The cost of lung transplantation in the United States: How high is too high?

Objectives: To identify patient and process factors that contribute to the high cost of lung transplantation (LTx) in the perioperative period, which may allow transplant centers to evaluate situations in which transplantation is most cost-effective to inform judicious resource allocation, avoid futile care, and reduce costs. Methods: The MarketScan Research databases were used to identify 582 privately insured patients undergoing single or bilateral LTx between 2013 and 2019. The patients were subdivided into groups by disease etiology using the United Network of Organ Sharing classification system. Multivariable generalized linear models using a gamma distribution with a log link were fit to examine the associations between the etiology of lung disease and costs during the index admission, 3 months before admission, and 3 months after discharge. Results: Our results indicate that the index admission contributed the most to the total transplantation costs compared to the 3 months before admission and after discharge. The regression-adjusted mean index hospitalization cost was 35% higher for patients with pulmonary vascular disease compared to those with obstructive lung disease ($527,156 vs $389,055). The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, mechanical ventilation, and surgical complications in the post-transplantation period were associated with higher costs during the index admission. Surprisingly, age ≥55 was associated with lower costs during the index admission. Conclusions: This analysis identifies pivotal factors influencing the high cost of LTx, emphasizing the significant impact of the index admission, particularly for patients with pulmonary vascular disease. These insights offer transplant centers an opportunity to enhance cost-effectiveness through judicious resource allocation and service bundling, ultimately reducing overall transplantation costs.

Same-teams versus different-teams for long distance lung procurement: A cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In an era of broader lung sharing, different-team transplantation (DT, procuring team from nonrecipient center) may streamline procurement logistics; however, safety and cost implications of DT remain unclear. To understand whether DT represents a safe means to reduce lung transplant (LTx) costs, we compared posttransplant outcomes and lung procurement and index hospitalization costs among matched DT and same-team transplantation (ST, procuring team from recipient center) cohorts at a single, high-volume institution. We hypothesized that DT reduces costs without compromising outcomes after LTx. METHODS: Patients who underwent DT between January 2016 to May 2020 were included. A cohort of patients who underwent ST was matched 1:3 (nearest neighbor) based on recipient age, disease group, lung allocation score, history of previous LTx, and bilateral versus single LTx. Posttransplant outcomes and costs were compared between groups. RESULTS: In total, 23 DT and 69 matched ST recipients were included. Perioperative outcomes and posttransplant survival were similar between groups. Compared with ST, DT was associated with similar lung procurement and index hospitalization costs (DT vs ST, procurement: median $65,991 vs $58,847, P = .16; index hospitalization: median $294,346 vs $322,189, P = .7). On average, procurement costs increased $3263 less per 100 nautical miles for DT versus ST; DT offered cost-savings when travel distances exceeded approximately 363 nautical miles. CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, DT and ST were associated with similar post-LTx outcomes; DT offered cost-savings with increasing procurement travel distance. These findings suggest that DT may mitigate logistical and financial burdens of lung procurement; however, further investigation in a multi-institutional cohort is warranted.

Lung transplantation after ex vivo lung perfusion versus static cold storage: An institutional cost analysis.

Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) is a novel lung preservation strategy that facilitates the use of marginal allografts; however, it is more expensive than static cold storage (SCS). To understand how preservation method might affect postoperative costs, we compared outcomes and index hospitalization costs among matched EVLP and SCS preserved lung transplant (LTx) recipients at a single, high-volume institution. A total of 22 EVLP and 66 matched SCS LTx recipients were included; SCS grafts were further stratified as either standard-criteria (SCD) or extended-criteria donors (ECD). Median total preservation time was 857, 409, and 438 min for EVLP, SCD, and ECD lungs, respectively (p < .0001). EVLP patients had similar perioperative outcomes and posttransplant survival compared to SCS SCD and ECD recipients. Excluding device-specific costs, total direct variable costs were similar among EVLP, SCD, and ECD recipients (median $200,404, vs. $154,709 vs. $168,334, p =  .11). The median direct contribution margin was positive for EVLP recipients, and similar to that for SCD and ECD graft recipients (all p > .99). These findings demonstrate that the use of EVLP was profitable at an institutional level; however, further investigation is needed to better understand the financial implications of EVLP in facilitating donor pool expansion in an era of broader lung sharing.

Point-of-Care Assessment of DCD Livers During Normothermic Machine Perfusion in a Nonhuman Primate Model.

Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) provides clinicians an opportunity to assess marginal livers before transplantation. However, objective criteria and point-of-care (POC) biomarkers to predict risk and guide decision making are lacking. In this investigation, we characterized trends in POC biomarkers during NMP and compared primate donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers with short and prolonged warm ischemic injury. Following asystole, livers were subjected to either 5 minutes (DCD-5min, n = 4) or 45 minutes (DCD-45min, n = 4) of warm ischemia time. Livers were flushed with heparinized UW solution, and preserved in cold storage before NMP. During flow-controlled NMP, circulating perfusate and tissue biopsies were collected at 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 hours for analysis. DCD-45min livers had greater terminal portal vein pressure (8.5 vs. 13.3 mm Hg, P = 0.027) and terminal portal vein resistance (16.3 vs. 32.4 Wood units, P = 0.005). During perfusion, DCD-45min livers had equivalent terminal lactate clearance (93% vs. 96%, P = 0.344), greater terminal alanine aminotransferase (163 vs. 883 U/L, P = 0.002), and greater terminal perfusate gamma glutamyltransferase (GGT) (5.0 vs. 31.7 U/L, P = 0.002). DCD-45min livers had higher circulating levels of flavin mononucleotide (FMN) at hours 2 and 4 of perfusion (136 vs. 250 ng/mL, P = 0.029; and 158 vs. 293 ng/mL, P = 0.003; respectively). DCD-5min livers produced more bile and demonstrated progressive decline in bile lactate dehydrogenase, whereas DCD-45min livers did not. On blinded histologic evaluation, DCD-45min livers demonstrated greater injury and necrosis at late stages of perfusion, indicative of nonviability. Conclusion: Objective criteria are needed to define graft viability during NMP. Perfusate lactate clearance does not discriminate between viable and nonviable livers during NMP. Perfusate GGT and FMN may represent POC biomarkers predictive of liver injury during NMP.

Liver transplantation and waitlist mortality for HCC and non-HCC candidates following the 2015 HCC exception policy change.

Historically, exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) led to higher transplant rates and lower waitlist mortality for HCC candidates compared to non-HCC candidates. As of October 2015, HCC candidates must wait 6 months after initial application to obtain exception points; the impact of this policy remains unstudied. Using 2013-2017 SRTR data, we identified 39  350 adult, first-time, active waitlist candidates and compared deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) rates and waitlist mortality/dropout for HCC versus non-HCC candidates before (October 8, 2013-October 7, 2015, prepolicy) and after (October 8, 2015-October 7, 2017, postpolicy) the policy change using Cox and competing risks regression, respectively. Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same calculated MELD, HCC candidates had a 3.6-fold higher rate of DDLT prepolicy (aHR = 3.49 3.69 3.89 ) and a 2.2-fold higher rate of DDLT postpolicy (aHR = 2.09 2.21 2.34 ). Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same allocation priority, HCC candidates had a 37% lower risk of waitlist mortality/dropout prepolicy (asHR = 0.54 0.63 0.73 ) and a comparable risk of mortality/dropout postpolicy (asHR = 0.81 0.95 1.11 ). Following the policy change, the DDLT advantage for HCC candidates remained, albeit dramatically attenuated, without any substantial increase in waitlist mortality/dropout. In the context of sickest-first liver allocation, the revised policy seems to have established allocation equity for HCC and non-HCC candidates.