Tag Archives: UNOS

Fairness Lost: The Shift in Organ Transplant Practices

Posted on by

BM Rosenthal et al. NY Times 2/26/25: Organ Transplant System ‘in Chaos’ as Waiting Lists Are Ignored

An excerpt:

The sickest patients are supposed to get priority for lifesaving transplants. But more and more, they are being skipped over…For decades, fairness has been the guiding principle of the American organ transplant system…today, officials regularly ignore the rankings, leapfrogging over hundreds or even thousands of people when they give out kidneys, livers, lungs and hearts…

Last year, officials skipped patients on the waiting lists for nearly 20 percent of transplants from deceased donors, six times as often as a few years earlier. It is a profound shift in the transplant system, whose promise of equality has become increasingly warped by expediency and favoritism…

Under government pressure to place more organs, the nonprofit organizations that manage donations are routinely prioritizing ease over fairness. They use shortcuts to steer organs to selected hospitals, which jockey to get better access than their competitors.

These hospitals have extraordinary freedom to decide which of their patients receive transplants, regardless of where they rank on the waiting lists. Some have quietly created separate “hot lists” of preferred candidates...

More than 100,000 people are waiting for an organ in the United States, and their fates rest largely on nonprofits called organ procurement organizations…

The procurement organization is supposed to offer the organ to the doctor for the first patient on the list. But the algorithms can’t necessarily identify exact matches, only possible ones. So doctors often say no, citing reasons like the donor’s age or the size of the organ…

Until recently, organizations nearly always followed the list. On the rare occasion when they went out of order and gave the organ to someone else, the decision was examined by the United Network for Organ Sharing — the federal contractor that oversees the transplant system — and a peer review committee. Ignoring the list was allowed only as a last resort to avoid wasting an organ...

Procurement organizations regularly ignore waiting lists even when distributing higher-quality organs. Last year, 37 percent of the kidneys allocated outside the normal process were scored as above-average…

Skipping patients is exacerbating disparities in health care. When lists are ignored, transplants disproportionately go to white and Asian patients and college graduates…

How a rare shortcut became routine

In 2020, procurement organizations felt under attack. Congress was criticizing them for letting too many organs go to waste. Regulators moved to give each organization a grade and, starting in 2026, fire the lowest performers... the organizations increasingly used a shortcut known as an open offer. Open offers are remarkably efficient — officials choose a hospital and allow it to put the organ into any patient...

Open offers are a boon for favored hospitals, increasing transplants and revenues and shortening waiting times. When hospitals get open offers, they often give organs to patients who are healthier than others needing transplants…Healthier patients are likelier to help transplant centers perform well on one of their most important benchmarks: the percentage of patients who survive a year after surgery...

It is impossible to gauge whether line-skipping prevents wasted organs. But data suggests it does not. As use of the practice has soared, the rate of organs being discarded is also increasing.

My take: This article was eye-opening for me as I am not actively involved in listing patients for transplantation. I was unaware of this increasing tendency of line-skipping and open source allocation. It is disturbing to see the distribution process undermined in this manner –better oversight is needed to assure fairness for those whose lives are at stake.

Related blog posts:

Good care 24/7

Posted on by

In hospital settings, there have been concerns about clinical care at night or weekends (see references below).  At least with liver transplantation, 24/7 care appears to be the rule rather than the exception (Liver Transpl 2012; 18: 558-65). 

Using the UNOS database, this study analyzed 94,768 transplants from 1987-2010.  Survival rates at 30, 90, and 365 days for nighttime operations: 96%, 93%, and 86% respectively.  For weekends, the respective rates were 95%, 92%, and 86%.  These rates did not differ from weekday rates.  Graft failure rates were modestly increased for weekend transplants at 365 days (HR 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.11) but not for 30 days or 90 days.  In addition, there was no difference in graft failure between nighttime and weekday transplantations.

Additional reference:

  • -Clin Gastroenterol & Hepatol 2009; 7: 296., 303.  n>400,000 discharges.  OR 1.2 for mortality of UGI bleed if on weekend. 
  • NEJM 2001; 345: 663-668.   3,789,917 admissions (in Canada).  Weekend admissions were also associated with significantly higher mortality rates for 23 of the 100 leading causes of death and were not associated with significantly lower mortality rates for any of these conditions.

Picking winners and losers with liver transplantation allocation

Posted on by

From a pediatric hepatology viewpoint, I’ve always been concerned that scoring systems  do not favor children.  More data is now available relevant to this topic:

  • Goldberg et al. Liver Transplantation 2012; 18: 434-43, editorial: 381-83 
  • Sepulveda et al. Liver Transplantation 2012; 18: 413-422, editorial: 389-90

These articles and the editorials look at the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and exceptions for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as well as the issue of split livers to expand the donor pool.

The goals of liver transplantation allocation is to distribute livers to  minimize waiting list mortality, to distribute this valuable resource fairly, and to improve long-term outcomes.  How are we doing?

With regard to HCC, the authors indicate that the current policy is increasing the number of individuals transplanted with this indication.  Before MELD, 4.6% of all transplants were for candidates with HCC.  Between 2002-2007, the number increased to 26%.  This has dramatically improved the outcomes in this previously almost universally fatal disease.

But is the priority afforded by MELD priority unfair?  From 2005-2009, Goldberg et al show that the rate of individuals with HCC removed from the waiting list because of death or disease progression was much lower than non-HCC patients: 4.2% vs. 11% (90-day waitlist outcome).  Patients with HCC with exception points were 2.62 times less likely to die by waiting.  Thus, the authors conclude that allocating 22 MELD points to HCC patients greatly overestimates 90-day mortality.  Other conditions that receive 22 MELD points include candidates with hepatopulmonary syndrome, cholangiocarcinoma, cystic fibrosis, familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy, and portopulmonary syndrome.

Sepulveda et al performed a retrospective review of the experience from split liver transplantation in French adults.  In their cohort of 36 patients who received extended right grafts from split livers, there were increased complications.  Only 21 patients had a relatively easy postoperative course.  Six patients required retransplantation.  Overall survival rate was 84.2% and 77.7% at 1 and 5 years.  Complications were related to ischemia of hepatic segment 4.

In the editorial, Riccardo Superina makes several important points:

  • Many centers have equivalent outcomes for whole and split livers; there is likely a learning curve to improve technique.
  • In the U.S., between 2002-2009, only 288 split livers grafts were performed in adults whereas there were >29,000 whole liver transplants performed.
  • In the U.S. children have the highest mortality rates on the waiting list.  In 2008, 18% of children died without a chance for liver transplantation.
  • In France, allocation policy dictates that livers from all donors less than 30 years old should be directed to children first with the stipulation of liver splitting.  If this policy were adopted in US, it could alleviate the organ shortage for children who are currently most disadvantaged by UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) allocation policy.

Related blog posts:

Big gift, how much risk

Sarcopenia, fatigue, and nutrition in chronic liver disease

A liver disease tsunami

Additional references:

  • -Am J Transplant 2010; 10: 1643-48.  HCC patients advantaged with current allocation
  • -Clin Gastro & Hep 2008; 6: 1255. solutble TNF receptor 75 better at predicting mortality risk than MELD>
  • -Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1568. MELD has changed allocation -less-ill patients now getting higher risk organs.
  • -Liver Transplantation 2006; 12: S128-S136. Guidelines for exceptions (increased status)
  • -Liver Transplantation 2006; 12: 12-15, 40-45. 53% of pediatric livers allocated based on other factors (eg. exception, status 1) than PELD score
  • -Gastroenterology 2003;124: 91-96, 251. MELD scores works fairly well in adults; factors in bilirubin, INR, creatinine.