Development of the New Lung Allocation System in the United States

This article reviews the development of the new U.S. lung allocation system that took effect in spring 2005. In 1998, the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Final Rule. Under the rule, which became effective in 2000, the OPTN had to demonstrate that existing allocation policies met certain conditions or change the policies to meet a range of criteria, including broader geographic sharing of organs, reducing the use of waiting time as an allocation criterion and creating equitable organ allocation systems using objective medical criteria and medical urgency to allocate donor organs for transplant. This mandate resulted in reviews of all organ allocation policies, and led to the creation of the Lung Allocation Subcommittee of the OPTN Thoracic Organ Transplantation Committee. This paper reviews the deliberations of the Subcommittee in identifying priorities for a new lung allocation system, the analyses undertaken by the OPTN and the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients and the evolution of a new lung allocation system that ranks candidates for lungs based on a Lung Allocation Score, incorporating waiting list and posttransplant survival probabilities.     

An effective treatment for functional urinary incoordination

Twenty women diagnosed with functional urinary incoordination were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: biofeedback or progressive muscle relaxation. Ten subjects who were placed on a waiting list prior to treatment allocation served as a comparison group. The biofeedback intervention focused specifically on retraining of pelvic floor musculature (PFM). Patients were assessed pretreatment, posttreatment, and at 2-month follow-up. Outcome measures included self-reported symptomatology, psychological functioning, psychophysiological assessment of the PFM, and urologist ratings of problem severity and treatment efficacy. Both treatment approaches proved effective in improving symptomatology and psychological state. Subjects on the waiting list demonstrated no change in urological difficulties. No differences were found between the two treatment groups on any of the outcome measures. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.     

Waiting: the experience of persons in a critical care waiting room.

The purposes of this study were to discover the essences of the experience of waiting, to provide new knowledge about what it is like to wait, and to contribute to nursing knowledge. Participants were 12 persons who were family members or friends of persons in an adult critical care unit. The Parse research method was used to answer the research question: What is the structure of the lived experience of waiting? The central finding of this study was this structure: The lived experience of waiting is a vigilant attentiveness surfacing amid an ambiguous turbulent lull as contentment emerges with uplifting engagements. The structure is discussed in relation to nursing knowledge and in relation to how it can inform future research and practice. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Res Nurs Health 25:58–67, 2002.     

Liver and intestine transplantation

The most significant development in liver transplantation in the USA over the past year was the full implementation of the MELD- and PELD-based allocation policy in March 2002, which shifted emphasis from waiting time within broad medical urgency status to prioritization by risk of waiting list death. The implementation of this system has led to a decrease in pretransplant mortality without increasing post-transplant mortality, despite a higher severity of illness at the time of transplant.
The trend over the last few years of rapidly increasing numbers of adult living donor liver transplants was reversed in 2002 by a decline of more than 30% in the number of these procedures. In 2002, a greater percentage of women received livers from living donors (43%) than deceased donors (34%), possibly because of size considerations.
From 1993 to 2001, the waiting list increased more than sixfold, from 2902 patients to 18 047 patients. For the first time since 1993, the waiting list size decreased in 2002, dropping 6% to 16 974 candidates. The percentage of temporarily inactive liver candidates also increased from 2001, thus the net decrease in the active waiting list for 2002 was 12%. This may reflect a trend toward less pre-emptive listing practices under MELD.
Intestine transplantation remains a low-volume procedure limited to a few transplant centers and is still accompanied by significant pre- and post-transplantation risks. As this procedure matures, its application may increase to include recipients at an earlier stage of their disease with better likelihood of success.