Posttransplant outcome assessments at listing: Long-term outcomes are more important than short-term outcomes.
Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR)
clinical research/practice
epidemiology
organ transplantation in general
Journal
American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons
ISSN: 1600-6143
Titre abrégé: Am J Transplant
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100968638
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
12
11
2019
revised:
05
03
2020
accepted:
29
03
2020
pubmed:
14
4
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
14
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Posttransplant outcome assessments are publicly reported for patient and regulatory use. However, the currently reported 1-year posttransplant graft survival assessments are commonly criticized for not identifying clinically meaningful differences between programs, and not providing information about longer-term posttransplant outcomes. We investigated the association of different posttransplant outcome assessments available to patients at the time of listing with subsequent posttransplant graft survival. The posttransplant assessments were from period prevalent, rather than incident, cohorts with more timely 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up and 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 30-month cohort windows. The association of these assessments at listing with subsequent posttransplant graft survival included candidates listed between July 12, 2011, and December 15, 2015, who subsequently underwent transplant before December 31, 2018. The assessments with 1-year follow-up had uniformly weaker associations than the assessments with 3- and 5-year follow-up. The assessments with 5-year follow-up had the strongest association in kidney and liver transplantation. For kidney, liver, and lung transplantation, assessment windows of at least 18 months typically had the strongest associations with subsequent graft survival. Posttransplant assessments with 5-year follow-up and 18-30-month cohort windows are better than the current posttransplant assessment with 1-year follow-up, particularly at the time of listing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32282985
doi: 10.1111/ajt.15911
pii: S1600-6135(22)22469-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2813-2821Subventions
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : R01 HS 24527
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Références
Snyder JJ, Salkowski N, Zaun D, et al. New quality-monitoring tools provided by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients: CUSUM. Am J Transplant. 2014;14(3):515-523.
Kasiske BL, Salkowski N, Wey A, et al. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients program-specific reports: where we have been and where we are going. Curr Opinn Organ Transplant. 2019;24(1):58-63.
Kasiske BL, Wey A, Salkowski N, et al. Seeking new answers to old questions about public reporting of transplant program performance in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(2):317-323.
Wey A, Salkowski N, Kasiske BL, et al. A five-tier system for improving the categorization of transplant program performance. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(3):1979-1991.
Wey A, Salkowski N, Kasiske BL, et al. Comparing Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients posttransplant program-specific outcome ratings at listing with subsequent recipient outcomes after transplant. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(2):391-398.
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. 2013;27(2):50-56.
Gondos A, Doehler B, Opelz G, et al. From cancer to transplantation: an evaluation of period analysis for calculating up-to-date long-term survival estimates. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(5):613-620.
Gondos A, Brenner H. Period analysis for more up-to-date graft and patient survival estimates in transplantation: an evaluation using United Network of Organ Sharing data. Transplantation. 2010;89(5):580-588.
Snyder JJ, Salkowski N, Kim SJ, et al. Developing statistical models to assess transplant outcomes using national registries: the process in the United States. Transplantation. 2016;100(2):288-294.
Bender A, Groll A, Scheipl F. A generalized additive model approach to time-to-event analysis. Stat Model. 2018;18(3-4):299-321.
Thabut G, Christie JD, Kremers WK, et al. Survival differences following lung transplantation among US transplant centers. JAMA. 2010;304(1):53-60.
Tibshirani R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the LASSO. J Royal Stat Soc Series B. 1996;58(1):267-288.
Salkowski N, Snyder JJ, Zaun DA, et al. Bayesian methods for assessing transplant program performance. Am J Transplant. 2014;14(6):1271-1276.
Marshall A, Altman DG, Holder RL, et al. Combining estimates of interest in prognostic modelling studies after multiple imputation: current practice and guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:57.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, 2017. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed January 27, 2020.
Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J Stat Softw. 2010;33(1):1-22.
Therneau T. A package for survival analysis S. 2015. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival. Accessed January 27, 2020.
van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. Mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;4(3):1-67.
Schaffhausen CR, Bruin MJ, Chesley D, et al. What patients and members of their support networks ask about transplant program data. Clin Transplant. 2017;31(12):e13125.
Schaffhausen CR, Bruin MJ, Chu S, et al. The importance of transplant program measures: surveys of three national patient advocacy groups. Clin Transplant. 2018;32(12):e12326.
Schaffhausen CR, Bruin MJ, McKinney WT, et al. How patients choose kidney transplant centers: a qualitative study of patient experiences. Clin Transplant. 2019;33(5):e13523.
Schaffhausen CR, Bruin MJ, Chu S, et al. Comparing pretransplant and posttransplant outcomes when choosing a transplant center: focus groups and a randomized survey. Transplantation. 2020;104(1):201-210.
Wey A, Gustafson SK, Salkowski N, et al. Association of pretransplant and posttransplant program ratings with candidate mortality after listing. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(2):399-406.
Kasiske BL, Salkowski N, Wey A, et al. Potential implications of recent and proposed changes in the regulatory oversight of solid organ transplantation in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2016;16(12):3371-3377.
Schold JD, Buccini LD, Srinivas TR, et al. The association of center performance evaluations kidney transplant volume in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2013;13(1):67-75.
Hixenbaugh M. Amid new government scrutiny, St Luke's drops appeal to keep heart transplant funding. Houston Chronicle. April 3, 2019. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Amid-new-government-scrutiny-St-Luke-s-drops-13738973.php. Accessed November 6, 2019.
Harbarger M. Deaths at OHSU heart transplant program spiked before program shut down. The Oregonian. July 12, 2019. https://www.oregonlive.com/health/2019/07/deaths-at-ohsu-heart-transplant-program-soared-before-program-shut-down.html. Accessed November 6, 2019.