Jill Martin

BACKGROUND: The use of expanded criteria donors (ECDs) in cadaveric renal transplantation is increasing in the US. We assess the economic impact of the use of ECDs to the Medicare end stage renal disease program. METHODS: The United Nations for Organ Sharing renal transplant registry was merged to Medicare claims data for 42,868 cadaveric renal transplants performed between 1991-1996 using USRDS identifiers. Only recipients for whom Medicare was the primary payer were considered, leaving 34,534 transplants. An ECD was defined as (1) age < or =5 or > or =55 years, (2) nonheart-beating donors, donor history of (3) hypertension or (4) diabetes. High-risk recipients (HRR) were age >60 years, or a retransplant. Medicare payments from the pretransplant dialysis period were projected forward to provide a financial "breakeven point" with transplantation. RESULTS: There were 25,600 non-HRR transplants, with 5,718 (22%) using ECDs, and 8,934 HRR transplants, of which 2,200 (25%) used ECDs. The 5-year present value of payments for non-ECD/non-HRR donor/recipient pairings was $121,698 vs. $143,329 for ECD/non-HRR pairings (P<0.0001) and, similarly was $134,185 for non-ECD/HRR pairings vs. $165,716 for ECD/HRR pairings (P<0.0001). The break even point with hemodialysis ranged from 4.4 years for non-ECD/ non-HRR pairings to 13 years for the ECD/HRR combinations but was sensitive to small changes in graft survival. Transplantation was always less expensive than hemodialysis in the long run. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of ECDs on Medicare payments is most pronounced in high-risk recipients. Cadaveric renal transplantation is a cost-saving treatment strategy for the Medicare ESRD program regardless of recipient risk status or the use of ECDs.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the quality of life (QoL) and functional recuperation of laproscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) vs. open donor nephrectomy (ODN) donors. This study utilized the SF-36 health survey, single-item health-related quality of life (HRQOL) score, and a functional assessment questionnaire ('Donor Survey'). METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 100 LDN and 50 ODN donors. These donors were patients whose procedures were performed at The University Hospital and The Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio. RESULTS: A total of 46 (46%) LDN and 21 (42%) ODN donors returned the completed surveys. The demographics of the two groups were similar. LDN patients reported a more rapid return to 100% normal health (69 vs. 116 d; p = 0.24), part-time work (21.9 vs. 23.2 d; p = 0.09), and necessitated fewer physician office visits post-operative (2.8 vs. 4.4; p = 0.01). ODN patients reported shorter duration of oral pain medication use (13.4 vs. 7.2 d; p = 0.02). However, a greater number of ODN patients reported post-surgical chronic pain (3 vs. 6; p < 0.05) and hernia (0 vs. 2; p = 0.19). The overall QoL for both groups was comparable with the general USA population. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the decisions of many kidney transplant centers to adopt LDN programs as standard of care.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplant recipients are at high risk for multi-drug resistant infections because of broad-spectrum antibiotic and immunosuppression. This study evaluates the clinical and financial impact of vancomycin resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in liver transplant recipients. METHODS: Liver transplant recipients with VRE from 1995 to 2002 were identified and matched (age, gender, UNOS status, liver disease and transplant date) to controls. Demographics, clinical factors, co-infections, antibiotic use, length of stay, abdominal surgeries, biliary complications, survival and resource utilization were compared with matched controls. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were found to have 28 VRE infections via evaluation of microbiologic culture results of all liver transplant patients in the transplant registry. Thirty-eight non-VRE patients served as matched controls. The four most common sites VRE was cultured from included blood (35%), peritoneal fluid (35%), bile (20%), and urine (12%). Median time from transplant to infection was 48 d (range of 4-348). No significant differences in demographics were observed. The VRE group had a higher incidence of prior antibiotic use than the non-VRE group (95% vs. 34%; p < 0.05). The VRE group also experienced more abdominal surgery (20/19 vs. 3/38; p = 0.029), biliary complications (9/19 vs. 9/38; p = 0.018) and a longer length of stay (42.5 vs. 21.7 d; p = .005). Survival in the VRE group was lower (52% vs. 82%; p = 0.048). Six of the 19 VRE patients were treated with linezolid for eight infection episodes, and four of six patients survived. Eight patients were treated with quinupristin/dalfopristin for nine infections, and two of eight survived. Increased cost of care was observed in the VRE group. Laboratory costs were higher in the VRE group (6500 dollars vs. 1750; p = 0.02) as well. CONCLUSION: VRE was associated with prior antibiotic use, multiple abdominal surgeries, biliary complications and resulted in decreased survival compared to non-VRE control patients. VRE patients also utilized more hospital resources. Linezolid showed a trend toward improved survival.