Title |
Effect of match-run frequencies on the number of transplants and waiting times in kidney exchange
|
---|---|
Published in |
American Journal of Transplantation, December 2017
|
DOI | 10.1111/ajt.14566 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Itai Ashlagi, Adam Bingaman, Maximilien Burq, Vahideh Manshadi, David Gamarnik, Cathi Murphey, Alvin E Roth, Marc L Melcher, Michael A Rees |
Abstract |
Numerous kidney exchange (kidney paired donor (KPD)) registries in the U.S have gradually shifted to high frequency match-runs, raising the question of whether this harms the number of transplants. We conduct simulations using clinical data from two KPD registries-the Alliance for Paired Donation, which runs multi-hospital exchanges, and Methodist San Antonio, which runs single center exchanges-to study how the frequency of match-runs impacts the number of transplants and the average waiting times. We simulate the options facing each of the two registries by repeated resampling from their historical pools of patient-donor pairs and non-directed donors, with arrival and departure rates corresponding to the historical data. We find that longer intervals between match-runs do not increase the total number of transplants, and that prioritizing highly sensitized patients is more effective than waiting longer between match-runs for transplanting highly sensitized patients. While we do not find that frequent match-runs result in fewer transplanted pairs we do find that increasing arrival rates of new pairs improves both the fraction of transplanted pairs and waiting times. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 19% |
Researcher | 3 | 11% |
Other | 2 | 7% |
Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
Other | 3 | 11% |
Unknown | 7 | 26% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 15% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 11% |
Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
Mathematics | 2 | 7% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
Other | 7 | 26% |
Unknown | 7 | 26% |