A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Being Waitlisted is not Enough-Identification of Pseudo-access to Kidney Transplantation in the United States. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: We sought to determine how kidney transplant center volume impacts waitlisted candidate access to transplant.

Summary Background Data: Over 90,000 candidates await a kidney transplant, of which we hypothesized that waitlist access is subject to significant program-level variation, potentially resulting in pseudo-access: a state where the waitlisted candidate does not achieve expected transplantation.

Methods: Center-level data on all U.S. adult kidney transplant programs was collected using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients program-specific reports, updated through 12/31/23. Programs (N=196) were stratified into quartiles by yearly deceased donor kidney transplant volume (Q1 lowest, Q4 highest); program acceptance practices and outcomes were compared.

Results: Compared to lower volume programs, Q4 programs transplanted a higher proportion of their waitlist (30.5% vs 13.1% for Q1;P<0.001) with a higher transplant rate ratio (1.41 vs 0.74 for Q1;P<0.001), and an accelerated time to transplant (median time to transplant ratio: 0.79 vs 1.2 for Q1;P=0.008). Offer acceptance ratios were significantly higher at Q4 programs, particularly for marginal allografts (KDRI>1.75: 1.51 vs 0.46 for Q1;P<0.001) and hard-to-place kidneys (>100 offers: 1.18 vs 0.25 for Q1;P<0.001). Despite increased utilization of more marginal grafts, Q4 programs demonstrated shorter post-transplant hospital lengths of stay (median 4 days [4-5] vs 6 [5-7] for Q1; P<0.001).

Conclusion: High-volume (HV) programs excel through aggressive organ utilization, while low-volume (LV) programs often provide pseudo-access to transplantation, characterized by low transplant rate ratios, conservative offer acceptance practices, and prolonged wait times. To increase kidney allograft utilization, LV programs unable to improve acceptance practices should consider consolidation or the development of access programs to facilitate candidate migration to HV centers.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006770DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

kidney transplant
16
waitlisted candidate
8
kidney
5
transplant
5
waitlisted enough-identification
4
enough-identification pseudo-access
4
pseudo-access kidney
4
kidney transplantation
4
transplantation united
4
united states
4

Similar Publications