Factors affecting the waiting time of cadaveric kidney transplant candidates in the United States

JAMA ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 267 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. P. Sanfilippo
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 414-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse D. Schold ◽  
Susana Arrigain ◽  
Stuart M. Flechner ◽  
Joshua J. Augustine ◽  
John R. Sedor ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Fatemeh Karami ◽  
Mehdi Nayebpour ◽  
Monica Gentili ◽  
Naoru Koizumi ◽  
Andrew Rivard

Organ allocation for transplantation across the United States is administered by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). UNOS recently approved a major policy change of the system used to allocate hearts for adult transplant candidates. The main objective of this study is to investigate the impact of the new policy on geographic disparity measured by four performance indicators (waiting time before a transplant, transplant rate, pre-transplant mortality rate, and average distance traveled by donated hearts). The current policy and the new policy were evaluated using the thoracic simulation allocation model. The results show that the new policy improves the median waiting time, transplant rate, and pre-transplant mortality rate. The overall predicted improvement in geographic equity is modest except in terms of waiting time. The findings highlight the need for a targeted approach for donor heart allocation to achieve equal access to heart transplantation in the US.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 126-127
Author(s):  
Majid Jangi ◽  
Mahmoud Tara ◽  
Kolsoum Deldar

Introduction: In many cases a kidney transplant is effective treatment for advanced chronic kidney disease and ESRD patients.  There are multiple items to identify candidates for a kidney transplant. So one of the problems, considerable differences in factors, because of the vastness and the variety of factors affecting them.The purpose of this study is to provide a comparative analysis of kidney transplantation items in selected countries and Iran in order to choose the most important items that will be used in iran. Methods: The study was carried out in 2015 using a comparative review method in United States, Australia, Croatia and Iran. The countries have the largest number of kidney transplants on their continent in 2014. Items in two categories (Candidate’s items and Donor’s items) was gathered from last version guidelines and execute delphi rounds and focus group(feasibility) to choose the important criteria in 3 iran’s medical centers. Data analyzed by Excel 2015. Results: Total items of candidate was twenty that five items, including “duration of dialysis”, “blood type”, “previous transplant history”, “age“ and “HLA” were considered as items affecting transplant in all three countries. Iran just included two items (duration of dialysis and blood type). After Delphi rounds and accessibility study, sexteen items were remain to gathering in iran. Total items of donor was thirteen that three items, including  “blood type”, “age“ and “HLA” were considered as items affecting transplant in all three countries. Iran just included 2 items (hepatit and blood type). After Delphi rounds and feasibility study, 11 items were remain to gathering in Iran. Croatia that adherence Euro guideline in kidney transplantation had maximum candidate’s items and United states has maximum donors items that involving in kidney transplantation Conclusion: Kidney transplantation items determine the amount of readiness kidney transplant candidates and the quality of the kidney donor. In iran this items did not intended to be the comparison candidates and just “duration of dialysis” was criterion. While in America, Europe and Australia the readiness of candidate and the quality of the kidney donor is based on the items scoring and matching. One of the deleted items as a result of feasibilty study in Iran was the HLA typing test. Due to the long time and high cost, there is no possibility of collecting it. projected is if Iran involved items in queues waiting for a transplant candidates, they will receive graft survival rate better than before.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 505-507
Author(s):  
Xingxing S. Cheng ◽  
Roy O. Mathew ◽  
Ravi Parasuraman ◽  
Ekamol Tantisattamo ◽  
Swee-Ling Levea ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 87 (8) ◽  
pp. 1167-1173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kian A. Modanlou ◽  
Umadevi Muthyala ◽  
Huiling Xiao ◽  
Mark A. Schnitzler ◽  
Paolo R. Salvalaggio ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document