. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Sep 1.

Published in final edited form as: Am J Transplant. 2021 Mar 4;21(9):3123–3132. doi: 10.1111/ajt.16529

Table 3.

Final multivariable Cox proportional hazard models without and with center performance status

Multivariable Models
	without Center Quality		Stratified by Center Quality		Stratified by Center Quality, including interaction
Variable	HR [95%CI]	p-value	HR (95%CI)	p-value	HR (95%CI)	p-value
Center Deprivation	1.32 [1.05, 1.66]	0.02	1.07 [0.89, 1.28]	0.49	1.06 (0.80, 1.40)	0.67
% Acute Liver Failure	0.81 [0.67, 0.99]	0.04	0.91 [0.78, 1.07]	0.25	0.91 (0.78, 1.07)	0.26
% Tumor	0.74 [0.58, 0.93]	0.01	0.95 [0.79, 1.15]	0.61	0.95 (0.79, 1.15)	0.62
% Status 1a/1b	1.15 [1.04, 1.28]	0.01	1.09 [1.00, 1.19]	0.05	1.09 (1.00, 1.19)	0.047
Center Deprivation*Center Quality Interaction					1.01 (0.70, 1.45)	0.97

HR: Hazard ratio, Prop: proportion; REF: reference

^a.

For continuous proportion variables, hazard ratios are scaled to represent a 0.1 increase in the proportion.

^b.

All random-effect Cox proportional hazards models include a center-specific random effect to account for correlation among patients from the same center.