Rule change would aid some who await organs
By Luis Fábregas
Published: Monday, Sept. 12, 2011
A proposed change in the way intestinal organs are allocated could increase access to those organs for people awaiting transplantation, according to a UPMC surgeon who is leading efforts to change federal rules.
The proposal affects people who are waiting for a combined liver-intestine transplant, a type of procedure that has sharply declined in frequency since 2008.
Surgeons attribute the drop in the combined surgeries to a federal rule that requires livers to be offered to every patient on the national waiting list. Doing so pushes down the list about 70 adults nationwide who are waiting for a combined liver-intestine transplant during any given year.
"It's unfair," said Dr. Kareem Abu-Elmagd, director of UPMC's Intestinal Rehabilitation and Transplantation Center. "Too many patients were at risk of dying."
Death rates among adults awaiting a liver-intestine transplant are nearly three times higher than those waiting for just a liver, according to a proposal drafted by members of the Liver & Intestinal Organ Transplantation committee of the United Network for Organ Sharing, a nonprofit agency contracted by the federal government to manage organ allocation nationwide.
Dr. Kim Olthoff, chairwoman of the committee, said the proposed rule would reduce the wait list mortality without risking the availability of organs to people awaiting livers alone.
"The liver committee feels it's a good thing; otherwise they wouldn't have put the proposal forward," said Olthoff, a professor of surgery at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
Under the proposed change, transplant candidates waiting for both liver and intestines would get increased priority on the wait list. They would be offered organs after livers are offered to local and regional candidates ranked with a score of 29 or higher on the Model of End-stage Liver Disease scale, which ranks patients for transplant eligibility based on scores of 6 for the least sick to 40 for the sickest. The proposed rule change must be approved by the UNOS board.
"It's one step forward," Abu-Elmagd said of the proposed change. "It's better than nothing."
UPMC had performed upward of 20 liver-intestine-pancreas transplants prior to 2008. Last year, only three were done, according to UNOS data.
The one-year survival rate for adult intestinal transplants at UPMC last year was 89 percent, compared with a nationwide average of 75 percent, according to data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients.
Former UPMC patient Greg Dawson of New Bremen, Ohio, expressed hope the new rule will be approved. Dawson, 45, underwent a combined liver-small bowel transplant in March 2003 because a hereditary illness called Gardner syndrome was destroying his organs. He is now healthy.
While he didn't have to wait long, his brother, Jeff, waited for more than eight weeks for a transplant in 2008.
"That's terrible that some people have to wait and wait," Greg Dawson said. "It's pretty amazing to have this opportunity."
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Expats renounce citizenship over U.S. tax hassles
- Obama losing close adviser to end 9 years of service
- Flubbed ‘stifling’ finally ends 29-round spelling bee
- Immigrant detainees on hunger strike
- John Denver tune finally an ‘official’ W.Va. state song
- Wikileaks founder teases about more secrets to be released
- Parents of ‘spoiled’ teen urge her to return home
- Health marketplace targets not signing up, survey shows
- Spyware in government computers ‘has Russian paw prints all over it’
- ‘Holy grail of guitars’ for sale in April auction
- World War II veteran receives once-declined Purple Heart