Schold Jesse D, Buccini Laura D, Goldfarb David A, Flechner Stuart M, Poggio Emilio D, Sehgal Ashwini R
Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; and Center for Reducing Health Disparities, MetroHealth Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Digestive Disease Institute, and.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014 Oct 7;9(10):1773-80. doi: 10.2215/CJN.02380314. Epub 2014 Sep 18.
Despite the benefits of kidney transplantation, the total number of transplants performed in the United States has stagnated since 2006. Transplant center quality metrics have been associated with a decline in transplant volume among low-performing centers. There are concerns that regulatory oversight may lead to risk aversion and lack of transplantation growth.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A retrospective cohort study of adults (age≥18 years) wait-listed for kidney transplantation in the United States from 2003 to 2010 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was conducted. The primary aim was to investigate whether measured center performance modifies the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis. Center performance was on the basis of the most recent Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients evaluation at the time that patients were placed on the waiting list. The primary outcome was the time-dependent adjusted hazard ratio of death compared with remaining on the transplant waiting list.
Among 223,808 waitlisted patients, 59,199 and 32,764 patients received a deceased or living donor transplant, respectively. Median follow-up from listing was 43 months (25th percentile=25 months, 75th percentile=67 months), and there were 43,951 total patient deaths. Deceased donor transplantation was independently associated with lower mortality at each center performance level compared with remaining on the waiting list; adjusted hazard ratio was 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.27) among 11,972 patients listed at high-performing centers, adjusted hazard ratio was 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.33) among 203,797 patients listed at centers performing as expected, and adjusted hazard ratio was 0.40 (95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.45) among 8039 patients listed at low-performing centers. The survival benefit was significantly different by center performance (P value for interaction <0.001).
Findings indicate that measured center performance modifies the survival benefit of kidney transplantation, but the benefit of transplantation remains highly significant even at centers with low measured quality. Policies that concurrently emphasize improved center performance with access to transplantation should be prioritized to improve ESRD population outcomes.
尽管肾移植存在诸多益处,但自2006年以来,美国进行的肾移植总数一直停滞不前。移植中心的质量指标与表现不佳的中心移植量下降有关。有人担心监管监督可能会导致规避风险和移植增长乏力。
设计、设置、参与者及测量方法:利用移植受者科学登记处对2003年至2010年在美国等待肾移植的成年人(年龄≥18岁)进行了一项回顾性队列研究。主要目的是调查所测量的中心表现是否会改变移植与透析相比的生存获益。中心表现基于患者列入等待名单时最新的移植受者科学登记处评估。主要结局是与留在移植等待名单上相比,死亡的时间依赖性调整风险比。
在223,808名列入等待名单的患者中,分别有59,199名和32,764名患者接受了 deceased 供体移植或活体供体移植。从列入名单开始的中位随访时间为43个月(第25百分位数 = 25个月,第75百分位数 = 67个月),总共有43,951名患者死亡。与留在等待名单上相比,在每个中心表现水平上,deceased 供体移植都与较低的死亡率独立相关;在表现出色的中心列入名单的11,972名患者中,调整后的风险比为0.24(95%置信区间,0.21至0.27),在表现符合预期的中心列入名单的203,797名患者中,调整后的风险比为0.32(95%置信区间,0.31至0.33),在表现不佳的中心列入名单的8039名患者中,调整后的风险比为0.40(95%置信区间,0.35至0.45)。中心表现的生存获益有显著差异(交互作用P值<0.001)。
研究结果表明,所测量的中心表现会改变肾移植的生存获益,但即使在质量测量较低的中心,移植的获益仍然非常显著。应优先考虑同时强调提高中心表现和增加移植机会的政策,以改善终末期肾病患者群体的结局。