Textbook Outcome as a Quality Metric in Living and Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Quality in kidney transplantation is measured using 1-year patient and graft survival. Because 1-year patient and graft survival exceed 95%, this metric fails to measure a spectrum of quality. Textbook outcomes (TO) are a composite quality metric offering greater depth and resolution. We studied TO after living donor (LD) and deceased donor (DD) kidney transplantation. STUDY DESIGN: United Network for Organ Sharing data for 69,165 transplant recipients between 2013 and 2017 were analyzed. TO was defined as patient and graft survival of 1 year or greater, 1-year glomerular filtration rate of greater than 40 mL/min, absence of delayed graft function, length of stay of 5 days or less, no readmissions during the first 6 months, and no episodes of rejection during the first year after transplantation. Bivariate analysis identified characteristics associated with TO, and covariates were incorporated into multivariable models. Five-year conditional survival was measured, and center TO rates were corrected for case complexity to allow center-level comparisons. RESULTS: The national average TO rates were 54.1% and 31.7% for LD and DD transplant recipients. The hazard ratio for death at 5 years for recipients who did not experience TO was 1.92 (95% CI 1.68 to 2.18, p ≤ 0.0001) for LD transplant recipients and 2.08 (95% CI 1.93 to 2.24, p ≤ 0.0001) for DD transplant recipients. Center-level comparisons identify 18% and 24% of centers under-performing in LD and DD transplantation. High rates of TO do not correlate with transplantation center volume. CONCLUSION: Kidney transplant recipients who experience TO have superior long-term survival. Textbook outcomes add value to the current standards of 1-year patient and graft survival.

Benchmark Outcomes in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Multicenter Analysis of 80 996 Transplants From 126 Centers

“… 11 - 14 , 16 , 23 , 24 The benchmarking analyses, differently from to textbook outcome analyses, are not necessarily restricted to an extremely short timeframe that may bias the results because patients dying or losing the graft just a few months after KT can still be judged reaching the “textbook outcomes,” whereas these results would ubiquitously be considered unsatisfactory. 25 , 26 Moreover, benchmarking shares with the “best practice” guidelines the aim of promoting the best level of care possible and through the achievement of the best possible results but provides evidence-based data originated in a rigorous, systematic manner, which serves as a reference for all transplant centers and professionals.…”