L Baldoni

Conversion to everolimus monotherapy in maintenance liver transplantation: feasibility, safety, and impact on renal function.

We present the 12‐month results of a prospective trial of conversion from calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) to everolimus (EVL) in maintenance liver transplant (LT) recipients. Forty (M:F = 28:12; 54.9 ± 11 years) patients were enrolled at a mean interval of 45.5 ± 31.2 months from transplantation. Conversion was with EVL at a dosage of 0.75 mg b.i.d., withdrawal of antimetabolites, and a 50%‐per‐week reduction of CNI to a complete stop within 4 weeks. The treatment success was conversion to EVL monotherapy at 12 months while failure was presence of CNI, death, and graft loss. Indication to conversion was deteriorating renal function in 36 (90%). At 12 months, patient‐ and graft survival were 100% and the success rate was 75% (30/40). Ten patients (25%) were failures: four (10%) for acute rejection; three hepatitis C virus‐RNA positive patients (7.5%) for hypertransaminasemia; one (2.5%) for acute cholangitis; and two (5%) due to persistent pruritus and oral ulcers. In patients on EVL monotherapy, at 12 months the mean change of calculated creatinine clearance (cCrCl) was 4.03 ± 12.6 mL/min and the only variable correlated with the probability of improvement was baseline cCrCl (P < 0.0001). Conversion from CNI to EVL is feasible in 75% of the cases and associated with improvement in renal function for patients with higher baseline cCrCl.

Quality assurance, efficiency indicators and cost‐utility of the evaluation workup for liver transplantation

We report the results of a retrospective review of the outpatient pretransplantation workup for United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) 3 patients adopted at a liver transplantation (LT) center and illustrate the efficiency indicators used for quality evaluation and cost‐analysis. A single‐center, pre‐LT evaluation workup was performed on an outpatient basis at a cost per patient evaluation of 2,770 Euros (€). Objective measures were: the number of patients admitted to and excluded from each phase of the algorithm; the rate of patients admitted to pre‐LT evaluation out of the total of referred patients (the referral efficiency rate); the rate of waitlisted patients out of those admitted to pre‐LT evaluation (the evaluation efficiency rate); the rate of waitlisted patients out of those referred for LT (the process efficiency rate); and the cost per waitlisted patient, as the ratio of the cost per patient evaluation to the evaluation efficiency rate. From January 1, 1996, to October 1, 2004, 1,837 patients were referred for LT on an outpatient basis. Based on preemptive evaluation of the available clinical data, 412 patients (22.4%) were excluded from pre‐LT evaluation and 1,425 (77.6%) were admitted to preliminary consultation. Among these, 603 (42.3%) were excluded from and 822 (57.7%) were admitted to pre‐LT evaluation with a referral efficiency rate of 44.7% (822 of 1,837). Out of the patients evaluated for LT, 484 were waitlisted with a cost‐utility and evaluation efficiency rate of 58.8% each (484 of 822). Of the 1,837 patients originally addressed for LT 484 were waitlisted, yielding a process efficiency rate of 26.3% (484 of 1,837) and a cost per waitlisted patient of €4,710.8. In conclusion, the 3 indicators allowed monitoring of the efficiency of the pre‐LT evaluation algorithm. The current process efficiency rate at our center is low (26.3%), but avoiding early referrals we might increase it to 31.6%, with a 12% net saving on costs per waitlisted patient (from €4,710.8 to €4,165.4). (Liver Transpl 2005;11:1080–1085.)

Patient satisfaction among liver transplant recipients: single-center survey

A single-center survey using a semistructured questionnaire was conducted in liver transplantation recipients at discharge after the primary surgery. The objectives of the study were to assess patient satisfaction and to identify critical points that negatively affected their perception of the quality of care received, and to derive information to enable improvement in current standards of care. The questionnaire included 5 sections about quality and 1 section for suggestions. Patients were asked to provide answers on a 5-item Likert scale. Areas assessed included quality of staff, organization, boarding, privacy, and transfer of care. Among 51 recipients, satisfaction was high (>50%) in all areas. Lower satisfaction scores were given for room services, diet, and background music. The most frequently reported area of dissatisfaction (12%) was lack of availability of in-hospital physical rehabilitation programs. Despite overall satisfaction with quality of care, recipients reported lack of appropriate physical rehabilitation programs in the early posttransplantation period.