Background: Waiting time for organ transplantation varies widely between pr
ograms of different sizes and by geographic regions. The purpose of this st
udy was to determine if the current lung-allocation policy is equitable for
candidates waiting at various-sized centers, and to model how national all
ocation based solely on waiting time might affect patients and programs.
Methods: UNOS provided data on candidate registrations; transplants and out
comes; waiting times; and deaths while waiting for all U.S. lung-transplant
programs during 1995-1997. Transplant centers were categorized based on av
erage yearly volume: small (less than or equal to pound 10 transplants/year
; n = 46), medium (11-30 transplants/year; n = 29), or large (>30 transplan
ts/year; n = 6). This data was used to model national organ allocation base
d solely on accumulated waiting time for candidates listed at the end of 19
97.
Results: Median waiting time for patients transplanted was longest at large
programs (724-848 days) compared to small and medium centers (371-552 days
and 337-553 days, respectively) and increased at programs of all sizes dur
ing the study period. Wait-time-adjusted risk of death correlated inversely
with program size (365 vs 261 vs 148 deaths per 1,000 patient-years-at-ris
k at small, medium, and large centers, respectively). Mortality as a percen
tage of new candidate registrations was similar for all program categories,
ranging from 21 to 25%. Survival rates following transplantation were equi
valent at medium-sized centers vs large centers (p = 0.50), but statistical
ly lower when small centers were compared to either large- or medium-size c
enters (p less than or equal to 0.05). Using waiting time as the primary cr
iterion for lung allocation would acutely shift 10 to 20% of lung-transplan
t activity from medium to large programs.
Conclusions: 1) Waiting list mortality rates are not higher at large lung-t
ransplant programs with long average waiting times. 2) A lung-allocation al
gorithm based primarily on waiting-list seniority would probably disadvanta
ge candidates at medium-size centers without improving overall lung-transpl
ant outcomes. 3) If fairness is measured by equal distribution of opportuni
ty and risk, we conclude that the current allocation system is relatively e
quitable for patients currently entering the lung-transplant system.