Discrepant Outcomes between National Kidney Transplant Data Registries in the United States

Author:

Yu Miko12ORCID,King Kristen L.12ORCID,Husain S. Ali12ORCID,Huml Anne M.34ORCID,Patzer Rachel E.567ORCID,Schold Jesse D.89ORCID,Mohan Sumit1210ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York

2. Columbia University Renal Epidemiology Group, New York, New York

3. Department of Kidney Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

4. Department of Transplantation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

5. Center for Health Services Research, Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana

6. Department of Transplant Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana

7. Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana

8. Department of Surgery, University of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado

9. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Colorado – Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado

10. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York

Abstract

Significance Statement Effects of reduced access to external data by transplant registries to improve accuracy and completeness of the collected data are compounded by different data management processes at three US organizations that maintain kidney transplant-related datasets. This analysis suggests that the datasets have large differences in reported outcomes that vary across different subsets of patients. These differences, along with recent disclosure of previously missing outcomes data, raise important questions about completeness of the outcome measures. Differences in recorded deaths seem to be increasing in recent years, reflecting the adverse effects of restricted access to external data sources. Although these registries are invaluable sources for the transplant community, discrepancies and incomplete reporting risk undermining their value for future analyses, particularly when used for developing national transplant policy or regulatory measures. Background Central to a transplant registry's quality are accuracy and completeness of the clinical information being captured, especially for important outcomes, such as graft failure or death. Effects of more limited access to external sources of death data for transplant registries are compounded by different data management processes at the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR), and the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). Methods This cross-sectional registry study examined differences in reported deaths among kidney transplant candidates and recipients of kidneys from deceased and living donors in 2000 through 2019 in three transplant datasets on the basis of data current as of 2020. We assessed annual death rates and survival estimates to visualize trends in reported deaths between sources. Results The UNOS dataset included 77,605 deaths among 315,346 recipients and 61,249 deaths among 275,000 nonpreemptively waitlisted candidates who were never transplanted. The SRTR dataset included 87,149 deaths among 315,152 recipients and 60,042 deaths among 259,584 waitlisted candidates. The USRDS dataset included 89,515 deaths among 311,955 candidates and 63,577 deaths among 238,167 waitlisted candidates. Annual death rates among the prevalent transplant population show accumulating differences across datasets—2.31%, 4.00%, and 4.03% by 2019 from UNOS, SRTR, and USRDS, respectively. Long-term survival outcomes were similar among nonpreemptively waitlisted candidates but showed more than 10% discordance between USRDS and UNOS among transplanted patients. Conclusions Large differences in reported patient outcomes across datasets seem to be increasing, raising questions about their completeness. Understanding the differences between these datasets is essential for accurate, reliable interpretation of analyses that use these data for policy development, regulatory oversight, and research. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/JASN/2023_10_24_JASN0000000000000194.mp3

Funder

Foundation for the National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Nephrology,General Medicine

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3