Hurricane Maria, Bloodstream Infections, Lung Cancer in Women

Central line related blood infection. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/bsi/bsi.html. Accessed on 1/28/2018

Preventing central line related blood infections. A Global challenge and Global perspective. https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/CLABSI_Monograph.pdf. Accessed on 1/28/2018

Transplant

Radius of Change: Will Expanding Organ Sharing Beyond Donor Service Area Enhance Access in Lung Transplantation?

In November 2017, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) prompted the United Network for Organ Sharing Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (UNOS/OPTN) to reconsider geographical boundaries of donor allocation. The impetus for change was driven by a recent litigation and data that challenged the current organ allocation algorithm on the premise that it overlooked potential high acuity candidates listed at centers outside the primary DSA (donor service area) of the donor hospital, in favor of less sick local recipients. In response, the UNOS/OPTN Executive Committee recommended the adoption of a 250-nautical mile radius from the donor hospital in lieu of the DSA as the first circle or zone A of distribution for lungs. The putative merits of this change, due to last an experimental year, is intended to provide sicker candidates with access to a broader geographic range of donors. Its impact will then be evaluated by the Thoracic Organ Transplantation Committee to make further recommendations, including possibly extending zone A to 500 miles.

The extended geographical limits have organ-specific implications. In contrast to other organs, constraints of cold ischemia limit the duration within which lungs and hearts must be transplanted. Indeed, this latter point is the basis for using a radius from the donor hospital, rather than the region, as the first circle of distribution. Furthermore, DSAs vary substantially in both size and population and performance, leading to considerable variation in access to organs for candidates based on their region of residence. Currently, more than 50% of the lung allocation in the United States occurs locally to recipients with lung allocation scores (LAS) less than 50 (Iribarne et al. Chest. 2009;135[4]:923). In addition, waiting time mortality remains high and actuarial survival remains low for those with higher LAS (Russo et al. Chest. 2010;137[3]:651). The new recommendations broaden the concentric circle approach and potentially provide enhanced access for the sickest candidates on the waiting list. However, this may increase duration of waitlist time for those with lower LAS, certain disease groups such as COPD and those listed in more conservative centers. It may conversely, however, drive transplantation in the sickest patients and increase the use of bridging strategies in high volume centers and those with ECMO capabilities, as there will now be a greater reassurance of donor offers with the wider catchment area. The implications are unclear at this time, and over the next year, the efficacy and the potential unintended consequences of this newly implemented directive should become more apparent.

Anupam Kumar, MD
Fellow-in-Training Member

J. W. Awori Hayanga, MD, MPH
Steering Committee Member