rates were significantly higher for nearly all kidney and liver candidate subgroups (relative rate [RR]= 1.42-2.29 and 1.82-7.41, respectively). Waiting list mortality rates were significantly lower while multiple-listed for 11 kidney subgroups (RR = 0.22-0.72) but significantly higher for 7 liver subgroups (RR = 1.44-5.93), suggesting multiple-listing by healthier kidney candidates and sicker liver candidates. Graft failure was 10% less likely among multiple-listed kidney recipients. Multiple- and single-listed liver recipients had similar post-transplant mortality rates. Although specific factors characterize those transplant candidates likely to multiple-list, transplant access is significantly enhanced for almost all multiple-listed kidney and liver candidates.

Geographic differences in access to transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The Etablissement français des Greffes reports regional variability in access to organ transplantation in France. Some variability seems to be inevitable for reasons discussed in the French article. We provide comparative data on a similar phenomenon in the United States, including some historical perspectives and recent attempts to minimize geographic variability especially for patients in urgent need of liver transplants. METHODS: To assess regional variability in access to heart, liver, and kidney transplants, a competing risks method was used. Outcomes were examined for primary transplant candidates added to the waiting list during 3-year periods. Results were stratified by region of listing. RESULTS: Four months after listing, the transplant rate for all U.S. kidney transplant candidates was 10.9%. Regionally the 4-month transplant rate ranged from 4.2% to 18.5% for highly sensitized patients and from 5.4% to 19.6% for nonsensitized patients. For liver candidates, the overall national transplant rate 4 months after listing was 22%, but the overall regional rate varied from 11.8% to 36.5%. The overall transplant rate for heart candidates 4 months after listing was 43.9%, whereas regional 30-day transplant rates for the most urgent heart candidates (status 1A) ranged from 25.1% to 47.1%. Four-month transplant rates for less urgent heart candidates ranged from 24.9% to 40.7%. CONCLUSION: Similar to the French experience, pretransplantation waiting times in the 11 U.S. regions vary considerably. Computer-simulated modeling shows that redrawing organ distribution boundaries could reduce but not eliminate geographic variability. It may be too early to tell whether the recently implemented Model for End-Stage Liver Disease/Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease liver allocation system will decrease regional variability in access to transplant as compared with the previous system.

Living kidney donors in need of kidney transplants: a report from the organ procurement and transplantation network.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to use the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database to determine the number of renal waitlist candidates who previously had been living donors. METHODS: All living renal donors in the OPTN database were cross-checked against the renal waitlist history files. Additionally, renal transplant programs were contacted that had listed candidates as qualified for four additional allocation points available to patients who previously had donated an organ. Confirmatory phone calls to transplant programs yielded additional cases previously unreported to the United Network for Organ Sharing. RESULTS: A total of 56 previous living donors were identified as having been subsequently listed for cadaveric kidney transplantation. Forty-three have received transplants; 36 currently have functioning grafts. One died after transplantation. Two candidates died while waiting. CONCLUSIONS: Living renal donation has long-term risks that may not be apparent in the short term. The numbers here reported underestimate the actual number of living donors with renal failure, because they include only patients listed for a kidney transplant. To determine risk factors for postdonation renal failure, long-term living-donor follow-up data are needed.

Preemptive kidney transplantation: the advantage and the advantaged.

It remains unclear whether preemptive transplantation is beneficial, and if so, who benefits. A total of 38,836 first, kidney-only transplants between 1995 and 1998 were retrospectively studied. A surprising 39% of preemptive transplants were from cadaver donors, and the proportions of cadaver donor transplants that were preemptive changed little, from 7.3% in 1995 to 7.7% in 1998. Preemptive transplants using cadaver donors were more likely among recipients aged 0 to 17 yr versus 18 to 29 yr (odds ratio [OR], 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.94 to 3.17), white versus black (OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 2.03 to 2.68), able to work versus unable to work (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.61), covered by private insurance versus Medicare (OR, 4.77; 95% CI, 4.26 to 5.32), or recipients with a college degree versus no college degree (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.54). Preemptive transplants were less likely for Hispanics versus non-Hispanics (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.67), patients with type 2 versus type 1 diabetes (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.96), and for 2 to 5 HLA mismatches compared with 0 HLA mismatches (OR range, 0.77 to 0.82). In adjusted Cox proportional hazards analysis, the relative risk of graft failure for preemptive transplantation was 0.75 (0.67 to 0.84) among 25,758 cadaver donor transplants and 0.73 (0.64 to 0.83) among 13,078 living donor transplants, compared with patients who received a transplant after already being on dialysis. Preemptive transplantation was associated with a reduced risk of death: 0.84 (0.72 to 0.99) for cadaver donor transplants and 0.69 (0.56 to 0.85) for living donor transplants. Thus, preemptive transplantation, which is associated with improved patient and graft survival, is less common among racial minorities, those who have less education, and those who must rely on Medicare for primary payment. Alterations in the payment system, emphasis on early referral, and changes in cadaver kidney allocation could increase the number of patients who benefit from preemptive transplantation.