The shorter the waiting time at a transplant center, the longer patients are likely to live. A combination of center-related factors could mean up to a four-year difference in life expectancy for candidates.
The UF study is the first to analyze overall survival chances for people waiting for a kidney transplant, rather than for people who had already received a transplant.
"Patients want to know their survival long term, not just if they happen to make it to surgery," said lead researcher Jesse Schold, Ph.D., of UF's College of Medicine.
The findings are published in the February issue of the journal Medical Care.
"This is an important paper because it draws attention to an often ignored but critical aspect of transplantation — what happens to patients while they are waiting for a transplant," said J. Michael Cecka, Ph.D., of the University of California, Los Angeles, whose group first described in the 1970s the so-called "center effect," in which a patient's prognosis depends on the center where the transplant was done. Cecka was not involved in the current research.
"Unfortunately, not every patient who would benefit from a kidney transplant will ever get one — in fact, most of those patients will not get a transplant because there are not enough organs available for transplantation," he said.
Kidney transplantation doubles life expectancy compared with dialysis treatment. On average, wait time nationally for a deceased-donor kidney is four to five years, but in some states it is more than seven.
In 2007, at least 70,000 patients were on waiting lists for kidney transplants at one of 240 centers around the country, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Patients are prioritized by blood type, immune system activity and other factors. The longer a person waits, the more dialysis he or she gets, and the poorer the life expectancy.
Long waiting times for donor organs have led many people to seek alternatives, some of which have raised ethics questions. One example in the United States is a members-only organ-sharing "club" in which people who pledge to donate organs get preferred access to donations from other members. Internationally, there have been reports of people buying organs from live donors.
The UF research evaluated data from 1995 to 2000 on almost 109,000 patients from a national transplant database, using characteristics thought to have the greatest impact on patient survival: waiting time, past performance of a center in terms of patient death rates, proportion of non-ideal donors and number of deceased-donor transplants a center does a year.
Waiting time had the strongest effect on survival once a patient got on a transplant list. At centers with the longest wait times, patients' risk of death was a third higher than at those with the shortest waits.
Centers that had the highest proportions of donors considered high-risk because of age, cause of death, history of hypertension, or certain clinical measurements, had a slight elevation in death rates.
Past center performance, in terms of historical death rates, also had a slight positive effect on survival.
Contrary to expectations, the number of transplants a center does a year was not associated with patient survival. In general, high-volume centers are thought to have greater expertise, resources and facilities. But that seems a less important consideration for people who are still waiting to receive an organ.
"Maybe it does have some degree of benefit if you do reach the transplant episode, but many candidates don't," Schold said.
Waiting times and other information about transplant centers are available online from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the U.S. Renal Data System.
Still, many patients might not feel that they have a choice — they go where their physician or insurer tells them to, or to the center closest to home.
"Patients should ask the question 'how likely am I to get a kidney at this center?'" said Robert Gaston, M.D., head of transplant nephrology at the University of Alabama, who was not involved in the study. "I think it's reasonable to ask that of their doctor, their insurance company and the transplant center they're referred to."
But whether patients have much choice in selecting a transplant center may be less important than just raising the issue of whether listing preferences and practices at different centers might need scrutiny, UCLA's Cecka said.
Just as his identification in the 1970s of the "center effect" on transplantation outcomes sparked interest in reducing skill differences among centers, this newly described "center effect" on candidate survival might invite a look at how to improve wait-listed patients' chances by addressing center variations.
Experts caution that center factors change over time, and that what might be the best place to go in a given year might not be the following year.
"Personnel and practices change — it's not a static picture," Gaston said.
Czerne M. Reid | EurekAlert!
Win-win strategies for climate and food security
02.10.2017 | International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
The personality factor: How to foster the sharing of research data
06.09.2017 | ZBW – Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft
University of Maryland researchers contribute to historic detection of gravitational waves and light created by event
On August 17, 2017, at 12:41:04 UTC, scientists made the first direct observation of a merger between two neutron stars--the dense, collapsed cores that remain...
Seven new papers describe the first-ever detection of light from a gravitational wave source. The event, caused by two neutron stars colliding and merging together, was dubbed GW170817 because it sent ripples through space-time that reached Earth on 2017 August 17. Around the world, hundreds of excited astronomers mobilized quickly and were able to observe the event using numerous telescopes, providing a wealth of new data.
Previous detections of gravitational waves have all involved the merger of two black holes, a feat that won the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics earlier this month....
Material defects in end products can quickly result in failures in many areas of industry, and have a massive impact on the safe use of their products. This is why, in the field of quality assurance, intelligent, nondestructive sensor systems play a key role. They allow testing components and parts in a rapid and cost-efficient manner without destroying the actual product or changing its surface. Experts from the Fraunhofer IZFP in Saarbrücken will be presenting two exhibits at the Blechexpo in Stuttgart from 7–10 November 2017 that allow fast, reliable, and automated characterization of materials and detection of defects (Hall 5, Booth 5306).
When quality testing uses time-consuming destructive test methods, it can result in enormous costs due to damaging or destroying the products. And given that...
Using a new cooling technique MPQ scientists succeed at observing collisions in a dense beam of cold and slow dipolar molecules.
How do chemical reactions proceed at extremely low temperatures? The answer requires the investigation of molecular samples that are cold, dense, and slow at...
Scientists from the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, using high precision laser spectroscopy of atomic hydrogen, confirm the surprisingly small value of the proton radius determined from muonic hydrogen.
It was one of the breakthroughs of the year 2010: Laser spectroscopy of muonic hydrogen resulted in a value for the proton charge radius that was significantly...
17.10.2017 | Event News
10.10.2017 | Event News
10.10.2017 | Event News
20.10.2017 | Information Technology
20.10.2017 | Materials Sciences
20.10.2017 | Interdisciplinary Research