Pausing transplants in the face of a global pandemic: Patient survival implications.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted normal operating procedures at transplant centers. With the possibility that COVID-19 infection carries an overall 4% mortality rate and potentially a 24% mortality rate among the immunocompromised transplant recipients, many transplant centers considered the possibility of slowing down and even potentially pausing all transplants. Many proposals regarding the need for pausing organ transplants exist; however, much remains unknown. Whereas the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the overall healthcare system is unknown, the potential impact of pausing organ transplants over a period can be estimated. This study presents a model for evaluating the impact of pausing liver transplants over a spectrum of model for end-stage liver disease-sodium (MELD-Na) scores. Our model accounts for two potential risks of a pause: (1) the waitlist mortality of all patients who do not receive liver transplants during the pause period, and (2) the impact of a longer waiting list due to the pause of liver transplants and the continuous accrual of new patients. Using over 12 years of liver transplant data from the United Network for Organ Sharing and a system of differential equations, we estimate the threshold probability above which a decision maker should pause liver transplants to reduce the loss of patient life months. We also compare different pause policies to illustrate the value of patient-specific and center-specific approaches. Finally, we analyze how capacity constraints affect the loss of patient life months and the length of the waiting list. The results of this study are useful to decision makers in deciding whether and how to pause organ transplants during a pandemic. The results are also useful to patients (and their care providers) who are waiting for organ transplants.

Economic Analysis and Long-term Follow-up of Distant Referral for Degenerative Mitral Valve Repair.

BACKGROUND: Despite the superiority of mitral valve repair (MVr) over replacement for degenerative disease, repair rates vary widely across centers. Traveling to a mitral reference center (MRC) is 1 way to increase the odds of MVr. This study assessed the economic value (quality/cost) and long-term outcomes of distant referral to an MRC. METHODS: Among 746 mitral surgery patients between January 2011 and June 2013, low-risk patients with an ejection fraction greater than 40% undergoing isolated degenerative MVr were identified and included 26 out-of-state (DISTANT) and 104 in-state patients (LOCAL). Short- and long-term outcomes and institutional financial data (including travel expenses) were used to compare groups. National average and MRC-specific MVr rates, clinical outcomes, and marginal value of quality-adjusted life-years collected from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database and Medicare estimates were used to perform a nationally representative cost-benefit analysis for distant referral. RESULTS: Age, ejection fraction, operative time, blood transfusions, and annuloplasty ring size did not differ between groups. Median charges were $76,022 for LOCAL and $74,171 for DISTANT (P = .35), whereas median payments (including travel expenses) were $57,795 for LOCAL and $58,477 for DISTANT (P = .70). Short- and long-term outcomes were similar between groups and median follow-up was 7.1 years. Estimated 5-year survival was 97% (96% for LOCAL and 100% for DISTANT; P = .24). Cost-benefit analysis showed a net benefit through distant referral to an MRC ranging from $436 to $6078 to the payer and $22,163 to $30,067 to the patient, combining for an estimated $22,599 to $32,528 societal benefit. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that distant referral to an MRC is achievable and reasonable.

Looking inward: The impact of operative time on graft survival after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Operative time often has been cited as an important factor for postoperative outcomes. Despite this belief, most efforts to improve liver transplant outcomes have largely focused on only patient and donor factors, and little attention has been paid on operative time. The primary objective of this project was to determine the impact of operative time on graft survival after liver transplant. METHODS: A retrospective review of 2,877 consecutive liver transplants performed at a single institution was studied. Data regarding recipient, donor, and operative characteristics, including detailed granular operative times were collected prospectively and retrospectively reviewed. Using an instrument variable approach, Cox multivariate modeling was performed to assess the impact of operative time without the confounding of known and unknown variables. RESULTS: Of the 2,396 patients who met the criteria for review, the most important factors determining liver transplant graft survival included recipient history of Hepatitis C (hazard ratio 1.45, P = .02), donor age (hazard ratio 1.23, P = .03), use of liver graft from donation after cardiac death donor (hazard ratio 1.50, P < .01), and operative time (hazard ratio 1.26, P = .01). In detailed analysis of stages of the liver transplant operation, the time interval from incision to anhepatic phase was associated with graft survival (hazard ratio 1.33; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Using a novel instrument variable approach, we demonstrate that operative time (in particular, the time interval from incision to anhepatic time) has a significant impact on graft survival. It also seems that some of this efficiency is under the influence of the transplant surgeon.