• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Associations Among Circle-Based Kidney Allocation, Center Waiting Time, and Likelihood of Deceased-Donor Kidney Transplantation.基于循环的肾脏分配、中心等待时间与 deceased-donor 肾脏移植可能性之间的关联。
Am J Kidney Dis. 2025 Feb;85(2):187-195. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2024.07.014. Epub 2024 Oct 3.
2
Increased volume of organ offers and decreased efficiency of kidney placement under circle-based kidney allocation.基于环的肾脏分配下,器官供体数量增加,肾脏放置效率降低。
Am J Transplant. 2023 Aug;23(8):1209-1220. doi: 10.1016/j.ajt.2023.05.005. Epub 2023 May 16.
3
Association Between Declined Offers of Deceased Donor Kidney Allograft and Outcomes in Kidney Transplant Candidates.接受或拒绝已故供体肾移植与肾移植候选人结局的关系。
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 2;2(8):e1910312. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10312.
4
Determinants of Long Waiting Time to Kidney Transplantation.影响肾移植等待时间的因素。
Transplant Proc. 2024 Oct;56(8):1740-1751. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2024.08.010. Epub 2024 Aug 30.
5
Major Variation across Local Transplant Centers in Probability of Kidney Transplant for Wait-Listed Patients.不同地方的移植中心在等待移植的患者中进行肾移植的概率存在较大差异。
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020 Dec;31(12):2900-2911. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2020030335. Epub 2020 Oct 9.
6
Early Effect of the Circular Model of Kidney Allocation in the United States.美国肾脏分配的环形模型的早期效果。
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2023 Jan 1;34(1):26-39. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2022040471. Epub 2022 Oct 27.
7
The extent and predictors of waiting time geographic disparity in kidney transplantation in the United States.美国肾移植中等待时间的地域差异的程度和预测因素。
Transplantation. 2014 May 27;97(10):1049-57. doi: 10.1097/01.tp.0000438623.89310.dc.
8
Impact of the new kidney allocation system A2/A2B → B policy on access to transplantation among minority candidates.新的肾脏分配系统 A2/A2B→B 政策对少数族裔候选人移植机会的影响。
Am J Transplant. 2018 Aug;18(8):1947-1953. doi: 10.1111/ajt.14719. Epub 2018 Mar 31.
9
Association of Race and Ethnicity With High Longevity Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation Under the US Kidney Allocation System.种族和民族与美国肾脏分配系统下长寿已故供体肾移植的关系。
Am J Kidney Dis. 2024 Oct;84(4):416-426. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2024.02.017. Epub 2024 Apr 16.
10
Regional Disparities in Kidney Transplant Allocation in Brazil: A Retrospective Cohort Study.巴西肾脏移植分配中的区域差异:一项回顾性队列研究。
Clin Transplant. 2024 Sep;38(9):e15446. doi: 10.1111/ctr.15446.

引用本文的文献

1
Association between out-of-sequence allocation and deceased donor kidney nonuse across organ procurement organizations.各器官获取组织中顺序外分配与 deceased 供体肾脏未使用之间的关联。 (注:“deceased donor”直译为“已故捐赠者”,这里结合语境可能指“脑死亡等判定为死亡后的器官捐赠者” ,整体翻译根据医学领域习惯表述进行了优化调整。)
Am J Transplant. 2025 Aug;25(8):1707-1714. doi: 10.1016/j.ajt.2025.02.005. Epub 2025 Feb 17.
2
Short-term Pains for Long-term Gains? In Search of More Solutions to Inequities in Kidney Transplantation.短期痛苦换取长期收益?探寻肾移植不平等问题的更多解决方案。
Am J Kidney Dis. 2025 Feb;85(2):182-183. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2024.10.002. Epub 2024 Dec 7.

本文引用的文献

1
Increased volume of organ offers and decreased efficiency of kidney placement under circle-based kidney allocation.基于环的肾脏分配下,器官供体数量增加,肾脏放置效率降低。
Am J Transplant. 2023 Aug;23(8):1209-1220. doi: 10.1016/j.ajt.2023.05.005. Epub 2023 May 16.
2
Increasing Discards as an Unintended Consequence of Recent Changes in United States Kidney Allocation Policy.美国肾脏分配政策近期变化带来的意外后果:弃用率上升
Kidney Int Rep. 2023 Feb 25;8(5):1109-1111. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2023.02.1081. eCollection 2023 May.
3
The Unintended Consequences of Changes to the Organ Allocation Policy.器官分配政策变化的意外后果
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2023 Jan 1;34(1):14-16. doi: 10.1681/ASN.0000000000000009.
4
Does anybody really know what (the kidney median waiting) time is?有人真的知道(肾脏中位等待)时间是多少吗?
Am J Transplant. 2023 Feb;23(2):223-231. doi: 10.1016/j.ajt.2022.12.005. Epub 2023 Jan 12.
5
Early Effect of the Circular Model of Kidney Allocation in the United States.美国肾脏分配的环形模型的早期效果。
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2023 Jan 1;34(1):26-39. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2022040471. Epub 2022 Oct 27.
6
Increased Logistical Burden in Circle-based Kidney Allocation.基于循环的肾脏分配中后勤负担的增加
Transplantation. 2022 Oct 1;106(10):1885-1887. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000004127. Epub 2022 Sep 29.
7
Single-center analysis of organ offers and workload for liver and kidney allocation.单中心器官捐献和肝、肾分配工作量分析。
Am J Transplant. 2022 Nov;22(11):2661-2667. doi: 10.1111/ajt.17144. Epub 2022 Jul 27.
8
Examining utilization of kidneys as a function of procurement performance.考察肾脏利用情况与获取绩效之间的关系。
Am J Transplant. 2022 Jun;22(6):1614-1623. doi: 10.1111/ajt.16985. Epub 2022 Feb 22.
9
Greater complexity and monitoring of the new Kidney Allocation System: Implications and unintended consequences of concentric circle kidney allocation on network complexity.新肾脏分配系统的复杂性和监测要求增加:同心圆形肾脏分配对网络复杂性的影响和意外后果。
Am J Transplant. 2021 Jun;21(6):2007-2013. doi: 10.1111/ajt.16441. Epub 2021 Jan 2.
10
Assessment of National Organ Donation Rates and Organ Procurement Organization Metrics.国家器官捐献率和器官获取组织指标评估。
JAMA Surg. 2021 Feb 1;156(2):173-180. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.5395.

基于循环的肾脏分配、中心等待时间与 deceased-donor 肾脏移植可能性之间的关联。

Associations Among Circle-Based Kidney Allocation, Center Waiting Time, and Likelihood of Deceased-Donor Kidney Transplantation.

作者信息

Cron David C, Kuk Arnold E, Parast Layla, Husain S Ali, King Kristen L, Yu Miko, Mohan Sumit, Adler Joel T

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Biomedical Data Sciences Hub, University of Texas, Austin, Texas.

出版信息

Am J Kidney Dis. 2025 Feb;85(2):187-195. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2024.07.014. Epub 2024 Oct 3.

DOI:10.1053/j.ajkd.2024.07.014
PMID:39366540
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11930355/
Abstract

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The kidney allocation system (KAS250), using circle-based distribution, attempts to address geographic disparities through broader sharing of deceased-donor kidney allografts. This study evaluated the association between KAS250 and likelihood of deceased-donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) among wait-listed candidates, and whether the policy has differentially affected centers with shorter versus longer waiting time.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 160,941 candidates waitlisted at 176 transplant centers between March 2017 and March 2024.

EXPOSURE

KAS250 allocation policy.

OUTCOME

Rate of DDKT.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Multivariable Cox regression, modeling KAS250 as a time-dependent variable.

RESULTS

KAS250 was not independently associated with likelihood of DDKT overall (HR, 1.01 vs pre-KAS250 [95% CI, 0.97-1.04]). KAS250's association with likelihood of DDKT varied across centers from HR, 0.18 (DDKT less likely after KAS250), to HR, 17.12 (DDKT more likely) and varied even among neighboring centers. KAS250 was associated with decreased DDKT at 25.6% and increased DDKT at 18.2% of centers. Centers with previously long median waiting times (57+months) experienced increased likelihood of DDKT after KAS250 (HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.15-1.26]) whereas centers with previously short median waiting times (6-24 months; HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.84-0.92]) experienced decreased likelihood of DDKT.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study of allocation policy changes, confounded by multiple changes over the study time frame.

CONCLUSIONS

Association between KAS250 and DDKT varied across centers. For 1 in 4 centers, DDKT was less likely after KAS250 relative to pre-KAS250 trends. Candidates at centers with previously long waiting times experienced an increased likelihood of DDKT after KAS250. Thus, broader distribution of kidneys may be associated with improved equity in access to DDKT, but additional strategies may be needed to minimize disparities between centers.

PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study examines how a recent policy change, KAS250, aimed at broadening the geographic sharing of deceased-donor kidneys, has impacted likelihood of kidney transplantation in the United States. Historically, kidney allocation occurred within local geographic boundaries, leading to unequal rates of transplantation across regions. KAS250, implemented in March 2021, replaced this system with a broader allocation radius of 250 miles around the donor hospital. Using national registry data, the study found that while there was no overall significant increase in the likelihood of transplantation nationally under KAS250, the policy's effect varied widely even among neighboring transplant centers. One quarter of centers experienced a decrease in the likelihood of DDKT after KAS250. In contrast, centers with longer pre-KAS250 waiting times experienced an increased likelihood of transplantation, suggesting some success in reducing disparities between centers. Ongoing surveillance will be needed to ensure KAS250 is meeting the intended aim of more equitably distributing organs.

摘要

原理与目的

肾脏分配系统(KAS250)采用基于圈子的分配方式,试图通过更广泛地共享已故捐赠者的肾脏移植来解决地理差异问题。本研究评估了KAS250与等待名单上候选人接受已故捐赠者肾脏移植(DDKT)可能性之间的关联,以及该政策对等待时间较短和较长的中心是否产生了不同影响。

研究设计

回顾性队列研究。

设置与参与者

2017年3月至2024年3月期间,176个移植中心的160,941名候选人被列入等待名单。

暴露因素

KAS250分配政策。

结局

DDKT发生率。

分析方法

多变量Cox回归,将KAS250建模为时间依赖性变量。

结果

总体而言,KAS250与DDKT可能性无独立关联(风险比[HR]为1.01,与KAS250实施前相比[95%置信区间,0.97 - 1.04])。KAS250与DDKT可能性的关联在各中心有所不同,HR从0.18(KAS250实施后DDKT可能性降低)到17.12(DDKT可能性增加),甚至在相邻中心也存在差异。在25.6%的中心,KAS250与DDKT减少相关,在18.2%的中心与DDKT增加相关。之前中位等待时间较长(57个月及以上)的中心在KAS250实施后DDKT可能性增加(HR为1.20[95%置信区间,1.15 - 1.26]),而之前中位等待时间较短(6 - 24个月;HR为0.88[95%置信区间,0.84 - 0.92])的中心DDKT可能性降低。

局限性

对分配政策变化的回顾性研究,受研究时间框架内的多次变化影响而产生混淆。

结论

KAS250与DDKT的关联在各中心有所不同。对于四分之一的中心,KAS250实施后DDKT可能性相对于KAS250实施前的趋势有所降低。之前等待时间较长的中心的候选人在KAS250实施后DDKT可能性增加。因此,更广泛的肾脏分配可能与改善DDKT的获取公平性相关,但可能需要额外的策略来最小化各中心之间的差异。

通俗易懂的总结

本研究考察了一项旨在扩大已故捐赠者肾脏地理共享范围的近期政策变化——KAS250,对美国肾脏移植可能性的影响。从历史上看,肾脏分配在当地地理范围内进行,导致各地区移植率不平等。2021年3月实施的KAS250用围绕捐赠医院半径250英里的更广泛分配范围取代了该系统。利用国家登记数据,研究发现,虽然在KAS250政策下全国移植可能性总体上没有显著增加,但该政策的效果在相邻移植中心之间也有很大差异。四分之一的中心在KAS250实施后DDKT可能性降低。相比之下,KAS250实施前等待时间较长的中心移植可能性增加,这表明在减少各中心之间的差异方面取得了一些成功。需要持续监测以确保KAS250实现更公平分配器官的预期目标。