ArticleLiver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society2026
Geographic variation in utilization of deceased donor livers in the United States in the era of advanced perfusion.
Article in Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding the geographic variation in deceased donor liver utilization can guide allocation policy and technology implementation. Using US transplant registry data, we evaluated geographic differences in utilization by donor quality, policy era, and uptake of advanced perfusion (AP). This retrospective cohort included all liver donors and waitlisted patients from 2010 to September 2024. Donors were aggregated by Hospital Referral Region (HRR) and stratified by quality using the liver Discard Risk Index (DSRI). Exposures included the allocation policy era and increased use of AP technology (July 2022 onward). Observed-to-expected (O:E) ratios of liver non-utilization were calculated by HRR and modeled to reveal geographically contiguous low utilization clusters (LUCs). The proportion of HRRs within LUCs increased from 24% in Share 15 (S15), to 25% in Share 35 (S35), 32% in Acuity Circles (AC), and then decreased to 21% in the AP era ( p =0.01). There were 7 distinct LUCs in S15 (median non-utilization=33%), 7 LUCs in S35 (non-utilization=32%), 7 LUCs in AC (non-utilization=41%), and 3 LUCs in the AP era (non-utilization=46%). Donor quality by HRR decreased over time, with a median DSRI of 2.56 (IQR: 1.25-5.79) in S15 to 5.69 (2.01-35.30) in AP ( p <0.001). Accounting for DSRI, odds of non-utilization were highest in AC ( ref. Share 35 , OR=1.27, p <0.001), which decreased in AP (OR=1.06, p =0.001). Utilization of normothermic machine perfusion was associated with a markedly lower odds of discard (OR=0.03, 0.03-0.04; p <0.001). Livers originating from LUCs traveled shorter distances in each era other than S35. The number of net exporter HRRs in LUCs was equivalent to non-LUCs in each era, other than AP, where LUCs contained fewer net exporter HRRs [2 (3.2%) vs. 42 (17.4%), p =0.004]. On adjusted analysis, candidates in LUCs had a lower likelihood of transplant (HR=0.88, p <0.001) but also lower waitlist mortality (HR=0.95, p <0.001). The advent of advanced perfusion was associated with the utilization of otherwise marginal liver allografts and ameliorating geographic imbalances in discard seen with successive allocation policy eras.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.