Skip to main content
Log in

Access to pediatric liver transplantation: Does regional variation play a role?

  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Aims and scope

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess regional variability in access to pediatric liver transplantation. The study population included all pediatric patients (age less than 18 years) listed for liver transplanta-tion in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database between 1988 and 2004. The effect of region on waiting list survival, the proportion of patients transplanted, and the proportion of patients remaining on the list was determined using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods. The proportion of technical variant grafts used was compared between regions using chi-square analysis. Kaplan-Meier analyses showed significant effects of region on survival on the waiting list, transplanta-tion, and remaining on the list (all log-rank P < 0.001). Cox proportional hazard models demonstrated that region, urgency status, and listing period exerted independent effects on survival on the waiting list, transplantation, and remaining on the list (all model P < 0.01). Regional variation existed with regard to donor type (P <0.001). Similar to adults, pediatric survival on the waiting list, the proportion of patients transplanted, and the proportion of patients remaining on the waiting list vary considerably within the 11 U.S. regions. Organ procurement organization specific effects and regional differences in utilization of deceased donor split and living donor organs may contribute to this variability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. www.optn.org. Accessed April 2005.

  2. Ellison MD, Edwards LB, Edwards EB, Barker CF. Geo-graphic differences in access to transplantation in the United States. Transplantation 2003;76(9):1389–1394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McDiarmid SV. Current status of liver transplantation in children. Pediatr Clin North Am 2003;50(6):1335–1374.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Otte JB, de Ville de Goyet J, Reding R, Lerut J, Sokal E. Pediatric liver transplantation: from the full-size liver graft to reduced, split, and living related liver transplantation. Pediatr Surg Int 1998;13(5-6):308–318.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Emond JC, Heffron TG, Kortz EO, et al. Improved results of living-related liver transplantation with routine applica-tion in a pediatric program. Transplantation 1993;55(4):835–840.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gibbons RD, Duan N, Meltzer D, et al. Waiting for organ transplantation: results of an analysis by an Institute of Med-icine committee. Biostatistics 2003;4(2):207–222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mullen MA, Kohut N, Sam M, Blendis L, Singer PA. Access to adult liver transplantation in Canada: a survey and ethical analysis. CMAJ 1996;154(3):337–342.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tuttle-Newhall JE, Rutledge R, Johnson M, Fair J. A state-wide, population-based, time series analysis of access to liver transplantation. Transplantation 1997;63(2):255–262.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Miranda B, Canon J, Cuende N, Garrido G, Naya MT, Fernandez-Zincke E. Disparities in access to liver transplan-tation in Spain. Transplantation 2003;76(9):1398–1403.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown RS Jr, Lake JR. The survival impact of liver trans-plantation in the MELD era, and the future for organ alloca-tion and distribution. Am J Transplant 2005;5(2):203–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Luskin RS, Buckley CA, Bradley JW, O’Connor KJ, Delmonico FL. An alternative approach to evaluating organ procurement organization performance. Transplant Proc 1999;31(1-2):353–355.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Freeman RB, Harper AM, Edwards EB. Redrawing organ distribution boundaries: results of a computer-simulated analysis for liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2002;8(8):659–666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stahl JE, Kong N, Shechter SM, Schaefer AJ, Roberts MS. A methodological framework for optimally reorganizing liver transplant regions. Med Decis Making 2005;25(1):35–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ubel PA, Caplan AL. Geographic favoritism in liver trans-plantation-unfortunate or unfair? N Engl J Med 1998; 339(18):1322–1325.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Wright Pinson M.D., M.B.A..

Additional information

Supported in part by Health Resources and Services Administration contract 231-00-0115. The content is the responsibility of the authors alone and does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Austin, M.T., Feurer, I.D. & Pinson, C.W. Access to pediatric liver transplantation: Does regional variation play a role?. J Gastrointest Surg 10, 387–394 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2005.10.008

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2005.10.008

Key words

Navigation