BRADFORD SCHOLARS

    • Sign in
    View Item 
    •   Bradford Scholars
    • Health Studies
    • Health Studies Publications
    • View Item
    •   Bradford Scholars
    • Health Studies
    • Health Studies Publications
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of Bradford ScholarsCommunitiesAuthorsTitlesSubjectsPublication DateThis CollectionAuthorsTitlesSubjectsPublication Date

    My Account

    Sign in

    HELP

    Bradford Scholars FAQsCopyright Fact SheetPolicies Fact SheetDeposit Terms and ConditionsDigital Preservation Policy

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Comparison of transplant listing strategy in two renal dialysis centres within a regional transplant alliance.

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Publication date
    2005
    Author
    Jeffrey, R F.
    Akbani, H.
    Scally, Andy J.
    Peel, R.
    Keyword
    Transplant listing strategy
    Renal dialysis centres
    Regional transplant alliance
    Transplant organs, supply
    Peer-Reviewed
    n/a
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Aims: An increasing dialysis population and insufficient supply of transplant organs necessitate that patients are carefully evaluated prior to registration on the national waiting list to ensure effective utilization of a scarce resource. We have assessed listing practice in two renal units within the North of England Transplant Alliance. Methods: Demographic, ethnic and clinical data were recorded at initiation of dialysis for patients from two northern English cities, Bradford (n = 209) and Hull (n = 202) between 1994 ¿ 2000. Patients were stratified by two co-morbidity scoring systems. Multivariate and survival analyses were undertaken by registration status. Results: Overall, 159 patients were registered onto the waiting list. Stratification by co-morbidity predicted listing at high and low risk, but with overlap at medium scores. There was no difference in overall co-morbid burden between the two centers (p = 0.161 and 0.316, respectively, for two scoring systems). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated a center effect, Hull having an odds ratio for listing of 0.48 compared to Bradford (p = 0.041). Short- and medium-term survival in the listed group was high regardless of co-morbid score (22 vs 174 deaths in the non-listed group). In this cohort, five patients died with grafts, another three died whilst active on the waiting list. The remaining 14 patients had been removed from the list prior to death. Summary: Co-morbidity scoring schemes are unlikely to be sophisticated enough to accurately identify those who would most benefit from transplantation, and the value of clinical judgment is well-shown in this study. Standardization of registration will result in more equitable allocation of organs. However, this study has demonstrated that there are differences in listing practices even within a single alliance. Continuous assessment will allow judicious removal from the waiting list of patients who have developed an unacceptable co-morbid burden.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10454/6404
    Version
    published version paper
    Citation
    Jeffrey, R. F., Akbani, H., Scally, A. J. and Peel, R. (2005) Comparison of transplant listing strategy in two renal dialysis centres within a regional transplant alliance. Clinical Nephrology, 64 (6), 438-43.
    Link to publisher’s version
    http://www.dustri.com/nc/journals-in-english/mag/clinical-nephrology/vol/volume-64/issue/december-2.html
    Type
    Article
    Collections
    Health Studies Publications

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2022)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.