Background: We evaluated the concept of whether liver failure patients with a superimposed kidney injury receiving a simultaneous liver and kidney transplant (SLKT) have similar outcomes compared to patients with liver failure without a kidney injury receiving a liver transplantation (LT) alone. Methods: Using data from the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) database, patients were divided into five groups based on pre-transplant model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores and categorized as not having (serum creatinine (sCr) <= 1.5 mg/dL) or having (sCr > 1.5 mg/dL) renal dysfunction. Of 30,958 patients undergoing LT, 14,679 (47.5%) had renal dysfunction, and of those, 5,084 (16.4%) had dialysis. Results: Survival in those (liver failure with renal dysfunction) receiving SLKT was significantly worse (P < 0.001) as compared to those with sCr < 1.5 mg/dL (liver failure only). The highest mortality rate observed was 21% in the 36+ MELD group with renal dysfunction with or without SLKT. In high MELD recipients (MELD > 30) with renal dysfunction, presence of renal dysfunction affects the outcome and SLKT does not improve survival. In low MELD recipients (16 - 20), presence of renal dysfunction at the time of transplantation does affect post-transplant survival, but survival is improved with SLKT. Conclusions: SLKT improved 1-year survival only in low MELD (16 - 20) recipients but not in other groups. Performance of SLKT should be limited to patients where a benefit in survival and post-transplant outcomes can be demonstrated.

The use of quality-of-life as an outcome measure provides detailed information about the effectiveness of medical treatments than morbidity or mortality rates alone. The use of quality-of-life data in the clinical setting can inform patients regarding treatment options, treatment benefits and costs. In competing health care markets, outcome measurement is regarded as important as it is concerned with the impact of health care practice and affects health policy decisions. Doessel (1978) conducted the first Australian study on the cost-effectiveness analysis of renal replacement therapies. The study was based on Klarman, Francis & Rosenthal's (1968) the study, where the output was measured in terms of the number of life years gained from kidney transplantation, and a twenty-five percent weight was allocated in an attempt to capture quality-of-life from kidney transplantation. Doessel (1978) used two sources of data: Australian data (Disney 1974) and European data (Gurland et al. 1973; Shiel et al. 1974). The study measured life years gained, and agreed with the Klarman et al. (1974) findings that transplantation is the most effective way to increase life expectancy of persons with chronic renal disease (Butler & Doessel 1989). The outputs of the alternative treatments were not reported in monetary terms; the study focused on life years gained as the output measure. Hence the importance of this current study, which includes a cost-effectiveness analysis for cadaver liver, and living kidney transplantation for end-stage liver and kidney disease patients. Calls to respect patient autonomy and to produce patient-centered outcomes have recently brought the patient’s point of view back into the center of clinical medicine (Sullivan 2003). Survival rates indicate one measure of outcome however they do not reflect patients’ perceptions of health benefit or experiences. Noting that patients’ psychosocial effect on functioning is of more concern to them than their physical Thesis Preamble iii ability, that more accurate knowledge of patients’ conditions be measured prior to transplantation (Tarter et al. 1991). Recently researchers advocated investigating transplant patients' states of health to assess the social benefit of these expensive health care services from their perspective (Joralemon & Fujinaga 1997). The current study's mixed method, bridges the gaps in treatment outcome measurements, as the mixed method applied (Creswell 1994; Sim & Sharp 1998) prospectively measured quality-oflife, determined health utility, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The study reported the living donors experience of the donation process, described their needs; expressed using a new psychosocial model supporting future living kidney donor's during the donation process.