RESUMEN

The field of solid organ transplantation has historically concentrated research efforts on basic science and translational studies. However, there has been increasing interest in health services and outcomes research. The aim was to build an effective and sustainable, inter- and transdisciplinary health services and outcomes research team (NUTORC), that leveraged institutional strengths in social science, engineering, and management disciplines, coupled with an international recognized transplant program. In 2008, leading methodological experts across the university were identified and intramural funding was obtained for the NUTORC initiative. Inter- and transdisciplinary collaborative teams were created across departments and schools within the university. Within 3 years, NUTORC became fiscally sustainable, yielding more than tenfold return of the initial investment. Academic productivity included funding for 39 grants, publication of 60 manuscripts, and 166 national presentations. Sustainable educational opportunities for students were created. Inter- and transdisciplinary health services and outcomes research in transplant can be innovative and sustainable.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors is increasingly being used to address organ shortages. Despite encouraging reports, standard survival metrics have overestimated the effectiveness of DCD livers. We examined the mode, kinetics, and predictors of organ failure and resource utilization to more fully characterize outcomes after DCD LT. METHODS: We reviewed the outcomes for 32 DCD and 237 donation after brain death (DBD) LT recipients at our institution. RESULTS: Recipients of DCD livers had a 2.1 times greater risk of graft failure, a 2.5 times greater risk of relisting, and a 3.2 times greater risk of retransplantation compared with DBD recipients. DCD recipients had a 31.6% higher incidence of biliary complications and a 35.8% higher incidence of ischemic cholangiopathy. Ischemic cholangiography was primarily implicated in the higher risk of graft failure observed after DCD LT. DCD recipients with ischemic cholangiography experienced more frequent rehospitalizations, longer hospital stays, and required more invasive biliary procedures. CONCLUSION: Related to higher complication rates, DCD recipients necessitated greater resource utilization. This more granular data should be considered in the decision to promote DCD LT. Modification of liver allocation policy is necessary to address those disadvantaged by a failing DCD graft.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver surgery is a rapidly advancing field with demonstrated applicability to living donation. In this paper, we compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy (LADRH) to open donor right hepatectomy (ODRH). METHODS: We performed a retrospective, comparative analysis of 33 LADRH to the most recent 33 ODRH performed at our institution, evaluating donor complications, costs, and recipient outcomes. RESULTS: Donor demographics including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and vascular and biliary anomalies were comparable. Donor complication rates were equivalent for LADRH and ODRH. Donor operative times were shorter for LADRH (LADRH 265 minutes, ODRH 316; P < .001) even after adjusting for BMI. Blood loss and length of stay were comparable. Additionally, total hospitalization costs were equivalent (LADRH $1.11, ODRH $1.00; P = .19). Higher operative supply costs for LADRH were balanced by higher time-based operative costs for ODRH resulting in no significant differences in total operative costs. Finally, there were no differences in graft size, recipient patient or graft survival, or recipient vascular or biliary complications. CONCLUSION: Our experience suggests that LADRH compares favorably with ODRH with equivalent safety, resource utilization, and effectiveness. We believe that LADRH provides potential physical and psychological benefits without an adverse effect on outcomes.

Asunto(s)