RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Expedited liver transplant evaluations of critically ill patients can be challenging due to limited time for data gathering and psychosocial evaluation. AIMS: To compare clinical outcomes between expedited and traditional transplant evaluation patients and assess for differences in outpatient resource utilization and staff burden between groups. DESIGN: Adult liver transplant recipients who underwent transplant from 2015 to 2019 were included. Expedited evaluation was defined as time from initiating transplant evaluation to transplant listing <2 weeks. Primary outcomes included rates of graft rejection, graft failure, and death within 1-year posttransplant. Secondary outcomes included number of acute care visits, office visits, and medical record documentation made by transplant staff within 1-year posttransplant. Outcomes were compared using Cox regression models. RESULTS: Of the 335 patients included, 92 (27.5%) were expedited and 243 (72.5%) were traditional. Expedited patients were significantly younger, had greater MELD scores, and required more inpatient care and life support at time of transplant. There was no significant difference in risk of graft rejection (HR 1.3, P = .4), graft failure (HR 1.3, P = .6), or mortality (HR 1.0, P = .9) between groups. Expedited transplant was not associated with increased healthcare or staff utilization: acute care visits (rate ratio 0.9, P = .7), office visits (ß = -1.05, P = .2), and medical record documentation (ß = 3.4, P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being more critically ill, patients requiring expedited transplant evaluation have favorable outcomes after transplant and do not require more intensive staff time and resources compared to traditional candidates.
