Should we use liver grafts repeatedly refused by other transplant teams?
CA, centre allocation
Centre allocation
DCD, donation after cardiac death
DQI, donor quality index
ES, effect size
HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma
HR, hazard ratio
ICU, intensive care unit
IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting
LT, liver transplantation
Liver transplantation
MELD, model for end-stage liver disease
PA, patient allocation
Patient allocation
Patient and graft survival
Survival benefit
Journal
JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology
ISSN: 2589-5559
Titre abrégé: JHEP Rep
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101761237
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
23
10
2019
revised:
06
04
2020
accepted:
08
04
2020
entrez:
23
7
2020
pubmed:
23
7
2020
medline:
23
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In France, liver grafts that have been refused at least 5 times can be "rescued" and allocated to a centre which chooses a recipient from its own waiting list, outside the patient-based allocation framework. We explored whether these "rescued" grafts were associated with worse graft/patient survival, as well as assessing their effect on survival benefit. Among 7,895 candidates, 5,218 were transplanted between 2009 and 2014 (336 centre-allocated). We compared recipient/graft survival between patient allocation and centre allocation, considering a selection bias and the distribution of centre-allocation recipients among the transplant teams. We used a propensity score approach and a weighted Cox model using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. We also explored the survival benefit associated with centre-allocation grafts. There was a significantly higher risk of graft loss/death in the centre allocation group compared to the patient allocation group (hazard ratio 1.13; 95% CI 1.05-1.22). However, this difference was no longer significant for teams that performed more than 7% of the centre-allocation transplantations. Moreover, receiving a centre-allocation graft, compared to remaining on the waiting list and possibly later receiving a patient-allocation graft, did not convey a poorer survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.60-1.08). In centres which transplanted most of the centre-allocation grafts, using grafts repeatedly refused for top-listed candidates was not detrimental. Given the organ shortage, our findings should encourage policy makers to restrict centre-allocation grafts to targeted centres. "Centre allocation" (CA) made it possible to save 6 out of 100 available liver grafts that had been refused at least 5 times for use in the top-listed candidates on the national waiting list. In this series, the largest on this topic, we showed that, in centres which transplanted most of the CA grafts, using grafts repeatedly refused for top-listed candidates did not appear to be detrimental. In the context of organ shortage, our results, which could be of interest for any country using this CA strategy, should encourage policy makers to reassess some aspects of graft allocation by restricting CA grafts to targeted centres, fostering the "best" matching between grafts and candidates on the waiting list.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND & AIMS
OBJECTIVE
In France, liver grafts that have been refused at least 5 times can be "rescued" and allocated to a centre which chooses a recipient from its own waiting list, outside the patient-based allocation framework. We explored whether these "rescued" grafts were associated with worse graft/patient survival, as well as assessing their effect on survival benefit.
METHODS
METHODS
Among 7,895 candidates, 5,218 were transplanted between 2009 and 2014 (336 centre-allocated). We compared recipient/graft survival between patient allocation and centre allocation, considering a selection bias and the distribution of centre-allocation recipients among the transplant teams. We used a propensity score approach and a weighted Cox model using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. We also explored the survival benefit associated with centre-allocation grafts.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There was a significantly higher risk of graft loss/death in the centre allocation group compared to the patient allocation group (hazard ratio 1.13; 95% CI 1.05-1.22). However, this difference was no longer significant for teams that performed more than 7% of the centre-allocation transplantations. Moreover, receiving a centre-allocation graft, compared to remaining on the waiting list and possibly later receiving a patient-allocation graft, did not convey a poorer survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.60-1.08).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In centres which transplanted most of the centre-allocation grafts, using grafts repeatedly refused for top-listed candidates was not detrimental. Given the organ shortage, our findings should encourage policy makers to restrict centre-allocation grafts to targeted centres.
LAY SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
"Centre allocation" (CA) made it possible to save 6 out of 100 available liver grafts that had been refused at least 5 times for use in the top-listed candidates on the national waiting list. In this series, the largest on this topic, we showed that, in centres which transplanted most of the CA grafts, using grafts repeatedly refused for top-listed candidates did not appear to be detrimental. In the context of organ shortage, our results, which could be of interest for any country using this CA strategy, should encourage policy makers to reassess some aspects of graft allocation by restricting CA grafts to targeted centres, fostering the "best" matching between grafts and candidates on the waiting list.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32695966
doi: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2020.100118
pii: S2589-5559(20)30052-5
pii: 100118
pmc: PMC7364172
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100118Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details.
Références
Transplantation. 2018 May;102(5):775-782
pubmed: 29298235
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010 Dec;45(12):1516-7
pubmed: 20712519
J Hepatol. 2013 Apr;58(4):811-20
pubmed: 23104164
Am J Transplant. 2007 May;7(5):1265-70
pubmed: 17359503
Transpl Int. 2013 Sep;26(9):886-92
pubmed: 23834494
Am J Transplant. 2008 Feb;8(2):419-25
pubmed: 18190658
Semin Liver Dis. 2006 Aug;26(3):221-33
pubmed: 16850371
Liver Int. 2017 Aug;37(8):1229-1238
pubmed: 28140515
Liver Transpl. 2011 Oct;17(10):1137-51
pubmed: 21695771
Biometrics. 2006 Sep;62(3):910-7
pubmed: 16984335
Hepatology. 2001 Feb;33(2):464-70
pubmed: 11172350
Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 5;10(1):4111
pubmed: 32139780
Transplantation. 2018 May;102(5):e211-e218
pubmed: 29702538
Clin Transplant. 2009 Dec;23 Suppl 21:42-8
pubmed: 19930316
World J Surg. 2020 Mar;44(3):912-924
pubmed: 31832704
Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 29;8(1):9871
pubmed: 29959344