Search

Since the introduction of the MELD-based allocation system, women are now 30% less likely than men to undergo liver transplant (LT) and have 20% higher waitlist mortality. These disparities are in large part due to height differences in men and women though no national policies have been implemented to reduce sex disparities. Patients were identified using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) from 2014 to 2019. Patients were categorized into five groups by first dividing into thirds by height then dividing the shortest third into three groups to capture more granular differences in the most disadvantaged patients (<166 cm). We then used LSAM to model waitlist outcomes in five versions of awarding additional MELD points to shorter candidates compared to current policy. We identified two proposed policy changes LSAM scenarios that resulted in improvement in LT and death percentage for the shortest candidates with the least negative impact on taller candidates. In conclusion, awarding an additional 1-2 MELD points to the shortest 8% of LT candidates would improve waitlist outcomes for women. This strategy should be considered in national policy allocation to address sex-based disparities in LT., (© 2022 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Although early studies suggest the Acuity Circles (AC) allocation policy has increased access to deceased donor liver transplants (DDLTs) for patients with the highest MELD scores, changes in center- and region-level practices among patients with the highest MELD scores in response to AC are not well-characterized. OPTN/UNOS data were analyzed to compare center-level changes in the number of DDLTs based on allocation-MELD (aMELD) categories used for AC sharing performed in the 18-month periods before and after AC enactment on February 4, 2020. There was large center-level variation in the number and proportion of aMELD ≥ 37 DDLTs performed from pre-AC to AC period; 13 centers accounted for 196 of the 198 total net increase in aMELD ≥ 37 DDLTs performed after AC, 5 of these being from UNOS region 5. Similar center-level variation was seen for MELD 33-36 and MELD 29-32 DDLTs, with 17 centers and 14 centers, respectively, accounting for the entire net increase in DDLTs in the aMELD categories. In conclusion, AC increased access to livers for transplantation for high MELD patients nationally, but imbalances remain in transplant practice patterns at the center and regional levels. Longer-term study is necessary to assess effectiveness of AC in improving equitability of liver transplantations., (© 2022 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

The volume of abdominal organ offers received by the Baylor Simmons Transplant Institute has increased over time, resulting in a higher workload for our donor call team. To quantify the increase in organ offers, determine the characteristics of these offers, and estimate the impact on our transplant center workload, we collected center-specific organ offer data from May 2019 to July 2021 using the UNOS Center Acceptance and Refusal Evaluation Report and performed a time study that collected the number of communications and time spent on communications for organ offers made during a typical week. The total offers per month increased by 140% (270/month to 648/month), while the number of transplanted organs remained stable. In addition, the percentage of offers for organs that were never transplanted increased from 54% to 75%. In a representative week-long time study, surgeons made 505, center coordinators 590, and answering service coordinators 318 distinct communications, averaging 3, 4, and 2 communications/hour. Between November 2019 and July 2021, offer-related workload increased by an estimated 97%. These results demonstrate a sizeable inefficiency in abdominal organ allocation associated with a nonrecoverable cost to our transplant center., (© 2022 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Postmortem normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is a rising preservation strategy in controlled donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCD). Herein, we present results for cDCD liver transplants performed in Spain 2012-2019, with outcomes evaluated through December 31, 2020. Results were analyzed retrospectively and according to recovery technique (abdominal NRP [A-NRP] or standard rapid recovery [SRR]). During the study period, 545 cDCD liver transplants were performed with A-NRP and 258 with SRR. Median donor age was 59 years (interquartile range 49-67 years). Adjusted risk estimates were improved with A-NRP for overall biliary complications (OR 0.300, 95% CI 0.197-0.459, p < .001), ischemic type biliary lesions (OR 0.112, 95% CI 0.042-0.299, p < .001), graft loss (HR 0.371, 95% CI 0.267-0.516, p < .001), and patient death (HR 0.540, 95% CI 0.373-0.781, p = .001). Cold ischemia time (HR 1.004, 95% CI 1.001-1.007, p = .021) and re-transplantation indication (HR 9.552, 95% CI 3.519-25.930, p < .001) were significant independent predictors for graft loss among cDCD livers with A-NRP. While use of A-NRP helps overcome traditional limitations in cDCD liver transplantation, opportunity for improvement remains for cases with prolonged cold ischemia and/or technically complex recipients, indicating a potential role for complimentary ex situ perfusion preservation techniques., (© 2021 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Liver allocation was updated on February 4, 2020, replacing a Donor Service Area (DSA) with acuity circles (AC). The impact on waitlist outcomes for patients listed for combined liver-intestine transplantation (multivisceral transplantation [MVT]) remains unknown. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify all candidates listed for both liver and intestine between January 1, 2018 and March 5, 2021. Two eras were defined: pre-AC (2018-2020) and post-AC (2020-2021). Outcomes included 90-day waitlist mortality and transplant probability. A total of 127 adult and 104 pediatric MVT listings were identified. In adults, the 90-day waitlist mortality was not statistically significantly different, but transplant probability was lower post-AC. After risk-adjustment, post-AC was associated with a higher albeit not statistically significantly different mortality hazard (sub-distribution hazard ratio[sHR]: 8.45, 95% CI: 0.96-74.05; p = .054), but a significantly lower transplant probability (sHR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.15-0.75; p = .008). For pediatric patients, waitlist mortality and transplant probability were similar between eras. The proportion of patients who underwent transplant with exception points was lower post-AC both in adult (44% to 9%; p = .04) and pediatric recipients (65% to 15%; p = .002). A lower transplant probability observed in adults listed for MVT may ultimately result in increased waitlist mortality. Efforts should be taken to ensure equitable organ allocation in this vulnerable patient population., (© 2021 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Status 1A liver transplant candidates are given the highest medical priority for the allocation of deceased donor livers. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) policy requires physicians to certify that a candidate has a life expectancy without a transplant of less than 7 days for that candidate to be given status 1A. Additionally, candidates receiving status 1A must have one of six medical conditions listed in policy. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from all prevalent liver transplant candidates from 2010 to 2020, we used a bias-corrected Kaplan-Meier model to calculate the survival of status 1A candidates and to determine their life expectancy without a transplant. We found that status 1A candidates have a life expectancy without a transplant of 24 (95% CI 20-46) days-over three times longer than what policy requires for status 1A designation. We repeated the analysis for subgroups of status 1A candidates based on the medical conditions that grant status 1A. We found that none of these subgroups met the life expectancy requirement. Harmonizing OPTN policy with observed data would sustain the integrity of the allocation process., (© 2021 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

The OPTN's simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) allocation policy, implemented August 10, 2017, established medical eligibility criteria for adult SLK candidates and created Safety Net kidney allocation priority for liver-alone recipients with new/continued renal impairment. OPTN SLK and kidney after liver (KAL) data were analyzed (registrations as of December 31, 2019, transplants pre-policy [March 20, 2015-August 9, 2017] vs. post-policy [August 10, 2017-December 31, 2019]). Ninety-four percent of SLK registrations met eligibility criteria (99% CKD: 50% dialysis, 50% eGFR). SLK transplant volume decreased from a record 740 (2017) to 676 (2018, -9%), with a subsequent increase to 728 (2019, 1.6% below 2017 volume). For KAL listings within 1 year of liver transplant, waitlist mortality rates declined post-policy versus pre-policy (27 [95% CI = 20.6-34.7] vs. 16 [11.7-20.5]) while transplant rates increased fourfold (46 [32.2-60.0] vs. 197 [171.6-224.7]). There were 234 KAL transplants post-policy (94% Safety Net priority eligible), and no significant difference in 1-year patient/graft survival vs. kidney-alone (patient: 95.9% KAL, 97.0% kidney-alone [p = .39]; graft: 94.2% KAL, 94.6% kidney-alone [p = .81]). From pre- to post-policy, the proportion of all deceased donor kidney and liver transplants that were SLK decreased (kidney: 5.1% to 4.3%; liver: 9.7% to 8.7%). SLK policy implementation interrupted the longstanding rise in SLK transplants, while Safety Net priority directed kidneys to liver recipients in need with thus far minimal impact to posttransplant outcomes., (© 2021 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

MELD-Na appears to disadvantage women awaiting liver transplant by underestimating their mortality rate. Fixing this problem involves: (1) estimating the magnitude of this disadvantage separately for each MELD-Na, (2) designing a correction for each MELD-Na, and (3) evaluating corrections to MELD-Na using simulated allocation. Using Kaplan-Meier modeling, we calculated 90-day without-transplant survival for men and women, separately at each MELD-Na. For most scores between 15 and 35, without-transplant survival was higher for men by 0-5 percentage points. We tested two proposed corrections to MELD-Na (MELD-Na-MDRD and MELD-GRAIL-Na), and one correction we developed (MELD-Na-Shift) to target the differences we quantified in survival across the MELD-Na spectrum. In terms of without-transplant survival, MELD-Na-MDRD overcorrected sex differences while MELD-GRAIL-Na and MELD-Na-Shift eliminated them. Estimating the impact of implementing these corrections with the liver simulated allocation model, we found that MELD-Na-Shift alone eliminated sex disparity in transplant rates (p = 0.4044) and mortality rates (p = 0.7070); transplant rates and mortality rates were overcorrected by MELD-Na-MDRD (p = 0.0025, p = 0.0006) and MELD-GRAIL-Na (p = 0.0079, p = 0.0005). We designed a corrected MELD-Na that eliminates sex disparities in without-transplant survival, but allocation changes directing smaller livers to shorter candidates may also be needed to equalize women's access to liver transplant., (© 2021 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Recently, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)-based liver allocation in the United States has been questioned based on concerns that waitlist mortality for a given biologic MELD (bMELD), calculated using laboratory values alone, might be higher at certain centers in certain locations across the country. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the center-level variation in bMELD-predicted mortality risk. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data from January 2015 to December 2019, we modeled mortality risk in 33 260 adult, first-time waitlisted candidates from 120 centers using multilevel Poisson regression, adjusting for sex, and time-varying age and bMELD. We calculated a "MELD correction factor" using each center's random intercept and bMELD coefficient. A MELD correction factor of +1 means that center's candidates have a higher-than-average bMELD-predicted mortality risk equivalent to 1 bMELD point. We found that the "MELD correction factor" median (IQR) was 0.03 (-0.47, 0.52), indicating almost no center-level variation. The number of centers with "MELD correction factors" within ±0.5 points, and between ±0.5-± 1, ±1.0-±1.5, and ±1.5-±2.0 points was 62, 41, 13, and 4, respectively. No centers had waitlisted candidates with a higher-than-average bMELD-predicted mortality risk beyond ±2 bMELD points. Given that bMELD similarly predicts waitlist mortality at centers across the country, our results support continued MELD-based prioritization of waitlisted candidates irrespective of center., (© 2021 The Authors. American Journal of Transplantation published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

We examined the effects of COVID-19 on solid organ waiting list mortality in the United States and compared effects across patient demographics (e.g., race, age, and sex) and donation service areas. Three separate piecewise exponential survival models estimated for each solid organ the overall, demographic-specific, and donation service area-specific differences in the hazard of waitlist mortality before and after the national emergency declaration on March 13, 2020. Kidney waiting list mortality was higher after than before the national emergency (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.23-1.52). The hazard of waitlist mortality was not significantly different before and after COVID-19 for liver (aHR, 0.94), pancreas (aHR, 1.01), lung (aHR, 1.00), and heart (aHR, 0.94). Kidney candidates had notable variability in differences across donation service areas (aHRs, New York City, 2.52; New Jersey, 1.84; and Michigan, 1.56). The only demographic group with increased waiting list mortality were Blacks versus Whites (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07-1.86) for kidney candidates. The first 10 weeks after the declaration of a national emergency had a heterogeneous effect on waitlist mortality rate, varying by geography and ethnicity. This heterogeneity will complicate comparisons of transplant program performance during COVID-19., (Published 2021. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

The aim of the study was to assess the UK donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplant experience from donors ≥70 years. Nationwide UK DCD retrospective analysis was conducted between 2001 and 2015 (n = 1163). Recipients were divided into group 1 vs. group 2 (donors 70≥ vs. <70 years, respectively). group 1 (n = 69, 5.9%) recipients were older (median 59 vs. 55 years, p = .001) and had longer waitlist time (128 vs. 84 days; p = .039). 94.2% of group 1 clustered in London and Birmingham, where the two busiest centers are located. group 1 allografts had higher UKDRI and UK DCD Risk Scores but similar WIT and CIT and were more likely to have been imported. Both groups had similar 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival (group 1, 90%, 81.4%, and 74% vs. group 2, 88.6%, 81.4%, and 78.6%, respectively; p = .54). Both groups had similar ICU stay length (p = .22), 3-month hepatic artery thrombosis rates (4.4% vs 4.0%; p = .9), and 12-month readmission rates for all biliary complications (20.3% vs 25.7%; p = .32). This study demonstrates that acceptable outcomes are achievable using older grafts in a highly selected cohort at experienced centers. Advanced age should not be an absolute contraindication to utilizing a DCD graft from donors aged ≥70 years., (© 2020 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Recently, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network approved a plan to allocate kidneys within 250-nm circles around donor hospitals. These homogeneous circles might not substantially reduce geographic differences in transplant rates because deceased donor kidney supply and demand differ across the country. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2016-2019, we used an integer program to design unique, heterogeneous circles with sizes between 100 and 500 nm that reduced supply/demand ratio variation across transplant centers. We weighted demand according to wait time because candidates who have waited longer have higher priority. We compared supply/demand ratios and average travel distance of kidneys, using heterogeneous circles and 250 and 500-nm fixed-distance homogeneous circles. We found that 40% of circles could be 250 nm or smaller, while reducing supply/demand ratio variation more than homogeneous circles. Supply/demand ratios across centers for heterogeneous circles ranged from 0.06 to 0.13 kidneys per wait-year, compared to 0.04 to 0.47 and 0.05 to 0.15 kidneys per wait-year for 250-nm and 500-nm homogeneous circles, respectively. The average travel distance for kidneys using heterogeneous, and 250-nm and 500-nm fixed-distance circles was 173 nm, 134 nm, and 269 nm, respectively. Heterogeneous circles reduce geographic disparity compared to homogeneous circles, while maintaining reasonable travel distances., (© 2020 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Geographic disparities emerged as an increasing issue in organ allocation policies. Because of the sequential and discrete geographical models used for allocation scores, artificial regional boundaries may impede the access of candidates with the greatest medical urgency to vital organs. This article describes a continuous geographical allocation model that provides accurate organ access by introducing a multiplicative interaction between the patient's condition and the distance to the graft by using a gravity model. Patients with the most urgent need will thus have access to organs from farther away, while those in less urgent need may only have access to organs geographically closer. Compared to the previous French liver allocation scheme, the gravity model precluded transplantations for candidates with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≤ 14 for decompensated cirrhosis from 10.3% to 0.6%. Death and delisting while on the waiting list at 1 year also decreased from 30.1% to 22.4% for MELD ≥ 35. Waiting list (cumulative hazard ratio (CHR)  0.84 after adjustment) and posttransplant survival improved significantly (hazard ratio = 0.83 after adjustment). This new liver allocation system provides more equitable access to liver transplants and an efficient and safe alternative to administrative boundaries for geographical models in organ allocation., (© 2020 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Limited data exist regarding the impact of donation after circulatory death (DCD) allografts on outcomes following liver transplantation in fulminant hepatic failure (FHF). Utilizing the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR), we compared outcomes after DCD in FHF to donation after brain death (DBD) in FHF and DCD in non-FHF over a 15-year period. Primary outcome measures were graft and patient survival. A total of 117, 3437, and 4379 recipients underwent DCD-FHF, DBD-FHF and DCD-non-FHF, respectively. One-year graft survival in DCD-FHF was inferior to DBD-FHF (72.9% vs. 83.8%, p = .002), but comparable to DCD-non-FHF (72.9% vs. 82.7%, p = .23). However, 3- and 5-year graft survival in DCD-FHF were comparable to DBD-FHF (67.9 vs. 77.6%, p = .63; 57.8% vs. 73.2%, p = .27) and DCD-non-FHF (67.9% vs. 72.9%, p = .44; 57.8% vs. 66.6%, p = .06). One-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival were also comparable among the three groups. Graft and patient survival in DCD-FHF improved over the study period. Multivariable analysis identified recipient age, male gender, African American ethnicity, donor age, and cold ischemia time as predictors of graft and patient survival in FHF, while DCD status was only predictive of graft survival. Long-term graft survival and patient survival in DCD-FHF are comparable to DBD-FHF and DCD-non-FHF. Consideration of DCD in FHF could help expand the donor pool in this subset of critically ill patients., (© 2020 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: Given the potentially additive risk from using donor livers that are both steatotic and from a donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor, there is a paucity of data on the outcome of DCD liver transplantation (LT) utilizing livers with macrosteatosis., Methods: All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic-Florida, Mayo Clinic-Arizona, and Mayo Clinic-Rochester from 1999 to 2019 were included (N = 714). Recipients of DCD LT were divided into 3 groups: those with moderate macrosteatosis (30%-60%), mild macrosteatosis (5%-30%), and no steatosis (<5%)., Results: Patients with moderate macrosteatosis had a higher rate of postreperfusion syndrome (PRS; 53.9% vs 26.2%; P = .002), postreperfusion cardiac arrest (7.7% vs 0.3%; P < .001), primary nonfunction (PNF; 7.7% vs 1.0%; P = .003), early allograft dysfunction (EAD; 70.8% vs 45.6% and 8.3%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (AKI; 39.1% vs 19.4%; P = .02) than patients with no steatosis. No difference in any of the perioperative complications was seen between the mild macrosteatosis and the no steatosis groups except for the rate of EAD (56.8% vs 45.6%; P = .04). No difference in ischemic cholangiopathy (IC), vascular thrombosis/stenosis or graft, and patient survival was seen between the 3 groups., Conclusion: DCD donors with mild macrosteatosis < 30% can be utilized with no increase in perioperative complications and similar patient and graft survival compared to DCD donors with no steatosis. When utilizing DCD donors with moderate macrosteatosis higher rates of PRS, PNF, postreperfusion cardiac arrest, EAD, and AKI should be anticipated., (© 2020 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

With the introduction of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium (MELD-Na)-based allocation, the score at which patients benefit from liver transplantation (LT) has shifted from a score of 15 to 21. This study aimed to evaluate waitlist outcomes in patients with MELD-Na scores <21 and explore the utility of replacing "Share 15" with "Share 21." The study uses data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing registry. All adult patients registered for LT after implementation of the MELD-Na-based allocation were evaluated. Waitlist patients with initial and final scores <21 were eligible. Patients with exception scores were excluded. To explore the potential impact of a Share 21 model, patients with an initial MELD-Na score of 6-14 (Group 1) and those with a score of 15-20 (Group 2) were compared for waitlist outcomes. There were 3686 patients with an initial score of 6-14 (Group 1) and 3282 with a score of 15-20 (Group 2). Group 2, when compared to Group 1, showed comparable risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.00, P = .97), higher transplant probability (aHR 3.25, P < .001), and lower likelihood of removal from listing because of improvement (aHR 0.74, P = .011). Share 21 may enhance transplant opportunities and increase parity for patients with higher MELD-Na scores without compromising waitlist outcomes., (© 2020 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has caused shockwaves throughout the US healthcare system. Nowhere has coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) caused more infections than in New York, where there have been over 26 500 infections. Resources have been appropriately allocated toward combating this outbreak, but where does this leave patients with severe non-COVID-19 diseases? Herein we provide the views of a liver transplant surgeon and transplant hepatologist in New York., (© 2020 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Split liver transplantation (SLT) is 1 strategy for maximizing the number of deceased donor liver transplants. Recent reports suggest that utilization of SLT in the United States remains low. We examined deceased donor offers that were ultimately split between 2010 and 2014. SLTs were categorized as "primary" and "secondary" transplants. We analyzed allocation patterns and used logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with secondary split discard. Four hundred eighteen livers were split: 54% from adult, 46% from pediatric donors. Of the 227 adult donor livers split, 61% met United Network for Organ Sharing "optimal" split criteria. A total of 770 recipients (418 primary and 352 secondary) were transplanted, indicating 16% discard. Ninety-two percent of the 418 primary recipients were children, and 47% were accepted on the first offer. Eighty-seven percent of the 352 secondary recipients were adults, and 7% were accepted on the first offer. Of the 352 pairs, 99% were transplanted in the same region, 36% at the same center. In logistic regression, shorter donor height was associated with secondary discard (odds ratio 0.97 per cm, 95% CI 0.94-1.00, P = .02). SLT volume by center was not predictive of secondary discard. Current policy proposals that incentivize SLT in the United States could increase the number of transplants to children and adults., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Height explains a substantial proportion of gender-based disparity in waitlist mortality among liver transplant candidates. We sought to identify a clinically relevant height cutoff below which waitlist mortality increases significantly. We examined all nonstatus one adult liver transplant candidates from 2010 to 2014. We used a recursive application of the minimum P value approach with univariate competing risk regressions (deceased donor liver transplantation as the competing risk) to detect differences in waitlist mortality with regards to height. Of 69 883 candidates, 36% (24 819) were women and 64% (45 064) were men. Median height for all was 173 cm: 163 cm in women, 178 cm in men. The optimal search method of recursively evaluating smaller height intervals yielded 166 cm as the optimal height cutoff. Using height <166 cm as the cutoff, 72% of women and 9% of men met criteria. Compared to candidates ≥166 cm, "short stature" candidates had higher rates of death/delisting (28% vs 24%) and lower rates of transplantation (38% vs 44%) (P < .01 for both). After adjustment for clinical and demographic characteristics, height <166 cm remained associated with an 8% increased risk of waitlist mortality (95% CI 1.03-1.14, P < .01). Short candidate height may be a motivation to explore split livers or living donors as accelerated liver transplantation options., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Steatotic donor livers (SDLs) (macrosteatosis ≥30%) represent a possible donor pool expansion, but are frequently discarded due to a historical association with mortality and graft loss. However, changes in recipient/donor demographics, allocation policy, and clinical protocols might have altered utilization and outcomes of SDLs. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017 and adjusted multilevel regression to quantify temporal trends in discard rates (logistic) and posttransplant outcomes (Cox) of SDLs, accounting for Organ Procurement Organization-level variation. Of 4346 recovered SDLs, 58.0% were discarded in 2005, versus only 43.1% in 2017 (P < .001). SDLs were always substantially more likely discarded versus non-SDLs, although this difference decreased over time (adjusted odds ratio in 2005-2007: 13.15 15.28 17.74 ; 2008-2011: 11.77 13.41 15.29 ; 2012-2014: 9.87 11.37 13.10 ; 2015-2017: 7.79 8.89 10.15 , P < .001 for all). Conversely, posttransplant outcomes of recipients of SDLs improved over time: recipients of SDLs from 2012 to 2017 had 46% lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.43 0.54 0.68 , P < .001) and 47% lower risk of graft loss (aHR: 0.42 0.53 0.67 , P < .001) compared to 2005 to 2011. In fact, in 2012 to 2017, recipients of SDLs had equivalent mortality (aHR: 0.90 1.04 1.21 , P = .6) and graft loss (aHR: 0.90 1.04 1.20 , P = .6) to recipients of non-SDLs. Increasing utilization of SDLs might be a reasonable strategy to expand the donor pool., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Our main objective was to compare liver transplant (LT) results between donation after circulatory death (DCD) and donation after brainstem death (DBD) in our hospital and to analyze, within the DCD group, the influence of age on the results obtained with DCD donors aged >70 years and up to 80 years. All DCD-LTs performed were analyzed prospectively. The results of the DCD group were compared with those of a control group who received a DBD-LT immediately after each DCD-LT. Later, the results obtained within the DCD group were analyzed according to the age of the donors, considering 2 subgroups with a cut-off point at 70 years. Survival results for LT with DCD and super rapid recovery were not inferior to those obtained in a similar group of patients transplanted with DBD livers. However, the cost of DCD was a higher rate of biliary complications, including ischemic cholangiopathy. Donor age was not a negative factor., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

The field of liver transplantation has shifted considerably in the MELD era, including changing allocation, immunosuppression, and liver failure etiologies, as well as better supportive therapies. Our aim was to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the MELD score over time. The United Network for Organ Sharing provided de-identified data on 120 156 patients listed for liver transplant from 2002-2016. The ability of the MELD score to predict 90-day mortality was evaluated by a concordance (C-) statistic and corroborated with competing risk analysis. The MELD score's concordance with 90-day mortality has downtrended from 0.80 in 2003 to 0.70 in 2015. While lab MELD scores at listing and transplant climbed in that interval, score at waitlist death remained steady near 35. Listing age increased from 50 to 54 years. HCV-positive status at listing dropped from 33 to 17%. The concordance of MELD and mortality does not differ with age (>60 = 0.73, <60 = 0.74), but is lower in diseases that are increasing most rapidly-alcoholic liver disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease-and higher in those that are declining, particularly in HCV-positive patients (HCV positive = 0.77; negative = 0.73). While MELD still predicts mortality, its accuracy has decreased; changing etiology of disease may contribute., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Normothermic ex situ liver perfusion (NEsLP) offers the opportunity to assess biomarkers of graft function and injury. We investigated NEsLP parameters (biomarkers and markers) for the assessment of liver viability in a porcine transplantation model. Grafts from heart-beating donors (HBD), and from donors with 30 minutes (donation after cardiac death [DCD]30'), 70 minutes (DCD70'), and 120 minutes (DCD120') of warm ischemia were studied. The HBD, DCD30', and DCD70'-groups had 100% survival. In contrast, 70% developed primary nonfunction (PNF) and died in the DCD120'-group. Hepatocellular function during NEsLP showed low lactate (≤1.1 mmol/L) in all the groups except the DCD120'-group (>2 mmol/L) at 4 hours of perfusion (P = .04). The fold-urea increase was significantly lower in the DCD120'-group (≤0.4) compared to the other groups (≥0.65) (P = .01). As for cholangiocyte function, bile/perfusate glucose ratio was significantly lower (<0.6) in all the groups except the DCD120'-group (≥0.9) after 3 hours of perfusion (<0.01). Bile/perfusate Na+ ratio was significantly higher (≥1.2) after 3 hours of perfusion in all the groups except for the DCD120'-group (≤1) (P < .01). Three hours after transplantation, the DCD120'-group had a significantly higher international normalized ratio (>5) compared to the rest of the groups (≤1.9) (P = .02). Rocuronium levels were higher at all the time-points in the animals that developed PNF during NEsLP and after transplantation. This study demonstrates that biomarkers and markers of hepatocellular and cholangiocyte function during NEsLP correlate with the degree of ischemic injury and posttransplant function., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Organ transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients with end stage liver disease and end stage renal disease. However, due to the imbalance in the demand and supply of deceased organs, most transplant centers worldwide have consciously pursued a strategy for living donation. Paired exchanges were introduced as a means to bypass various biologic incompatibilities (blood- and tissue-typing), while expanding the living donor pool. This shift in paradigm has introduced new ethical concerns that have hitherto been unaddressed, especially with nondirected, altruistic living donors. So far, transplant communities have focused efforts on separate liver- and kidney-paired exchanges, whereas the concept of a transorgan paired exchange has been theorized and could potentially facilitate a greater number of transplants. We describe the performance of the first successful liver-kidney swap., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Several single-center reports of using HCV-viremic organs for HCV-uninfected (HCV-) recipients were recently published. We sought to characterize national utilization of HCV-exposed donors for HCV- recipients (HCV D+/R-) in kidney transplantation (KT) and liver transplantation (LT). Using SRTR data (April 1, 2015-December 2, 2018) and Gini coefficients, we studied center-level clustering of 1193 HCV D+/R- KTs and LTs. HCV-viremic (NAT+) D+/R- KTs increased from 1/month in 2015 to 22/month in 2018 (LTs: 0/month to 12/month). HCV-aviremic (Ab+/NAT-) D+/R- KTs increased from < 1/month in 2015 to 26/month in 2018 (LTs: <1/month to 8/month). HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic kidneys spent a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 0.7 (0.2-1.6) and 1.6 (0.4-3.5) years on the waitlist versus 1.8 (0.5-4.0) among HCV D-/R-. HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic livers had median (IQR) MELD scores of 24 (21-30) and 25 (21-32) at transplantation versus 29 (23-36) among HCV D-/R-. 12 KT and 14 LT centers performed 81% and 76% of all viremic HCV D+/R- transplants; 11 KT and 13 LT centers performed 76% and 69% of all aviremic HCV D+/R- transplants. There have been marked increases in HCV D+/R- transplantation, although few centers are driving this practice; centers should continue to weigh the risks and benefits of HCV D+/R- transplantation., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Single-center studies have demonstrated regional organ procurement collaboration to reduce travel redundancy and improve procurement efficiency. We studied deceased donor kidney, liver, and pancreas transplants performed in the United States between 2002 and 2014 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). We compared graft failure (GF), death-censored graft failure (DCGF), and patient death (PD) between organs procured by surgeons from the recipient's center (transplant procurement team [TPT]) versus surgeons from a different center (NTPT). Primary nonfunction (PNF) was assessed for liver and kidney and delayed graft function (DGF) for kidney using mixed-effects logistic modeling. There were 64 906 liver (61.6% TPT), 118 152 kidney (26.1% TPT), 10 832 simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK; 56.6% TPT), and 4378 solitary pancreas (SP; 34.0% TPT) transplants. When compared to NTPT, DCGF for organs procured by TPT was significantly less for liver (adjusted HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88-0.98) and marginally significant for kidney (0.97; 0.93-1.00) and SPK (0.90; 0.82-1.00), and not significant for SP (0.98; 0.86 -1.11). DGF for TPT kidney was significantly lower (adjusted OR 0.91; 0.87-0.95). Albeit modest, our findings demonstrate a difference between locally procured organs and those procured by the implanting team. Elucidating the etiology of these differences will enhance regional organ procurement collaboration., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Recent OPTN proposals to address geographic disparity in liver allocation have involved circular boundaries: the policy selected 12/17 allocated to 150-mile circles in addition to DSAs/regions, and the policy selected 12/18 allocated to 150-mile circles eliminating DSA/region boundaries. However, methods to reduce geographic disparity remain controversial, within the OPTN and the transplant community. To inform ongoing discussions, we studied center-level supply/demand ratios using SRTR data (07/2013-06/2017) for 27 334 transplanted deceased donor livers and 44 652 incident waitlist candidates. Supply was the number of donors from an allocation unit (DSA or circle), allocated proportionally (by waitlist size) to the centers drawing on these donors. We measured geographic disparity as variance in log-transformed supply/demand ratio, comparing allocation based on DSAs, fixed-distance circles (150- or 400-mile radius), and fixed-population (12- or 50-million) circles. The recently proposed 150-mile radius circles (variance = 0.11, P = .9) or 12-million-population circles (variance = 0.08, P = .1) did not reduce the geographic disparity compared to DSA-based allocation (variance = 0.11). However, geographic disparity decreased substantially to 0.02 in both larger fixed-distance (400-mile, P < .001) and larger fixed-population (50-million, P < .001) circles (P = .9 comparing fixed distance and fixed population). For allocation circles to reduce geographic disparities, they must be larger than a 150-mile radius; additionally, fixed-population circles are not superior to fixed-distance circles., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

To implement split liver transplantation (SLT) a mandatory-split policy has been adopted in Italy since August 2015: donors aged 18-50 years at standard risk are offered for SLT, resulting in a left-lateral segment (LLS) graft for children and an extended-right graft (ERG) for adults. We aim to analyze the impact of the new mandatory-split policy on liver transplantation (LT)-waiting list and SLT outcomes, compared to old allocation policy. Between August 2015 and December 2016 out of 413 potentially "splittable" donors, 252 (61%) were proposed for SLT, of whom 53 (21%) donors were accepted for SLT whereas 101 (40.1%) were excluded because of donor characteristics and 98 (38.9%) for absence of suitable pediatric recipients. The SLT rate augmented from 6% to 8.4%. Children undergoing SLT increased from 49.3% to 65.8% (P = .009) and the pediatric LT-waiting list time dropped (229 [10-2121] vs 80 [12-2503] days [P = .045]). The pediatric (4.5% vs 2.5% [P = .398]) and adult (9.7% to 5.2% [P < .001]) LT-waiting list mortality reduced; SLT outcomes remained stable. Retransplantation (HR = 2.641, P = .035) and recipient weight >20 kg (HR = 5.113, P = .048) in LLS, and ischemic time >8 hours (HR = 2.475, P = .048) in ERG were identified as predictors of graft failure. A national mandatory-split policy maximizes the SLT donor resources, whose selection criteria can be safely expanded, providing favorable impact on the pediatric LT-waiting list and priority for adult sick LT candidates., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

The imbalance between supply and demand of organs for transplant will not be fully solved by changes to the allocation system. Improved organ donation and utilization must be accomplished through critical reassessment of organ procurement organization (OPO) performance as a partnership between transplant centers, OPOs, and community hospitals. The continued discussion on changes to the organ distribution system should be based on patient-centeredness, enhanced transparency, improved models, and metrics. Focusing too heavily on geography without consideration for the other factors at play risks oversimplification of this complex issue., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Livers from older donors (OLDs; age ≥70) are risky and often declined; however, it is likely that some candidates will benefit from OLDs versus waiting for younger ones. To characterize the survival benefit of accepting OLD grafts, we used 2009-2017 SRTR data to identify 24 431 adult liver transplant (LT) candidates who were offered OLD grafts eventually accepted by someone. Outcomes from the time-of-offer were compared between candidates who accepted an OLD graft and matched controls within MELD ± 2 who declined the same offer. Candidates who accepted OLD grafts (n = 1311) were older (60.5 vs. 57.8 years, P < .001), had a higher median MELD score (25 vs. 22, P < .001), and were less likely to have hepatitis C cirrhosis (14.9% vs. 31.2%, P < .001). Five-year cumulative mortality among those who accepted versus declined the same OLD offer was 23.4% versus 41.2% (P < .001). Candidates who accepted OLDs experienced an almost twofold reduction in mortality (aHR: 0.45 0.52 0.59 , P < .001) compared to those who declined the same offer, especially among the highest MELD (35-40) candidates (aHR: 0.10 0.24 0.55 , P = .001). Accepting an OLD offer provided substantial long-term survival benefit compared to waiting for a better organ offer, notably among candidates with MELD 35-40. Providers should consider these benefits as they evaluate OLD graft offers., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)