Underrecognition of deceased-donor kidney out-of-sequence allocation due to increasing use of free text coding.

IF 8.9 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Emma G Tucker,Miko E Yu,Joel T Adler,David C Cron,Prateek V Sahni,Jesse D Schold,Sumit Mohan,Syed Ali Husain
{"title":"Underrecognition of deceased-donor kidney out-of-sequence allocation due to increasing use of free text coding.","authors":"Emma G Tucker,Miko E Yu,Joel T Adler,David C Cron,Prateek V Sahni,Jesse D Schold,Sumit Mohan,Syed Ali Husain","doi":"10.1016/j.ajt.2025.04.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Out-of-sequence (OOS) allocation, the process by which organ procurement organizations (OPOs) can deviate from standard rank lists of potential recipients to expeditiously allocate deceased-donor kidneys, is rising in the U.S. We aimed to determine whether current OPO reporting practices obscure the extent of OOS allocation. Using match-run data for all U.S. deceased-donor kidney transplants from 2021-2023, we defined \"miscoded\" OOS (mOOS) allocation transplants as those with use of the 799 or 898 OPO-initiated refusal codes (\"other, specify\") with free text responses clearly indicating OOS allocation, and compared these to \"explicit\" OOS (eOOS) allocation, wherein OOS transplants are appropriately coded using refusal codes 861-863. We found that the prevalence of mOOS allocation increased from 2021 (122 transplants) to 2023 (430 transplants) and accounted for 12% of all OOS transplants by 2023. Organs allocated via mOOS had a lower median KDPI than those allocated via eOOS (51% vs 55%, p <0.01). While an increasing number of OPOs used mOOS throughout the study period, the practice remained concentrated overall, with 5 \"high-frequency\" OPOs performing 66% of mOOS allocations in 2023. These findings highlight the need for stricter oversight of organ allocation and underscore the responsibility of the OPTN to ensure proper data reporting.","PeriodicalId":123,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Transplantation","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajt.2025.04.002","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Out-of-sequence (OOS) allocation, the process by which organ procurement organizations (OPOs) can deviate from standard rank lists of potential recipients to expeditiously allocate deceased-donor kidneys, is rising in the U.S. We aimed to determine whether current OPO reporting practices obscure the extent of OOS allocation. Using match-run data for all U.S. deceased-donor kidney transplants from 2021-2023, we defined "miscoded" OOS (mOOS) allocation transplants as those with use of the 799 or 898 OPO-initiated refusal codes ("other, specify") with free text responses clearly indicating OOS allocation, and compared these to "explicit" OOS (eOOS) allocation, wherein OOS transplants are appropriately coded using refusal codes 861-863. We found that the prevalence of mOOS allocation increased from 2021 (122 transplants) to 2023 (430 transplants) and accounted for 12% of all OOS transplants by 2023. Organs allocated via mOOS had a lower median KDPI than those allocated via eOOS (51% vs 55%, p <0.01). While an increasing number of OPOs used mOOS throughout the study period, the practice remained concentrated overall, with 5 "high-frequency" OPOs performing 66% of mOOS allocations in 2023. These findings highlight the need for stricter oversight of organ allocation and underscore the responsibility of the OPTN to ensure proper data reporting.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
18.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
346
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Transplantation is a leading journal in the field of transplantation. It serves as a forum for debate and reassessment, an agent of change, and a major platform for promoting understanding, improving results, and advancing science. Published monthly, it provides an essential resource for researchers and clinicians worldwide. The journal publishes original articles, case reports, invited reviews, letters to the editor, critical reviews, news features, consensus documents, and guidelines over 12 issues a year. It covers all major subject areas in transplantation, including thoracic (heart, lung), abdominal (kidney, liver, pancreas, islets), tissue and stem cell transplantation, organ and tissue donation and preservation, tissue injury, repair, inflammation, and aging, histocompatibility, drugs and pharmacology, graft survival, and prevention of graft dysfunction and failure. It also explores ethical and social issues in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信