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

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 sought to evaluate the association between KAS250 and likelihood of deceased-donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) among waitlisted candidates, and whether the policy has differentially affected centers with shorter vs. longer waiting time.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: & Participants: 160,941 candidates waitlisted at 176 transplant centers between 3/2017-3/2024.

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% C.I. 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% C.I. 1.15-1.26), whereas centers with previously short median waiting times (6-24mo.; HR=0.88, 0.84-0.92) experienced decreased likelihood of DDKT.

Limitations: Retrospective study of allocation policy changes, confounded by multiple changes over the study timeframe.

Conclusion: Association between KAS250 and DDKT varied across centers. For one-in-four centers, DDKT was less likely after KAS250 relative to pre-KAS250 trends. Candidates at centers with previously long waiting times experienced 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.