Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Liver simulated allocation model does not effectively predict organ offer decisions for pediatric liver transplant candidates.
Wood, Nicholas L; Mogul, Douglas B; Perito, Emily R; VanDerwerken, Douglas; Mazariegos, George V; Hsu, Evelyn K; Segev, Dorry L; Gentry, Sommer E.
Afiliação
  • Wood NL; Department of Mathematics, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, USA.
  • Mogul DB; Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • Perito ER; Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
  • VanDerwerken D; Department of Mathematics, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, USA.
  • Mazariegos GV; Hillman Center for Pediatric Transplantation, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Hsu EK; Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
  • Segev DL; Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • Gentry SE; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Am J Transplant ; 21(9): 3157-3162, 2021 09.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33891805
ABSTRACT
The SRTR maintains the liver-simulated allocation model (LSAM), a tool for estimating the impact of changes to liver allocation policy. Integral to LSAM is a model that predicts the decision to accept or decline a liver for transplant. LSAM implicitly assumes these decisions are made identically for adult and pediatric liver transplant (LT) candidates, which has not been previously validated. We applied LSAM's decision-making models to SRTR offer data from 2013 to 2016 to determine its efficacy for adult (≥18) and pediatric (<18) LT candidates, and pediatric subpopulations-teenagers (≥12 to <18), children (≥2 to <12), and infants (<2)-using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). For nonstatus 1A candidates, all pediatric subgroups had higher rates of offer acceptance than adults. For non-1A candidates, LSAM's model performed substantially worse for pediatric candidates than adults (AUC 0.815 vs. 0.922); model performance decreased with age (AUC 0.898, 0.806, 0.783 for teenagers, children, and infants, respectively). For status 1A candidates, LSAM also performed worse for pediatric than adult candidates (AUC 0.711 vs. 0.779), especially for infants (AUC 0.618). To ensure pediatric candidates are not unpredictably or negatively impacted by allocation policy changes, we must explicitly account for pediatric-specific decision making in LSAM.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Transplante de Fígado Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adolescent / Adult / Child / Humans / Infant Idioma: En Revista: Am J Transplant Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Transplante de Fígado Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adolescent / Adult / Child / Humans / Infant Idioma: En Revista: Am J Transplant Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article