揭开隐藏的差距:评估美国肺移植手术的多重上市实践。

IF 9.5 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Chest Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-16 DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2024.06.3822
Adora N Moneme, Mallory Hunt, Jacqueline Friskey, Madeline McCurry, Dun Jin, Joshua M Diamond, Michaela R Anderson, Emily S Clausen, Aya Saleh, Allie Raevsky, Jason D Christie, Douglas Schaubel, Jesse Hsu, A Russell Localio, Robert Gallop, Edward Cantu
{"title":"揭开隐藏的差距:评估美国肺移植手术的多重上市实践。","authors":"Adora N Moneme, Mallory Hunt, Jacqueline Friskey, Madeline McCurry, Dun Jin, Joshua M Diamond, Michaela R Anderson, Emily S Clausen, Aya Saleh, Allie Raevsky, Jason D Christie, Douglas Schaubel, Jesse Hsu, A Russell Localio, Robert Gallop, Edward Cantu","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2024.06.3822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiple listing (ML) is a practice used to increase the potential for transplant but is controversial due to concerns that it disproportionately benefits patients with greater access to health care resources.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Is there disparity in ML practices based on social deprivation in the United States and does ML lead to quicker time to transplant?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study of adult (≥ 18 years of age) lung transplant candidates listed for transplant (2005-2018) was conducted. Exclusion criteria included heart only or heart and lung transplant and patients relisted during the observation period. Data were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research File. The first exposure of interest was the Social Deprivation Index with a primary outcome of ML status, to assess disparities between ML and single listing (SL) participants. The second exposure of interest was ML status with a primary outcome of time to transplant, to assess whether implementation of ML leads to quicker time to transplant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 35,890 patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 791 (2.2%) were ML and 35,099 (97.8%) were SL. ML participants had lower median level of social deprivation (5 units, more often female: 60.0% vs 42.3%) and lower median lung allocation score (35.3 vs 37.3). ML patients were more likely to be transplanted than SL patients (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73), but there was a significantly quicker time to transplant only for those whom ML was early (within 6 months of initial listing) (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.32).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>ML is an uncommon practice with disparities existing between ML and SL patients based on several factors including social deprivation. ML patients are more likely to be transplanted, but only if they have ML status early in their transplant candidacy. With changing allocation guidelines, it is yet to be seen how ML will change with the implementation of continuous distribution.</p>","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":" ","pages":"1442-1454"},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11638548/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating US Multiple Listing Practices in Lung Transplantation: Unveiling Hidden Disparities.\",\"authors\":\"Adora N Moneme, Mallory Hunt, Jacqueline Friskey, Madeline McCurry, Dun Jin, Joshua M Diamond, Michaela R Anderson, Emily S Clausen, Aya Saleh, Allie Raevsky, Jason D Christie, Douglas Schaubel, Jesse Hsu, A Russell Localio, Robert Gallop, Edward Cantu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chest.2024.06.3822\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiple listing (ML) is a practice used to increase the potential for transplant but is controversial due to concerns that it disproportionately benefits patients with greater access to health care resources.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Is there disparity in ML practices based on social deprivation in the United States and does ML lead to quicker time to transplant?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study of adult (≥ 18 years of age) lung transplant candidates listed for transplant (2005-2018) was conducted. Exclusion criteria included heart only or heart and lung transplant and patients relisted during the observation period. Data were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research File. The first exposure of interest was the Social Deprivation Index with a primary outcome of ML status, to assess disparities between ML and single listing (SL) participants. The second exposure of interest was ML status with a primary outcome of time to transplant, to assess whether implementation of ML leads to quicker time to transplant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 35,890 patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 791 (2.2%) were ML and 35,099 (97.8%) were SL. ML participants had lower median level of social deprivation (5 units, more often female: 60.0% vs 42.3%) and lower median lung allocation score (35.3 vs 37.3). ML patients were more likely to be transplanted than SL patients (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73), but there was a significantly quicker time to transplant only for those whom ML was early (within 6 months of initial listing) (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.32).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>ML is an uncommon practice with disparities existing between ML and SL patients based on several factors including social deprivation. ML patients are more likely to be transplanted, but only if they have ML status early in their transplant candidacy. With changing allocation guidelines, it is yet to be seen how ML will change with the implementation of continuous distribution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chest\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1442-1454\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11638548/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chest\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.06.3822\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.06.3822","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:多重列名(ML)是一种用于增加移植可能性的做法,但由于人们担心这种做法会使更容易获得医疗资源的患者不成比例地受益,因此备受争议:研究设计与方法:对列入移植名单的成年(大于 18 岁)肺移植候选者(2005-2018 年)进行了一项回顾性队列研究。排除标准包括仅进行心脏移植或心肺移植以及在观察期间重新登记的患者。数据来自 UNOS 标准移植分析和研究档案。第一个关注点是社会贫困指数(SDI),主要结果是ML状态,以评估ML和SL参与者之间的差异。第二个关注点是以移植时间为主要结果的ML状态,以评估实施ML是否会加快移植时间:35,890名受试者被纳入最终分析,其中791人(2.2%)为ML,35,099人(97.8%)为SL。ML参与者的社会贫困程度中位数较低(5个单位),女性较多(60.0%对42.3%),LAS中位数较低(35.3对37.3)。与 SL 患者相比,ML 患者更有可能接受移植(OR=1.42,95%CI [1.17-1.73]),但只有早期接受 ML 的患者(在初始列表的 6 个月内)接受移植的时间明显更快(sHR=1.17,95%CI [1.04-1.32]):ML是一种不常见的做法,ML和SL患者之间因社会贫困等多种因素而存在差异。ML患者更有可能被移植,但前提是他们在移植候选早期就进行了ML。随着分配指南的不断变化,ML 在实施连续分配后会发生怎样的变化,我们拭目以待。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating US Multiple Listing Practices in Lung Transplantation: Unveiling Hidden Disparities.

Background: Multiple listing (ML) is a practice used to increase the potential for transplant but is controversial due to concerns that it disproportionately benefits patients with greater access to health care resources.

Research question: Is there disparity in ML practices based on social deprivation in the United States and does ML lead to quicker time to transplant?

Study design and methods: A retrospective cohort study of adult (≥ 18 years of age) lung transplant candidates listed for transplant (2005-2018) was conducted. Exclusion criteria included heart only or heart and lung transplant and patients relisted during the observation period. Data were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research File. The first exposure of interest was the Social Deprivation Index with a primary outcome of ML status, to assess disparities between ML and single listing (SL) participants. The second exposure of interest was ML status with a primary outcome of time to transplant, to assess whether implementation of ML leads to quicker time to transplant.

Results: A total of 35,890 patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 791 (2.2%) were ML and 35,099 (97.8%) were SL. ML participants had lower median level of social deprivation (5 units, more often female: 60.0% vs 42.3%) and lower median lung allocation score (35.3 vs 37.3). ML patients were more likely to be transplanted than SL patients (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73), but there was a significantly quicker time to transplant only for those whom ML was early (within 6 months of initial listing) (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.32).

Interpretation: ML is an uncommon practice with disparities existing between ML and SL patients based on several factors including social deprivation. ML patients are more likely to be transplanted, but only if they have ML status early in their transplant candidacy. With changing allocation guidelines, it is yet to be seen how ML will change with the implementation of continuous distribution.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Chest
Chest 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
3369
审稿时长
15 days
期刊介绍: At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.
×
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