• Robert M Cannon, David S Goldberg, Saulat S Sheikh, Douglas J Anderson, Marcos Pozo, Umaid Rabbani, and Jayme E Locke.
• Department of Surgery, Division of Transplantation, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
• Ann. Surg. 2024 May 1; 279 (5): 825831825-831.

ObjectiveThis study was undertaken to evaluate the role of regional social vulnerability in geographic disparity for patients listed for liver transplantation with non-hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exceptions.Summary And BackgroundPrior work has demonstrated regional variability in the appropriateness of MELD exceptions for diagnoses other than HCC.MethodsAdults listed at a single center for first-time liver-only transplantation without HCC after June 18, 2013 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database as of March 2021 were examined. Candidates were mapped to hospital referral regions (HRRs). Adjusted likelihood of mortality and liver transplantation were modeled. Advantaged HRRs were defined as those where exception patients were more likely to be transplanted, yet no more likely to die in adjusted analysis. The Centers for Disease Control's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) was used as the measure for community health. Higher SVIs indicate poorer community health.ResultsThere were 49,494 candidates in the cohort, of whom 4337 (8.8%) had MELD exceptions. Among continental US HRRs, 27.3% (n = 78) were identified as advantaged. The mean SVI of advantaged HRRs was 0.42 versus 0.53 in nonadvantaged HRRs ( P = 0.002), indicating better community health in these areas. Only 25.3% of advantaged HRRs were in spatial clusters of high SVI versus 40.7% of nonadvantaged HRRs, whereas 44.6% of advantaged HRRs were in spatial clusters of low SVI versus 38.0% of nonadvantaged HRRs ( P = 0.037).ConclusionsAn advantage for non-HCC MELD exception patients is associated with lower social vulnerability on a population level. These findings suggest assigning similar waitlist priority to all non-HCC exception candidates without considering geographic differences in social determinants of health may actually exacerbate rather than ameliorate disparity.Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

18 keywords...

hide…