User login
The incorporation of telehealth in the liver transplantation process is demonstrating the potential to expedite the evaluation of patients and get them listed on the transplant wait list.
New research shows “a ,” Binu V. John, MD, of McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a report published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2019 Dec 27. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.021).
Researchers looked at 465 patients who had evaluations for liver transplants at the Richmond Veterans Affairs Medical Center from 2005 through 2017. Nearly half (232 patients) were evaluated via telehealth, with the remaining 233 evaluated with traditional in-person evaluations.
“Patients in the telehealth group were evaluated significantly faster than patients in the usual care group (22 vs. 54 days, P less than .001),” Dr. John and colleagues wrote, adding that, after conducting a propensity-matched analysis, “telehealth was associated with an 85% reduction in time from referral to evaluation.”
Additionally, patients “who underwent the initial evaluation by telehealth were listed significantly earlier than the usual care group (95 vs. 149 days; P less than .001),” the authors stated, adding that “telehealth was associated with a 74% reduction in time to listing” after conducting a propensity-matched analysis.
However, while speeding up time to referral and listing, “the median time to transplant was not significantly different between the two groups on unadjusted (218 vs. 244 days; P = .084) or adjusted analysis (325 vs. 409 days; P = .08),” they added.
Additionally, “there was no difference in pretransplant mortality between [those] evaluated by telehealth or usual care in unadjusted analysis,” Dr. John and colleagues observed, noting that 169 of 465 patients (51 on the waiting list for a transplant and 118 who were not listed) who were referred died without receiving a liver transplant.
Researchers suggested that while evaluation times may have been shorter with the use of telehealth, they did not translate to shorter transplantation times “likely because the latter is a complex metric that is driven primarily by organ availability.”
Dr. John and colleagues cautioned that the centralized nature of the VA medical system could make the results of this study not generalizable across private care settings, particularly when care needs to cross state lines, which does not present an issue within the VA medical system.
That being said, the “ability to successfully evaluate and list patients via telehealth and obtain the same outcomes in terms of time to transplant and pretransplant mortality is significant because of the numerous advantages that telehealth offers to improve overall access to transplantation,” they stated, adding that more studies are needed, both in and out of the VA system, “to confirm that telehealth is a safe and effective way to expand access for patients undergoing evaluation for liver transplantation.”
Lead author Dr. Binu John serves on medical advisory boards for Gilead and Eisai and received research funding from a number of pharmaceutical manufacturers. No conflicts of interest were reported by the other authors.
SOURCE: John BV et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.021.
The incorporation of telehealth in the liver transplantation process is demonstrating the potential to expedite the evaluation of patients and get them listed on the transplant wait list.
New research shows “a ,” Binu V. John, MD, of McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a report published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2019 Dec 27. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.021).
Researchers looked at 465 patients who had evaluations for liver transplants at the Richmond Veterans Affairs Medical Center from 2005 through 2017. Nearly half (232 patients) were evaluated via telehealth, with the remaining 233 evaluated with traditional in-person evaluations.
“Patients in the telehealth group were evaluated significantly faster than patients in the usual care group (22 vs. 54 days, P less than .001),” Dr. John and colleagues wrote, adding that, after conducting a propensity-matched analysis, “telehealth was associated with an 85% reduction in time from referral to evaluation.”
Additionally, patients “who underwent the initial evaluation by telehealth were listed significantly earlier than the usual care group (95 vs. 149 days; P less than .001),” the authors stated, adding that “telehealth was associated with a 74% reduction in time to listing” after conducting a propensity-matched analysis.
However, while speeding up time to referral and listing, “the median time to transplant was not significantly different between the two groups on unadjusted (218 vs. 244 days; P = .084) or adjusted analysis (325 vs. 409 days; P = .08),” they added.
Additionally, “there was no difference in pretransplant mortality between [those] evaluated by telehealth or usual care in unadjusted analysis,” Dr. John and colleagues observed, noting that 169 of 465 patients (51 on the waiting list for a transplant and 118 who were not listed) who were referred died without receiving a liver transplant.
Researchers suggested that while evaluation times may have been shorter with the use of telehealth, they did not translate to shorter transplantation times “likely because the latter is a complex metric that is driven primarily by organ availability.”
Dr. John and colleagues cautioned that the centralized nature of the VA medical system could make the results of this study not generalizable across private care settings, particularly when care needs to cross state lines, which does not present an issue within the VA medical system.
That being said, the “ability to successfully evaluate and list patients via telehealth and obtain the same outcomes in terms of time to transplant and pretransplant mortality is significant because of the numerous advantages that telehealth offers to improve overall access to transplantation,” they stated, adding that more studies are needed, both in and out of the VA system, “to confirm that telehealth is a safe and effective way to expand access for patients undergoing evaluation for liver transplantation.”
Lead author Dr. Binu John serves on medical advisory boards for Gilead and Eisai and received research funding from a number of pharmaceutical manufacturers. No conflicts of interest were reported by the other authors.
SOURCE: John BV et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.021.
The incorporation of telehealth in the liver transplantation process is demonstrating the potential to expedite the evaluation of patients and get them listed on the transplant wait list.
New research shows “a ,” Binu V. John, MD, of McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, and colleagues wrote in a report published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2019 Dec 27. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.021).
Researchers looked at 465 patients who had evaluations for liver transplants at the Richmond Veterans Affairs Medical Center from 2005 through 2017. Nearly half (232 patients) were evaluated via telehealth, with the remaining 233 evaluated with traditional in-person evaluations.
“Patients in the telehealth group were evaluated significantly faster than patients in the usual care group (22 vs. 54 days, P less than .001),” Dr. John and colleagues wrote, adding that, after conducting a propensity-matched analysis, “telehealth was associated with an 85% reduction in time from referral to evaluation.”
Additionally, patients “who underwent the initial evaluation by telehealth were listed significantly earlier than the usual care group (95 vs. 149 days; P less than .001),” the authors stated, adding that “telehealth was associated with a 74% reduction in time to listing” after conducting a propensity-matched analysis.
However, while speeding up time to referral and listing, “the median time to transplant was not significantly different between the two groups on unadjusted (218 vs. 244 days; P = .084) or adjusted analysis (325 vs. 409 days; P = .08),” they added.
Additionally, “there was no difference in pretransplant mortality between [those] evaluated by telehealth or usual care in unadjusted analysis,” Dr. John and colleagues observed, noting that 169 of 465 patients (51 on the waiting list for a transplant and 118 who were not listed) who were referred died without receiving a liver transplant.
Researchers suggested that while evaluation times may have been shorter with the use of telehealth, they did not translate to shorter transplantation times “likely because the latter is a complex metric that is driven primarily by organ availability.”
Dr. John and colleagues cautioned that the centralized nature of the VA medical system could make the results of this study not generalizable across private care settings, particularly when care needs to cross state lines, which does not present an issue within the VA medical system.
That being said, the “ability to successfully evaluate and list patients via telehealth and obtain the same outcomes in terms of time to transplant and pretransplant mortality is significant because of the numerous advantages that telehealth offers to improve overall access to transplantation,” they stated, adding that more studies are needed, both in and out of the VA system, “to confirm that telehealth is a safe and effective way to expand access for patients undergoing evaluation for liver transplantation.”
Lead author Dr. Binu John serves on medical advisory boards for Gilead and Eisai and received research funding from a number of pharmaceutical manufacturers. No conflicts of interest were reported by the other authors.
SOURCE: John BV et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.021.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY