{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01367053998632946, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019138755980861243, 'mean_word_length': 5.283261802575107, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Implications of changing the minimal survival benefit in liver transplantation

The limited availability of livers donated by deceased donors for transplantation means that not everyone who might benefit from the procedure can receive a graft, so any selection and allocation system must have clearly defined goals. The United Kingdom, in common with many other countries, has adopted a minimum benefit criterion of a greater than 50% probability of survival 5 years after transplantation. We investigated the impact of changing this minimum benefit criterion on a case mix of listed patients. The analysis was based on 5330 adult elective patients who underwent transplantation with livers from donation after brain death donors between January 1994 and December 2007. We examined the impact of balancing the number of registrations on the list with the number of available donor livers while allowing a 10% mortality rate and found that this would require a survival threshold of at least 74% at 5 years. According to historical data, the application of this more stringent criterion would significantly reduce the eligibility of older and nonwhite patients and patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or hepatitis C virus infections. Thus, if such undesirable restrictions on access to liver transplantation are to be avoided, we must consider alternative strategies such as the acceptance of higher transplant list mortality. Liver Transpl, 2012. © 2012 AASLD.