Patient selection for liver transplant: 1-Year experience with 555 patients at a single center

Jaime Aranda-Michel, Rolland Dickson, Hugo Bonatti, John R. Crossfield, Andrew P. Keaveny, Adriana R. Vasquez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Liver transplant (LT) has revolutionized the management of end-stage liver disease in the past 2 decades. The institution of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scoring system for organ allocation has de-emphasized recipient waiting time, but its effect on patients' referral to liver transplant centers is unclear. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the outcome of patients referred for liver transplant in a 12-month period (January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005) after the institution of the new scoring system. During the study period, 555 patients were presented 605 times to the Liver Transplant Selection Committee. Of the 295 patients initially denied LT, 150 patients (51%) were denied because they were considered too early, 29 (10%) because their tumor did not meet institutional criteria, 72 (24%) because of concomitant psychosocial issues, and 44 (15%) because of comorbid conditions. Patients considered too early and those with psychosocial reasons for denial were often re-presented and listed for LT. Our findings suggest that patients could benefit from early referral to an LT center, even if they are initially denied listing, because management of end-stage renal disease could be initiated and psychosocial issues could be addressed. Referring physicians and transplant centers need to develop a strategy to ensure optimal timing of referrals for LT.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)165-168
Number of pages4
JournalMayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume83
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2008

Fingerprint

Patient Selection
Transplants
Liver
End Stage Liver Disease
Referral and Consultation
Chronic Kidney Failure
Retrospective Studies
Physicians
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Aranda-Michel, J., Dickson, R., Bonatti, H., Crossfield, J. R., Keaveny, A. P., & Vasquez, A. R. (2008). Patient selection for liver transplant: 1-Year experience with 555 patients at a single center. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 83(2), 165-168. https://doi.org/10.4065/83.2.165

Patient selection for liver transplant : 1-Year experience with 555 patients at a single center. / Aranda-Michel, Jaime; Dickson, Rolland; Bonatti, Hugo; Crossfield, John R.; Keaveny, Andrew P.; Vasquez, Adriana R.

In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Vol. 83, No. 2, 2008, p. 165-168.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Aranda-Michel, J, Dickson, R, Bonatti, H, Crossfield, JR, Keaveny, AP & Vasquez, AR 2008, 'Patient selection for liver transplant: 1-Year experience with 555 patients at a single center', Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 165-168. https://doi.org/10.4065/83.2.165
Aranda-Michel, Jaime ; Dickson, Rolland ; Bonatti, Hugo ; Crossfield, John R. ; Keaveny, Andrew P. ; Vasquez, Adriana R. / Patient selection for liver transplant : 1-Year experience with 555 patients at a single center. In: Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2008 ; Vol. 83, No. 2. pp. 165-168.
@article{50acd3afcdda4daca4cad9fc2acc4d95,
title = "Patient selection for liver transplant: 1-Year experience with 555 patients at a single center",
abstract = "Liver transplant (LT) has revolutionized the management of end-stage liver disease in the past 2 decades. The institution of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scoring system for organ allocation has de-emphasized recipient waiting time, but its effect on patients' referral to liver transplant centers is unclear. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the outcome of patients referred for liver transplant in a 12-month period (January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005) after the institution of the new scoring system. During the study period, 555 patients were presented 605 times to the Liver Transplant Selection Committee. Of the 295 patients initially denied LT, 150 patients (51{\%}) were denied because they were considered too early, 29 (10{\%}) because their tumor did not meet institutional criteria, 72 (24{\%}) because of concomitant psychosocial issues, and 44 (15{\%}) because of comorbid conditions. Patients considered too early and those with psychosocial reasons for denial were often re-presented and listed for LT. Our findings suggest that patients could benefit from early referral to an LT center, even if they are initially denied listing, because management of end-stage renal disease could be initiated and psychosocial issues could be addressed. Referring physicians and transplant centers need to develop a strategy to ensure optimal timing of referrals for LT.",
author = "Jaime Aranda-Michel and Rolland Dickson and Hugo Bonatti and Crossfield, {John R.} and Keaveny, {Andrew P.} and Vasquez, {Adriana R.}",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.4065/83.2.165",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "83",
pages = "165--168",
journal = "Mayo Clinic Proceedings",
issn = "0025-6196",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient selection for liver transplant

T2 - 1-Year experience with 555 patients at a single center

AU - Aranda-Michel, Jaime

AU - Dickson, Rolland

AU - Bonatti, Hugo

AU - Crossfield, John R.

AU - Keaveny, Andrew P.

AU - Vasquez, Adriana R.

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Liver transplant (LT) has revolutionized the management of end-stage liver disease in the past 2 decades. The institution of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scoring system for organ allocation has de-emphasized recipient waiting time, but its effect on patients' referral to liver transplant centers is unclear. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the outcome of patients referred for liver transplant in a 12-month period (January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005) after the institution of the new scoring system. During the study period, 555 patients were presented 605 times to the Liver Transplant Selection Committee. Of the 295 patients initially denied LT, 150 patients (51%) were denied because they were considered too early, 29 (10%) because their tumor did not meet institutional criteria, 72 (24%) because of concomitant psychosocial issues, and 44 (15%) because of comorbid conditions. Patients considered too early and those with psychosocial reasons for denial were often re-presented and listed for LT. Our findings suggest that patients could benefit from early referral to an LT center, even if they are initially denied listing, because management of end-stage renal disease could be initiated and psychosocial issues could be addressed. Referring physicians and transplant centers need to develop a strategy to ensure optimal timing of referrals for LT.

AB - Liver transplant (LT) has revolutionized the management of end-stage liver disease in the past 2 decades. The institution of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scoring system for organ allocation has de-emphasized recipient waiting time, but its effect on patients' referral to liver transplant centers is unclear. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the outcome of patients referred for liver transplant in a 12-month period (January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005) after the institution of the new scoring system. During the study period, 555 patients were presented 605 times to the Liver Transplant Selection Committee. Of the 295 patients initially denied LT, 150 patients (51%) were denied because they were considered too early, 29 (10%) because their tumor did not meet institutional criteria, 72 (24%) because of concomitant psychosocial issues, and 44 (15%) because of comorbid conditions. Patients considered too early and those with psychosocial reasons for denial were often re-presented and listed for LT. Our findings suggest that patients could benefit from early referral to an LT center, even if they are initially denied listing, because management of end-stage renal disease could be initiated and psychosocial issues could be addressed. Referring physicians and transplant centers need to develop a strategy to ensure optimal timing of referrals for LT.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=39749117593&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=39749117593&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4065/83.2.165

DO - 10.4065/83.2.165

M3 - Article

C2 - 18241626

AN - SCOPUS:39749117593

VL - 83

SP - 165

EP - 168

JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings

SN - 0025-6196

IS - 2

ER -