Virtual transplant assessment is feasible and may increase access to liver transplantation

Agimol, Pradeep Barker Faye Ramos Katie Littlejohn Wendy Tavabie Oliver Nicholson Chris Menon Krishna Cramp Matthew McDougall Neil Cash Johnny Aluvihare Varuna

P085 Table 1Table demonstrating a comparison of demographic, clinical and prognostic scores between patients assessed via VTA and FTFA. Results from t tests are displayed as mean (SD). Results from Mann Whitney U tests are displayed as median (IQR). Results from Fisher’s exact tests are presented as number (%). Statistical significance was determined by a p value <0.05 and signified by *Variable N VTA (n=19) N FTFA (n=30) P value Age 19 57.0 (49.0–60.0) 30 61.5 (56.8–64.3) 0.05 Sex (male) 19 13 (68.4%) 30 18 (60.0%) 0.76 Current/Ex-smoker 19 8 (42.1%) 29 14 (48.3%) 0.77 ARLD 19 9 (47.4%) 30 9 (30.0%) 0.24 NAFLD 19 2 (10.5%) 30 5 (16.7%) 0.69 Autoimmune liver diseases (PBC/PSC/AIH) 19 6 (31.6%) 30 13 (43.3%) 0.55 Redo transplantation 19 1 (5.3%) 30 0 (0.0%) 0.39 HCC 19 0 (0.0%) 30 2 (6.7%) 0.52 UKELD 19 54.5 (5.7) 30 54.1 (6.0) 0.81 MELD 19 12 (10.3–16.8) 30 10 (6.8–13.5) 0.10 CP score 19 8.6 (2.7) 30 7.8 (1.6) 0.24 Time from referral to completion of assessment 19 62 (48.0–125.0) 28 42 (21.0–54.5) 0.01* Patient listed for transplant 19 18 (94.7%) 30 26 (86.7%) 0.64 ConclusionVTA is feasible and will increase access to transplantation. Long-term post-transplant outcome data is required to fully assess the pathway.