Moneme Adora N, Hunt Mallory, Friskey Jacqueline, McCurry Madeline, Jin Dun, Diamond Joshua M, Anderson Michaela R, S Clausen Emily, Saleh Aya, Raevsky Allie, Christie Jason D, Schaubel Douglas, Hsu Jesse, Localio A Russell, Gallop Robert, Cantu Edward
Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Chest. 2024 Dec;166(6):1442-1454. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2024.06.3822. Epub 2024 Aug 16.
Multiple listing (ML) is a practice used to increase the potential for transplant but is controversial due to concerns that it disproportionately benefits patients with greater access to health care resources.
Is there disparity in ML practices based on social deprivation in the United States and does ML lead to quicker time to transplant?
A retrospective cohort study of adult (≥ 18 years of age) lung transplant candidates listed for transplant (2005-2018) was conducted. Exclusion criteria included heart only or heart and lung transplant and patients relisted during the observation period. Data were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research File. The first exposure of interest was the Social Deprivation Index with a primary outcome of ML status, to assess disparities between ML and single listing (SL) participants. The second exposure of interest was ML status with a primary outcome of time to transplant, to assess whether implementation of ML leads to quicker time to transplant.
A total of 35,890 patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 791 (2.2%) were ML and 35,099 (97.8%) were SL. ML participants had lower median level of social deprivation (5 units, more often female: 60.0% vs 42.3%) and lower median lung allocation score (35.3 vs 37.3). ML patients were more likely to be transplanted than SL patients (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73), but there was a significantly quicker time to transplant only for those whom ML was early (within 6 months of initial listing) (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.32).
ML is an uncommon practice with disparities existing between ML and SL patients based on several factors including social deprivation. ML patients are more likely to be transplanted, but only if they have ML status early in their transplant candidacy. With changing allocation guidelines, it is yet to be seen how ML will change with the implementation of continuous distribution.
多重登记(ML)是一种用于增加移植可能性的做法,但由于担心它使更有机会获得医疗保健资源的患者 disproportionately 受益而存在争议。
在美国,基于社会剥夺的 ML 做法是否存在差异,以及 ML 是否会导致更快的移植时间?
对 2005 年至 2018 年登记等待移植的成年(≥18 岁)肺移植候选者进行了一项回顾性队列研究。排除标准包括仅心脏或心脏和肺移植以及在观察期内重新登记的患者。数据来自器官共享联合网络标准移植分析和研究文件。感兴趣的第一个暴露因素是社会剥夺指数,主要结局是 ML 状态,以评估 ML 参与者和单重登记(SL)参与者之间的差异。感兴趣的第二个暴露因素是 ML 状态,主要结局是移植时间,以评估实施 ML 是否会导致更快的移植时间。
最终分析共纳入 35890 名患者,其中 791 名(2.2%)为 ML,35099 名(97.8%)为 SL。ML 参与者的社会剥夺中位数水平较低(5 个单位,女性比例更高:60.0%对 42.3%),肺分配分数中位数较低(35.3 对 37.3)。ML 患者比 SL 患者更有可能接受移植(OR,1.42;95%CI,1.17 - 1.73),但只有那些早期(初始登记后 6 个月内)进行 ML 的患者移植时间明显更快(亚分布风险比,1.17;95%CI,1.04 - 1.32)。
ML 是一种不常见的做法,基于包括社会剥夺在内的几个因素,ML 患者和 SL 患者之间存在差异。ML 患者更有可能接受移植,但前提是他们在移植候选早期就具有 ML 状态。随着分配指南的变化,ML 将如何随着持续分配的实施而变化还有待观察。