Abstract

Medical literature highlights differences in liver transplantation (LT) waitlist experiences among ABO blood types. Type AB candidates reportedly have higher LT rates and reduced mortality. Despite liver offering guidelines, ABO disparities persist. This study examines LT access discrepancies among blood types, focusing on type AB, and seeks equitable strategies. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2003-2022), 170 276 waitlist candidates were retrospectively analyzed. Dual predictive analyses (LT opportunity and survival studies) evaluated 1-year recipient pool survival, considering waitlist and post-LT survival, alongside anticipated allocation value per recipient, under 6 scenarios. Of the cohort, 97 670 patients (57.2%) underwent LT. Type AB recipients had the highest LT rate (73.7% vs 55.2% for O), shortest median waiting time (90 vs 198 days for A), and lowest waitlist mortality (12.9% vs 23.9% for O), with the lowest median model for end-stage liver disease-sodium (MELD-Na) score (20 vs 25 for A/O). The LT opportunity study revealed that reallocating type A (or A and O) donors originally for AB recipients to A recipients yielded the greatest reduction in disparities in anticipated value per recipient, from 0.19 (before modification) to 0.08. Meanwhile, the survival study showed that ABO-identical LTs reduced disparity the most (3.5% to 2.8%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings were specific to the MELD-Na score < 30 population, indicating current LT allocation may favor certain blood types. Prioritizing ABO-identical LTs for MELD-Na score < 30 recipients could ensure uniform survival outcomes and mitigate disparities.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.