Search

Objective: To quantify the independent association between obesity and access to liver transplantation., Background: Obesity is associated with higher complication rates, longer hospitalization, and worse survival after liver transplantation. Nevertheless, transplantation provides survival benefit to patients with end-stage liver disease, regardless of body mass index (BMI). We hypothesized that, despite survival benefit, providers were reluctant to transplant obese patients because of the inherent difficulty of these cases and their inferior outcomes. Our goal was to quantify the independent association between BMI and waiting time for orthotopic liver transplantation as a surrogate marker for this reluctance., Methods: We studied 29,136 wait-list candidates in the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) era, categorized as severely obese (BMI 35-40), morbidly obese (BMI 40-60), and reference (BMI 18.5-35). All models were adjusted for factors relevant to the allocation system, factors possibly influencing access to healthcare, and factors biologically related to disease progression and outcomes., Results: The odds of receiving a MELD exception were 30% lower in severely obese and 38% lower in morbidly obese patients. Similarly, the likelihoods of being turned down for an organ were 10% and 16% higher, and the rates of being transplanted were 11% and 29% lower in severely obese and morbidly obese patients, respectively., Conclusions: Current practice seems to indicate a reluctance to transplant obese patients. If indeed as a community we feel that liver allografts should not be distributed to patients with excessive postoperative risk, we should consider expressing this as a formal change to our allocation policy rather than through informal practice patterns.

Objective: Lung transplantation has been increasingly applied to patients over the age of 60 years. Importantly, the procedure of choice, single versus bilateral lung transplantation, remains unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine short- and midterm outcomes in this age group with particular attention to procedure type., Methods: All first lung transplant recipients, 60 years of age or older, reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing from 1998 to 2004 were divided into two groups: bilateral and single lung transplantation. A retrospective review of pertinent baseline characteristics, clinical parameters, and outcomes was performed. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to compare posttransplant survival between these groups. Additionally, propensity scores analysis was performed., Results: During the study period, 1656 lung transplant recipients were 60 years of age or older (mean 62.7 +/- 2.4 years, median 62 years). Of these, 364 (28%) had bilateral and 1292 (78%) had single lung transplantation. Survival was not statistically different between the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, bilateral versus single lung transplantation was not a predictor of mortality. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and a donor tobacco history of more than 20 pack-years were significantly associated with mortality (P = .003, CI 1.12-1.76; and P = .006, CI 1.09-1.63; respectively)., Conclusions: The survival of lung transplant recipients 60 years of age or older who underwent bilateral versus single lung transplantation is comparable. These data suggest that type of procedure is not a predictor of mortality in this age group. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and donor cigarette use of more than 20 pack-years were independently associated with mortality.

Background: Liver transplantation from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors is an increasingly common approach for expansion of the donor organ supply. However, transplantation with DCD livers results in inferior graft survival. In this study, we examined donor and recipient characteristics that are associated with poor allograft outcomes and present a set of criteria that permit allograft survival that is comparable to that of donation after brain death (DBD) grafts in both low- and high-risk recipients., Methods: The United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Liver Transplantation Registry between January 1996 and March 2006 was investigated. Adult DCD liver transplants (n = 874) were included., Results: A DCD risk index was developed using the statistically significant factors from a multivariate Cox model: history of previous transplantation, life support status at transplantation, donor age, donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), and cold ischemia time (CIT). Favorable DCD donor criteria were donor age < or =45 years, DWIT < or =15 min, and CIT < or =10 hr. Four risk groups were developed based upon index scores that showed different graft survival. Graft survival of the favorable DCD group (84.9% at 1 year, 75.2% at 3 years, and 69.4% at 5 years) was comparable to that for DBD liver transplantation irrespective of recipient condition. Increasing donor age was more highly predictive of poor outcomes in DCD compared to DBD, especially in recipients in poor preoperative condition., Conclusions: DCD livers from young donors with short DWIT and CIT should be given greater consideration in order to expand the number of available donor organs.

Context: First proposed 2 decades ago, live kidney paired donation (KPD) was considered a promising new approach to addressing the shortage of organs for transplantation. Ethical, administrative, and logistical barriers initially proved formidable and prevented the implementation of KPD programs in the United States., Objective: To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of KPD for the management of patients with incompatible donors., Design, Setting, and Patients: Prospective series of paired donations matched and transplanted from a pool of blood type or crossmatch incompatible donors and recipients with end-stage renal disease (6 conventional and 4 unconventional KPD transplants) at a US tertiary referral center (between June 2001 and November 2004) with expertise in performing transplants in patients with high immunologic risk., Intervention: Kidney paired donation and live donor renal transplantation., Main Outcome Measures: Patient survival, graft survival, serum creatinine levels, rejection episodes., Results: A total of 22 patients received transplants through 10 paired donations including 2 triple exchanges at Johns Hopkins Hospital. At a median follow-up of 13 months (range, 1-42 months), the patient survival rate was 100% and the graft survival rate was 95.5%. Twenty-one of the 22 patients have functioning grafts with a median 6-month serum creatinine level of 1.2 mg/dL (range, 0.8-1.8 mg/dL) (106.1 micromol/L [range, 70.7-159.1 micromol/L]). There were no instances of antibody-mediated rejection despite the inclusion of 5 patients who were highly sensitized to HLA antigens due to previous exposure to foreign tissue. Four patients developed acute cellular rejection (18%)., Conclusions: This series of patients who received transplants from a single-center KPD pool provides evidence that recipients with incompatible live donors, even those with rare blood type combinations or high degrees of HLA antigen sensitization, can receive transplants through KPD with graft survival rates that appear to be equivalent to directed, compatible live donor transplants. If these results can be generalized, broader availability of KPD to the estimated 6000 patients with incompatible donors could result in a large expansion of the donor pool.