Increased Access to Transplantation for Blood Group B Cadaveric Waiting List Candidates by Using A2 Kidneys: Time for a New National System?

Since blood group B end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients have less access to donor kidneys and a higher minority composition than any other blood group, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) approved a voluntary national kidney allocation variance to allow organ procurement organizations (OPOs) to preferentially allocate A2 and A2B kidneys to B candidates. The Midwest Transplant Network OPO has preferentially allocated and transplanted kidneys from blood group A2 and A2B donors to our blood group B waiting list candidates for more than 7 years to increase access to kidneys for the B candidates on our OPO-wide waiting list. Between 1994 and 2000, a total of 121 blood group B ESRD patients from our OPO-wide cadaveric kidney waiting list were transplanted. Thirty-four per cent (41/121) of those B candidates received either an A2 or an A2B kidney. One- and 5-year graft survival rates for the group of B recipients of A2 or A2B kidneys were 91 and 85% (died with functioning graft [DWFG] censored), respectively, which were not significantly different from those of 91 and 80% for the 80 B recipients of B or O kidneys (Wilcoxon = 0.48; log-rank = 0.55). These data support the national trial for additional OPOs to voluntarily allocate A2 and A2B kidneys preferentially to B waiting list candidates, thus increasing access of blood group B patients to renal transplantation.     

Primum non nocere: avoiding harm to vulnerable wait list candidates in an indirect kidney exchange.

BACKGROUND: One proposal to increase kidney transplantation is to exchange kidneys between pairs of ABO-incompatible (or cross-match-incompatible) living donors and their recipients. One variation that has greater potential exchanges living donor kidneys for cadaveric donor kidneys (indirect exchanges). A primary concern with indirect exchanges is the potential to disadvantage blood group O wait list candidates. Using wait list modeling, we examine whether this proposal would disadvantage cadaveric kidney blood group O wait list candidates, and present an approach for neutralizing these negative effects. METHODS: A probability model estimated the total number and blood type frequencies of donor-recipient pairs that would participate in indirect exchanges. A supply-to-demand model for the cadaveric kidney wait list estimated the mean wait time under different allocation policies and donor selection mechanisms for candidates on the wait list classified according to the candidates' race and blood type. RESULTS: Indirect exchanges will reduce the mean wait time for cadaveric kidney wait list candidates. The mean wait time of blood group O cadaveric kidney wait list candidates increases when the participating living donors self-select and when kidney allocation is determined by efficiency. This is neutralized when the transplant team preferentially selects blood group O living donors and cadaveric kidney allocation is determined by need. CONCLUSION: Indirect exchange programs will significantly shorten the wait times for cadaveric kidney wait list candidates. The wait times of blood group O candidates will not be affected adversely if blood group O living donors are selected preferentially and if allocation is based on need.     

The liver transplant waiting list--a single-center analysis

At this transplant center 1340 patients were entered on the liver transplant waiting list during the first 25 months (October 1987 to November 1989) after the initiation of the UNOS allocation system for liver grafts. Of these 972 (72.5%) of the patients received a graft, 120 (9.0%) died waiting for a graft, 109 (8.1%) remained on the active list as of the study endpoint of December 15, 1989, 123 (9.2%) were withdrawn from candidacy, and 16 (1.2%) received a transplant at another center. A total of 1201 patients were candidates for a first graft. Of the 812 primary candidates who received a graft, 64.8% received their graft within one month of entry on the waiting list. Of the 109 primary candidates who died before a graft could be found, 79.0% died within a month of entry onto the waiting list. At time of transplantation, 135 (16.6%) primary recipients of a graft were UNOS class 1, 326 (40.1%) were UNOS class 2, 190 (23.4%) were UNOS class 3, and 161 (19.8%) were UNOS class 4. Actuarial survival rates (percentage) at 6 months for recipients in UNOS class 1, class 2, class 3, and class 4 were 88.7 +/- 2.9, 82.6 +/- 2.1, 78.4 +/- 3.2, and 68.4 +/- 3.9, respectively (P less than 0.001). At the time of death of recipients who failed to get a graft, 6 (5.5%) were UNOS class 1, 14 (12.8%) were UNOS class 2, 23 (21.1%) were UNOS class 3, and 66 (60.6%) were UNOS class 4. These results indicate that a high proportion of liver transplant candidates are in urgent need of a graft and that the UNOS system succeeds in giving these patients high priority. However patient mortality on the waiting list and after transplantation would lessen significantly if more patients with end-stage liver disease were referred to the transplant center in a timely manner before their condition reaches the point where the probability of survival is diminished.     

Managing highly sensitized renal transplant candidates in the era of kidney paired donation and the new kidney allocation system: Is there still a role for desensitization?

Kidney paired donation (KPD) and the new kidney allocation system (KAS) in the United States have led to improved transplantation rates for highly sensitized candidates. We aimed to assess the potential need for other approaches to improve the transplantation rate of highly sensitized candidates such as desensitization. Using the UNOS STAR file, we analyzed transplant rates in a prevalent active waiting‐list cohort as of June 1, 2016, followed for 1 year. The overall transplantation rate was 18.9% (11 129/58769). However, only 9.7% (213/2204) of candidates with a calculated panel reactive antibody ≥99.9% received a transplant, and highly sensitized candidates were less likely to receive a living donor transplant. Among candidates with a CPRA ≥ 99.5% (ie. 100%), only 2.5% of transplants were from living donors (13 total, 7 from KPD). Nearly 4 years after KAS (6/30/2018), 1791 actively wait‐listed candidates had a CPRA of ≥99.9% and 34.6% (620/1791) of these had ≥5 years of waiting time. Thus, despite KPD and KAS, many sensitized candidates have not been transplanted even with prolonged waiting time. We conclude that candidates with a CPRA ≥ 99.9% and sensitized candidates with an incompatible living donor and prolonged waiting time may benefit from desensitization to improve their ability to receive a transplant.     

Donor Kidney Exchanges

Kidney transplantation from live donors achieves an excellent outcome regardless of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch. This development has expanded the opportunity of kidney transplantation from unrelated live donors. Nevertheless, the hazard of hyperacute rejection has usually precluded the transplantation of a kidney from a live donor to a potential recipient who is incompatible by ABO blood type or HLA antibody crossmatch reactivity. Region 1 of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has devised an alternative system of kidney transplantation that would enable either a simultaneous exchange between live donors (a paired exchange), or a live donor/deceased donor exchange to incompatible recipients who are waiting on the list (a live donor/list exchange). This Regional system of exchange has derived the benefit of live donation, avoided the risk of ABO or crossmatch incompatibility, and yielded an additional donor source for patients awaiting a deceased donor kidney. Despite the initial disadvantage to the list of patients awaiting an O blood type kidney, as every paired exchange transplant removes a patient from the waiting list, it also avoids the incompatible recipient from eventually having to go on the list. Thus, this approach also increases access to deceased donor kidneys for the remaining candidates on the list.     

Dialysis access failure: an indication for immediate kidney transplantation

In the United States, presently there are more than 50,000 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) awaiting a cadaveric kidney and each year less than a quarter receive kidney transplantation. Although the real incidence in unknown, a significant number of these patients die due to lack of dialysis access. While various medical necessities are indications for emergent transplantation of other organs, the current kidney allocation system of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) makes no room for those ESRD patients whose death is imminent due to lack of vascular access. Local organ procurement organizations (OPOs) are allowed to make decisions based on arbitrary policies (or no policies at all) which often falter and fail to deal appropriately with a largely ignored issue. The growing wait for cadaveric kidneys makes the problem of ESRD patients dying due to lack of dialysis access increasingly important and one that must be addressed through a revision of the UNOS kidney allocation system.     

Determinants of waiting time for heart transplants in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Reports have been published on factors affecting the variations in waiting times for kidney and liver transplant candidates who have been registered on the United Network for Organ Sharing's waiting list. This study reports on determinants of waiting time differences that occur in the eleven UNOS regions for heart transplant candidates. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 11,345 primary heart waiting-list registrations and 15,868 cadaveric donors, from whom 7,043 hearts were recovered and transplanted for the years 1994-96. Because estimated populations in the eleven UNOS regions vary from 10.8 to 43.2 million, analyses utilized Registrations/million population and Transplants/million population to obtain an R/T ratio. The relationship of the R/T ratio to the median waiting time was then examined for different demographic variables. RESULTS: The numbers of new heart candidate registrations, heart transplants performed, and waiting list deaths have undergone little change from 1991 through 1996. National median waiting times varied by basic demographic variables such as ABO blood type, race, age group, and UNOS medical urgency status. In the eleven UNOS regions, registrations per million ranged from 11.5 to 33.0 and transplants per million from 5.3 to 10.7. Registration/Transplant ratios correlated with median waiting times for urgency Status 1 and 2 as well as for blood group O recipients. Correlation with blood type AB recipients was less consistent, in part, due to the small number of AB recipients. CONCLUSIONS: There are wide variations in the number of heart transplant candidate registrations and in the number of heart transplants performed in the eleven UNOS regions. The registration to transplantation ratio correlated with median waiting times in these regions. Factors possibly contributing to the observed variations were examined.     

Wait List Death and Survival Benefit of Kidney Transplantation Among Nonrenal Transplant Recipients

The disparity between the number of patients waiting for kidney transplantation and the limited supply of kidney allografts has renewed interest in the benefit from kidney transplantation experienced by different groups. This study evaluated kidney transplant survival benefit in prior nonrenal transplant recipients (kidney after liver, KALi; lung, KALu; heart, KAH) compared to primary isolated (KA1) or repeat isolated kidney (KA2) transplant. Multivariable Cox regression models were fit using UNOS data for patients wait listed and transplanted from 1995 to 2008. Compared to KA1, the risk of death on the wait list was lower for KA2 (p < 0.001;HR = 0.84;CI = 0.81–0.88), but substantially higher for KALu (p < 0.001; HR = 3.80;CI = 3.08–4.69), KAH (p < 0.001; HR = 1.92; CI = 1.66–2.22), and KALi (p < 0.001; HR = 2.69; CI = 2.46–2.95). Following kidney transplant, patient survival was greatest for KA1, similar among KA2, KALi, KAH, and inferior for KALu. Compared to the entire wait list, renal transplantation was associated with a survival benefit among all groups except KALu (p = 0.017; HR = 1.61; CI = 1.09–2.38), where posttransplant survival was inferior to the wait list population. Recipients of KA1 kidney transplantation have the greatest posttransplant survival and compared to the overall kidney wait list, the greatest survival benefit.     

Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation is improved by living kidney donation program

BACKGROUND: Shortage of suitable donors and current graft allocation priorities reduce the number of cadaveric kidneys available to diabetic recipients. The concurrent excess of solitary cadaveric pancreata and the excellent results of living kidney transplantation make simultaneous cadaveric pancreas-living kidney transplantation (SPLKTx) an attractive alternative to simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKTx). METHODS: Between June 2001 and June 2003, 80 recipients were enrolled in the SPKTx waiting list. Each recipient's family was counseled about living kidney donation (LKD). Twenty-nine (36.2%) candidates were evaluated for LKD and 8 (27.6%) were disqualified. The remaining 21 candidates were scheduled for LKD and 18 actually donated. RESULTS: Thanks to LKD 18 additional recipients were transplanted, thus expanding the donor pool from 33 to 51 (P =.004). The median waiting time for SPLKTx was 14 days as compared with 95 days for SPKTx (P =.006). Without LKD the median waiting time for SPKTx would have been 198 days (P =.02). Similarly, 1 year after the enrollment on the waiting list 60% of recipients had been transplanted, while without LKD only 42% would had been grafted (P =.01). Two-year recipient survival rate was 100% for SPLKTx compared with 96.9% for SPKTx. Equivalent figures for kidney and pancreas were 80.0% and 84.0% for SPLKTx compared with 96.9% and 96.9% for SPKTx. CONCLUSIONS: LKD expanded the kidney donor pool, reduced the waiting time of recipients listed for a totally cadaveric procedure, and increased their chance to get a timely graft. One-year outcome of SPLKTx equaled that of SPKTx.     

Mortality in candidates waiting for combined liver-intestine transplants exceeds that for other candidates waiting for liver transplants

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) reports indicate that mortality on the intestine transplant waiting list is higher than on other transplant waiting lists. The goals of this study were (1) to determine whether most of the intestinal transplant candidate deaths have occurred in those who also need liver transplants, and (2) to compare the waiting list mortality in the liver-intestine candidate subset with the overall liver transplant candidate population. We found that 90% of intestine transplant waiting list deaths have occurred in candidates who also needed liver transplants. Since 1994, annual mortality has been higher in liver-intestine transplant candidates than in the overall liver transplant candidate population, and these differences have been statistically significant since 1996. These mortality differences applied to all age groups. Also, status 2B, 3, and 7 candidate mortality was significantly higher in liver-intestine candidates than in the overall liver transplant candidate population. Because there were so few liver-intestine transplant candidates listed as status 1 or 2A, a meaningful comparison was not possible in these statuses. These data indicate that liver-intestine transplant candidates are a unique subset of liver transplant candidates with a significantly higher risk of dying on the waiting list. Recent changes in UNOS liver allocation policy that gives higher priority to liver-intestine candidates may help to reduce this discrepancy. However, further research into the etiology of liver disease in patients on long-term parenteral nutrition and earlier referral of high-risk short bowel syndrome patients to centers with special expertise in their management are needed for an ultimate solution to this problem. (Liver Transpl 2003;9:748-753.)     

The Report of a National Conference on the Wait List for Kidney Transplantation

In March, 2002, over 100 members of the transplant community assembled in Philadelphia for a meeting designed to address problems associated with the growing number of patients seeking kidney transplantation and added to the waiting list each year. The meeting included representatives of nine US organizations with interests in these issues. Participants divided into work groups addressing access to the waiting list, assigning priority on the list, list management, and identifying appropriate candidates for expanded criteria donor kidneys. Each work group outlined problems and potential remedies within each area. This report summarized the issues and recommendations regarding the waiting list for kidney transplantation addressed in the Philadelphia meeting.     

Harm and Benefits of Primary Liver Resection and Salvage Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Primary transplantation offers longer life‐expectancy in comparison to hepatic resection (HR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) followed by salvage transplantation; however, livers not used for primary transplantation can be reallocated to the remaining waiting‐list patients, thus, the harm caused to resected patients could be balanced, or outweighed, by the benefit obtained from reallocation of livers originating from HCC patients first being resected. A Markov model was developed to investigate this issue based on literature data or estimated from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Markov model shows that primary transplantation offers longer life‐expectancy in comparison to HR and salvage transplantation if 5‐year posttransplant survival remains higher than 60%. The balance between the harm for resected patients and the benefit for the remaining waiting list depends on (a) the proportion of HCC candidates, (b) the percentage shifted to HR and (c) the median expected time‐to‐transplant. Faced with a low proportion of HCC candidates, the harm caused to resected patients was higher than the benefit that could be obtained for the waiting‐list population from re‐allocation of extra livers. An increased proportion of HCC candidates and/or an increased median time‐to‐transplant could lead to a benefit for waiting‐list patients that outweighs this harm.     

Strategies for compensating for the declining numbers of cadaver donor kidney transplants.

BACKGROUND: The living-donor and dual kidney transplantation programmes were initiated in the transplantation centre of Münster (TCM) as two approaches to compensate for the declining numbers of cadaver donor kidney transplants after the implementation of the new Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS). We analysed the outcome of cadaver, living-donor and dual kidney transplantation and their effects on the waiting list in the TCM. METHODS: Between January 1990 and December 2000, 1184 kidney transplants were performed in the TCM. They were subdivided into cadaver, living-donor and dual kidney transplants and retrospectively analysed in terms of the number of kidney transplants performed, waiting time and waiting coefficient. In addition four representative groups were formed to reflect donor origin (I: cadaver kidney transplants allocated by the old ETKAS, n = 180; II: cadaver kidney transplants allocated by the new ETKAS, n = 139; III: living-donor kidney transplantation, n = 59; IV: dual kidney transplantation, n = 31) and compared according to graft function (initial diuresis, creatinine, 3-year graft function), patient survival and median waiting time. RESULTS: After the implementation of the new ETKAS, the number of cadaver donor kidney transplants at the TCM almost halved, but the proportion of living-donor kidney transplantations increased significantly by 12.8% and of dual kidney transplantations by 8.5%. Patients who had received kidneys from cadaver donors allocated by the new ETKAS (group II) had a better survival rate, short- and long-term function but a longer waiting time than in group I (old ETKAS). Patients with dual kidney transplants (group IV) showed the lowest survival and short-term function rate, but had long-term function equivalent to that of cadaver kidney transplants (groups I and II). Patients who had received kidneys from living donors (group III) had the best survival, and short- and long-term function rate as well as the shortest mean waiting time. CONCLUSIONS: Living-donor and dual kidney transplantation proved to be functionally equivalent alternatives and successful strategies for compensating the declining numbers of cadaver donor kidney transplants.     

A new allocation plan for renal transplantation

BACKGROUND: A novel plan of renal allograft allocation has been conducted by United Network for Organ Sharing Region 1 transplant centers since September 3, 1996, based upon HLA matching, time waiting, and population distance points. The objectives of this plan were to achieve a balance between increasing the opportunity of renal transplantation for those patients listed with long waiting times and promoting local organ donor availability. METHODS: A single list of candidates was formulated for each cadaver donor, assigning a maximum of 8 points for time waiting, a maximum of 8 points for population distance from the donor hospital, and HLA points based upon the degree of B/DR mismatch. Additional points were awarded to a cross-match-negative patient with a panel-reactive antibody of >80%, and to pediatric patients. RESULTS: The total number of kidneys transplanted to patients who had waited >3 years was 100 (46%), and to patients who had waited >2.5-3 years was 29 (13%). However, the total number of kidneys transplanted to patients with the maximum population distance points was only 72 (33%). Thus, although the plan achieved a favorable distribution of kidneys to patients with longer waiting times (nearly 60%), the other, equally important objective of promoting local donor availability was not initially accomplished. Moreover, minor HLA B/DR differences between the donor and the recipient (i.e., not phenotypically matched) were unexpectedly consequential in determining allocation. As a result of these observations, the following adjustments were made in the plan (as of December 3, 1997): a maximum of 10 points for population distance, a maximum of 8 points for time waiting (both by a linear correlation), and the retention of HLA points for 0 B/DR mismatch only. After these interval changes, the percentage of patients receiving a kidney with some population distance points increased from 85% to 96%. Conclusions. We have shown that a heterogeneous region of multiple transplant centers can devise (and modify) an innovative and balanced plan that provides an equitable system of allocation for an ever-increasing number of patients.     

Access to renal transplantation for the elderly in the face of new allocation policy: A review of contemporary perspectives on “older” issues

The benefits of renal transplantation have been demonstrated to extend to the elderly. As a result, more seniors have been placed on the kidney transplant wait list and have received renal allografts in recent years. In June 2013 significant amendments to deceased donor kidney allocation policy were approved to be instituted in 2014 with the goal of increasing overall life years and graft years achieved compared to the current system. Going forward, it is conceivable that transplant centers may perceive a need to adjust practice patterns and modify evaluation and listing criteria for the elderly as the proportion of kidneys distributed to this segment of the wait list would potentially decrease under the new system, further increasing wait times. This review examines contemporary perspectives on access to transplantation for seniors and pertinent issues for this subgroup such as wait time, comorbidity, and evaluation and listing practices. Potential approaches to improve the evaluation of elderly patients being considered for transplant and to increase availability of expanded criteria donor (or higher kidney donor profile index) and living donor organ transplant opportunities while maintaining acceptable outcomes for seniors are explored.     

Underutilization of A2 ABO incompatible kidney transplantation

Redfield RR, Parsons RF, Rodriguez E, Mustafa M, Cassuto J, Vivek K, Noorchashm H, Naji A, Levine MH, Abt PL. Underutilization of A2 ABO incompatible kidney transplantation.
Clin Transplant 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1399‐0012.2011.01543.x.
© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Background: ABO compatibility creates a disadvantage for O and B renal allograft candidates. A2 ABO incompatible transplant may decrease waiting times and generate equivalent graft survival to an ABO compatible transplant. Methods: Death‐censored graft survival was compared between A recipients and O, B, and AB recipients of an A2 allograft with multivariate Cox regression models utilizing data from the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) between 1997 and 2007. Results: Eighty‐five percent of A2 kidneys were transplanted into ABO compatible recipients vs. 15% into ABO incompatible recipients. Rates of A2 incompatible kidney transplants did not increase over the study period (14.8% to 14.6%). Mean wait time for A2→O kidneys was 337 vs. 684 d for O→O and for A2→B kidneys, 542 vs. 734 d for B→B. Adjusted relative risk of graft loss at five‐yr was similar between O, B, and AB recipients compared to A recipients of an A2 allograft, corresponding to a five‐yr graft survival of 84%, 86.2%, 86.1%, and 86.1%, respectively. Conclusion: A2 incompatible kidney transplantation is underutilized. Graft outcomes are similar among A2 compatible and incompatible recipients. Shorter waiting time and improved access might be achieved if A2 kidneys are considered in all blood groups.     

‘Suspended in a paradox’—patient attitudes to wait‐listing for kidney transplantation: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies

Patients on waiting lists for kidney transplantation have higher mortality rates and have specific anxieties about their eligibility, process, and outcomes of wait‐listing. We aimed to describe patient experiences and attitudes to wait‐listing for kidney transplantation. Electronic databases were searched to September 2014. Thematic synthesis was used to analyze the findings. From 22 studies (n = 795 patients), we identified six themes: accepting the only option (chance to regain normality, avoiding guilt, impulsive decision‐making); maintaining hope (determined optimism, appreciating a fortuitous gift, enduring for optimal outcomes, trust in clinical judgment); burden of testing (strenuous commitment, losing the battle, medical mistrust); permeating vulnerability (eligibility enigma, being threatened, angst of timing uncertainty, desperate urgency, living in limbo, spiraling doubt and disappointment, residual ambivalence); deprived of opportunity (unfairly dismissed, unexpected disqualification, self‐resignation and acceptance, jealousy, suspicious of inequity); and moral guilt (awaiting someone's death, questioning deservingness). The waiting list offered hope of restored normality. However, the demands of workup, uncertainty about eligibility, and waiting times that exceeded expectations impelled patients to disillusionment, despair, and suspicion of inequity. Managing patient expectations and ensuring transparency of wait‐listing and allocation decisions may allay patient disappointment and skepticism, to improve patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes.     

Medical and non-medical determinants of access to renal transplant waiting list in a French community-based network of care.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of adult candidates for kidney transplantation diverges from one centre to another. Concurrently, ethnic background, female gender, late referral to a nephrologist, distance from transplantation department and private ownership of a dialysis facility have been associated with poor access to kidney transplantation. We assessed determinants of access to a waiting list in a French community-based network of care. METHODS: From July 1997 to June 2003, 1725 adults living in Lorraine, who started renal replacement therapy in one of the 13 facilities of the network, were included. We compared, first, the patients registered on the waiting list with those not registered and, second, the patients registered before starting dialysis with those registered after. RESULTS: Using logistic regression, registration on the waiting list was exclusively associated with age and medical factors, except for one variable: medical follow-up in the department performing transplantation [odds ratio (OR): 1.67 (95%CI: 1.05-2.67)]. Registration before starting dialysis was not associated with medical factors but with age [OR of patients younger than 45 years vs those older than 65 years: 3.85 (95%CI: 1.05-24.92)] and medical follow-up in the department performing transplantation [OR: 3.56 (95%CI: 1.98-6.67)]. CONCLUSIONS: In a French community-based network, patients followed by the nephrology department performing transplantation are more likely to be registered on the transplant waiting list early in the course of chronic kidney disease. Age over 55 per se is a considerable barrier to access to kidney transplantation. Medical guidelines should allow a standardization of criteria for registration.     

Reduced Priority MELD Score for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Does Not Adversely Impact Candidate Survival Awaiting Liver Transplantation

The liver organ allocation policy of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is based on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). The policy provides additional priority for candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are awaiting deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). However, this priority was reduced on February 27, 2003 to a MELD of 20 for stage T1 and of 24 for stage T2 HCC. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of reduced priority on HCC candidate survival while on the waiting list. The UNOS database was reviewed for all HCC candidates listed after February 27, 2002, The HCC candidates were grouped into two time periods: MELD 1 (listed between February 27, 2002, and February 26, 2003) and MELD 2 (listed between February 27, 2003 and February 26, 2004). For the two time periods, the national DDLT incidence rates for HCC patients were 1.44 versus 1.53 DDLT per person-year (p = NS) and the waiting times were similar for the two periods (138.0 +/- 196.8 vs. 129.0 +/- 133.8 days; p = NS). Furthermore, the 3-, 6- and 12-month candidate, patient survival and dropout rates were also similar nationally. Regional differences in rates of DDLT for HCC were observed during both MELD periods. Consequently, the reduced MELD score for stage T1 and T2 HCC candidates awaiting DDLT has not had an impact nationally either on their survival on the waiting list or on their ability to obtain a liver transplant within a reasonable time frame. However, regional variations point to the need for reform in how organs are allocated for HCC at the regional level.     

Finding a place for public preferences in liver allocation decisions

Over the last decade there have been major advances in all aspects of liver transplantation with the consequence that the number of patients who could benefit from the procedure is increasing. As a result, the number of patients listed for liver transplantation is growing while the donor pool is remaining constant or even falling. The effect of this donor shortage is seen clearly both in Europe and in North America. For example, in North America data from UNOS shows that between 1988 and 1997 the number of cadaveric donor liver transplants rose from 1,713 to 4,100. The number of patients waiting for transplant rose over the same time from 616 to 9,647. This shortage of organs has tragic consequences. Although the proportion of patients dying on the waiting list is falling, the number of patients dying on the liver transplant waiting list increased from 196 to 1,129 over this same period of time.