You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 127 No. 5, May 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLE
 This Article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

The high-risk liver allograft recipient. Should allocation policy consider outcome?

F. L. Delmonico, R. L. Jenkins, R. Freeman, J. Vacanti, J. Bradley, J. L. Dienstag, C. Trey, W. D. Lewis, C. W. Lillehei, H. Auchincloss Jr and al. et
Boston (Mass) Center for Liver Transplantation.

The Boston Center for Liver Transplantation has accumulated one of the larger series of liver allograft recipients. This review has provided an opportunity to examine recent pronouncements by Medicare regarding patient selection and survival and to question whether the current allocation scheme best utilizes a scarce supply of donor liver allografts. Patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, sclerosing cholangitis, and metabolic derangements have enjoyed excellent survival: in aggregate, 78.9% at 1 year. In contrast, patients suffering from acute hepatic failure, patients requiring life support, or patients with primary graft failure who need a second liver transplant did poorly compared with other recipient groups: 45% 1-year survival. This center's experience reflects a more realistic expectation of patient survival because it considers the high-risk recipient by diagnosis and urgency status. This study also suggests that assessment of outcome should be a component of allocation planning in the future.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Responsibility in health care: a liberal egalitarian approach
Cappelen and Norheim
J. Med. Ethics 2005;31:476-480.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1992 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.