Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJeffrey, R F.*
dc.contributor.authorAkbani, H.*
dc.contributor.authorScally, Andy J.*
dc.contributor.authorPeel, R.*
dc.date.accessioned2014-07-17T16:55:04Z
dc.date.available2014-07-17T16:55:04Z
dc.date.issued2005
dc.identifier.citationJeffrey, 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.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10454/6404
dc.description.abstractAims: 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.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.isreferencedbyhttp://www.dustri.com/nc/journals-in-english/mag/clinical-nephrology/vol/volume-64/issue/december-2.htmlen_US
dc.subjectTransplant listing strategyen_US
dc.subjectRenal dialysis centresen_US
dc.subjectRegional transplant allianceen_US
dc.subjectTransplant organs, supplyen_US
dc.titleComparison of transplant listing strategy in two renal dialysis centres within a regional transplant alliance.en_US
dc.status.refereedn/aen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.type.versionpublished version paperen_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record