Search

Introduction: Some living organ donors will decide to donate again at a later date. Evidence has indicated that this practice may have increased in recent years. We evaluated the incidence and outcomes of this practice to inform counseling of potential repeat donors., Methods: Using SRTR data from 1994 to 2023, we identified 220 repeat living donors and their 415 recipients. We constructed donor comparison groups using weighting by the odds. We described clinical and lab results at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years post-donation separately for kidney-second donors and liver-second donors. We compared all-cause graft failure for their recipients with those of comparison donors., Results: The annual count of repeat living donors increased from 5 in 2018 to 25 in 2019 (p < 0.001). Of 220 donors, 159 were liver-second donors (72.3%) and 55 were kidney-second donors (25.0). The percentage of nondirected donations increased from 30.5% at first donation to 53.2% at second donation (p < 0.001). Liver-second donors had one death approximately 2.5 years post-donation. Seventeen were re-admitted and 20 experienced complications requiring an interventional procedure or re-operation. Among kidney-second donors, no deaths, re-admissions, or post-donation complications were reported. Post-donation outcomes in both groups were comparable when evaluated against organ-specific comparison donors. Recipients of repeat living donors experienced graft survival similar to recipients of comparison donors., Conclusions: Repeat living donation may be a safe practice for carefully selected living donors in the short term; however, long term safety is unknown. Outcomes for recipients are similar to recipients of comparison donors., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Individuals who work on health data systems and services are uniquely positioned to understand the risks of health data collection and use. We designed and conducted a survey assessing the perceptions of those who work with health data around health data consent, sharing, and privacy practices in healthcare and clinical research., Methods: A 43-item online survey was distributed via a market research firm to individuals (18+) who work with health data in the United States from March to April 2023. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Associations with demographic variables were assessed using Pearson's X 2 tests and ordinal logistic regression., Results: Most of our respondents (61.7%) reported that they would trust people to use their health data across various sectors, but more respondents trusted those working in academic medical research (86.5%) and healthcare offices (89.9%) compared to those working in industry (68.2%). Despite this reported trust, a strong majority believed that individuals should have complete control over their health data (97.3%), specific consent should be obtained for each use of their health data (92.0%), and that there should be higher standards of consent and privacy for health records data than other types of data (93.7%)., Conclusions: Based on our findings, we might infer that people who work with health data generally trust institutions across sectors to protect their health data. However, many would prefer to have complete control over who has access to their health data and how it is used. These insights should be explored further through qualitative studies., Competing Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background: Kidney transplant (KT) candidates with HIV face higher mortality on the waitlist compared with candidates without HIV. Because the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act has expanded the donor pool to allow donors with HIV (D + ), it is crucial to understand whether this has impacted transplant rates for this population., Methods: Using a linkage between the HOPE in Action trial (NCT03500315) and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 324 candidates listed for D + kidneys (HOPE) compared with 46 025 candidates not listed for D + kidneys (non-HOPE) at the same centers between April 26, 2018, and May 24, 2022. We characterized KT rate, KT type (D + , false-positive [FP; donor with false-positive HIV testing], D - [donor without HIV], living donor [LD]) and quantified the association between HOPE enrollment and KT rate using multivariable Cox regression with center-level clustering; HOPE was a time-varying exposure., Results: HOPE candidates were more likely male individuals (79% versus 62%), Black (73% versus 35%), and publicly insured (71% versus 52%; P  < 0.001). Within 4.5 y, 70% of HOPE candidates received a KT (41% D + , 34% D - , 20% FP, 4% LD) versus 43% of non-HOPE candidates (74% D - , 26% LD). Conversely, 22% of HOPE candidates versus 39% of non-HOPE candidates died or were removed from the waitlist. Median KT wait time was 10.3 mo for HOPE versus 60.8 mo for non-HOPE candidates ( P  < 0.001). After adjustment, HOPE candidates had a 3.30-fold higher KT rate (adjusted hazard ratio = 3.30, 95% confidence interval, 2.14-5.10; P  < 0.001)., Conclusions: Listing for D + kidneys within HOPE trials was associated with a higher KT rate and shorter wait time, supporting the expansion of this practice for candidates with HIV., Competing Interests: D.L.S. receives honoraria for AstraZeneca, CareDx, Houston Methodist, Northwell Health, Optum Health Education, Sanofi, and WebMd, as well as consulting fees from AstraZeneca, CareDx, Moderna Therapeutics, Novavax, Regeneron, and Springer Publishing. C.M.D. received honoraria from Gilead Sciences for serving on a grant review committee. V.S. received research grant support from Eli Lilly and Company and consulting fees from DiaSorin SpA. M.P. received grant support from Merck, Hologic, Moderna, Shire/Takeda, and Pfizer, as well as provided consultation to/serves on the advisory board for Rebiotix, Takeda, and Union Therapeutics. C.B.S. has received grants paid to her institution from GlaxoSmithKline, ViiV, Abbott, Merck, Gilead, Chimerix, Shire/Takeda, Schering-Plough, Ablynx, Janssen, Ansun Biopharma, and Karyopharm Therapeutics. G.H. is a recipient of research grants from Allovir, Karius, and AstraZeneca. G.H. serves on the scientific advisory boards of Karius and AstraZeneca and has received honoraria from MDOutlook and MAD-ID/ID Connect. J.H. is a recipient of grants paid to his institution from Pfizer, Janssen, and Scynexis. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) following cardiac death is an emerging multivisceral organ procurement technique. Recent national studies on outcomes of presumptive TA-NRP-procured organs are limited by potential misclassification since TA-NRP is not differentiated from donation after cardiac death (DCD) in registry data., Methods: We studied 22 donors whose designees consented to TA-NRP and organ procurement performed at our institution between January 20, 2020 and July 3, 2022. We identified these donors in SRTR to describe organ utilization and recipient outcomes and compared them to recipients of traditional DCD (tDCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) organs during the same timeframe., Results: All 22 donors progressed to cardiac arrest and underwent TA-NRP followed by heart, lung, kidney, and/or liver procurement. Median donor age was 41 years, 55% had anoxic brain injury, 45% were hypertensive, 0% were diabetic, and median kidney donor profile index was 40%. TA-NRP utilization was high across all organ types (88%-100%), with a higher percentage of kidneys procured via TA-NRP compared to tDCD (88% vs. 72%, p = .02). Recipient and graft survival ranged from 89% to 100% and were comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients (p ≥ .2). Delayed graft function was lower for kidneys procured from TA-NRP compared to tDCD donors (27% vs. 44%, p = .045)., Conclusion: Procurement from TA-NRP donors yielded high organ utilization, with outcomes comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients across organ types. Further large-scale study of TA-NRP donors, facilitated by its capture in the national registry, will be critical to fully understand its impact as an organ procurement technique., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Older compatible living donor kidney transplant (CLDKT) recipients have higher mortality and death-censored graft failure (DCGF) compared to younger recipients. These risks may be amplified in older incompatible living donor kidney transplant (ILDKT) recipients who undergo desensitization and intense immunosuppression. In a 25-center cohort of ILDKT recipients transplanted between September 24, 1997, and December 15, 2016, we compared mortality, DCGF, delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR), and length of stay (LOS) between 234 older (age ≥60 years) and 1172 younger (age 18-59 years) recipients. To investigate whether the impact of age was different for ILDKT recipients compared to 17 542 CLDKT recipients, we used an interaction term to determine whether the relationship between posttransplant outcomes and transplant type (ILDKT vs CLDKT) was modified by age. Overall, older recipients had higher mortality (hazard ratio: 1.63 2.07 2.65 , P < .001), lower DCGF (hazard ratio: 0.36 0.53 0.77 , P = .001), and AR (odds ratio: 0.39 0.54 0.74 , P < .001), and similar DGF (odds ratio: 0.46 1.03 2.33 , P = .9) and LOS (incidence rate ratio: 0.88 0.98 1.10 , P = 0.8) compared to younger recipients. The impact of age on mortality (interaction P = .052), DCGF (interaction P = .7), AR interaction P = .2), DGF (interaction P = .9), and LOS (interaction P = .5) were similar in ILDKT and CLDKT recipients. Age alone should not preclude eligibility for ILDKT., (Copyright © 2023 American Society of Transplantation & American Society of Transplant Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the context of the organ shortage, donation after circulatory death (DCD) provides an opportunity to expand the donor pool. Although deceased-donor liver transplantation from DCD donors has expanded, DCD livers continue to be discarded at elevated rates; the use of DCD livers from older donors, or donors with comorbidities, is controversial., Methods: Using US registry data from 2009 to 2020, we identified 1564 candidates on whose behalf a DCD liver offer was accepted ("acceptors") and 16 981 candidates on whose behalf the same DCD offers were declined ("decliners"). We characterized outcomes of decliners using a competing risk framework and estimated the survival benefit (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) of accepting DCD livers using Cox regression., Results: Within 10 y of DCD offer decline, 50.9% of candidates died or were removed from the waitlist before transplantation with any type of allograft. DCD acceptors had lower mortality compared with decliners at 10 y postoffer (35.4% versus 48.9%, P < 0.001). After adjustment for candidate covariates, DCD offer acceptance was associated with a 46% reduction in mortality (0.54 [0.49-0.61]). Acceptors of older (age ≥50), obese (body mass index ≥30), hypertensive, nonlocal, diabetic, and increased risk DCD livers had 44% (0.56 [0.42-0.73]), 40% (0.60 [0.49-0.74]), 48% (0.52 [0.41-0.66]), 46% (0.54 [0.45-0.65]), 32% (0.68 [0.43-1.05]), and 45% (0.55 [0.42-0.72]) lower mortality risk compared with DCD decliners, respectively., Conclusions: DCD offer acceptance is associated with considerable long-term survival benefits for liver transplant candidates, even with older DCD donors or donors with comorbidities. Increased recovery and utilization of DCD livers should be encouraged., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many centers have removed 6-mo pretransplant alcohol abstinence requirements to provide early liver transplant (ELT) for individuals with severe alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), but the practice remains controversial. Using data collected from a nationally distributed survey, this study examines the practices and attitudes of transplant centers in the United States regarding ELT., Methods: A 20-item survey designed to assess center practices and provider attitudes was distributed to 225 medical and surgical directors from 143 liver transplant centers via email., Results: Surveys were completed by 28.9% (n = 65) of directors and 39% (n = 56) of transplant centers. All responding centers reported evaluating patients for ELT. Circumstances for considering ELT included <6 mo of survival without a transplant (96.4%) and inability to participate in alcohol addiction therapy pretransplant (75%). Most (66%) directors indicated their center had established criteria for listing candidates with severe ALD for ELT. Regarding important factors for ELT candidate listing, 57.1% indicated patient survival, 37.5% indicated graft survival, and 55.4% indicated having a low risk of relapse. Only 12.7% of directors affirmed the statement, "Six months of pretransplant abstinence decreases the risk of relapse.", Conclusions: More centers are providing ELT for severe ALD. Inability to participate in alcohol addiction therapy and <6 mo of survival are commonly reported circumstances for considering ELT. Continued investigation of posttransplant outcomes in patients receiving ELT is essential to establishing a national consensus for distributing this valuable resource., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Transplantation Direct. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (ILDKTr) require desensitization to facilitate transplantation, and this substantial upfront immunosuppression may result in serious complications, including cancer., Methods: To characterize cancer risk in ILDKTr, we evaluated 858 ILDKTr and 12 239 compatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (CLDKTr) from a multicenter cohort with linkage to the US transplant registry and 33 cancer registries (1997-2016). Cancer incidence was compared using weighted Cox regression., Results: Among ILDKTr, the median follow-up time was 6.7 y (maximum 16.1 y) for invasive cancers (ascertained via cancer registry linkage) and 5.0 y (maximum 16.1 y) for basal and squamous cell carcinomas (ascertained via the transplant registry and censored for transplant center loss to follow-up). Invasive cancers occurred in 53 ILDKTr (6.2%) and 811 CLDKTr (6.6%; weighted hazard ratio [wHR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.35). Basal and squamous cell carcinomas occurred in 41 ILDKTr (4.8%) and 737 CLDKTr (6.0%) (wHR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.69-1.40). Cancer risk did not vary according to donor-specific antibody strength, and in an exploratory analysis, was similar between CLDKTr and ILDKTr for most cancer types and according to cancer stage, except ILDKTr had a suggestively increased risk of colorectal cancer (wHR 3.27; 95% CI, 1.23-8.71); however, this elevation was not significant after correction for multiple comparisons., Conclusions: These findings indicate that the risk of cancer is not increased for ILDKTr compared with CLDKTr. The possible elevation in colorectal cancer risk is unexplained and might suggest a need for tailored screening or prevention., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Transplantation Direct. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background Pre-liver transplant (LT) sarcopenia is associated with poor survival. Methods exist for measuring body composition with use of CT scans; however, it is unclear which components best predict post-LT outcomes. Purpose To quantify the association between abdominal CT-based body composition measurements and post-LT mortality in a large North American cohort. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective cohort of adult first-time deceased-donor LT recipients from 2009 to 2018 who underwent pre-LT abdominal CT scans, including at the L3 vertebral level, at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Measurements included sarcopenia (skeletal muscle index [SMI] <50 in men and <39 in women), sarcopenic obesity, myosteatosis (skeletal muscle CT attenuation <41 mean HU for body mass index [BMI] <25 and <33 mean HU for BMI ≥25), visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and VAT/SAT ratio. Covariates in the adjusted models were selected with use of least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression with lambda chosen by means of 10-fold cross-validation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to quantify associations with post-LT mortality. Model discrimination was quantified using the Harrell C-statistic. Results A total of 454 recipients (median age, 57 years [IQR, 50-62 years]; 294 men) were evaluated. In the adjusted model, pre-LT sarcopenia was associated with a higher hazard ratio (HR) of post-LT mortality (HR, 1.6 [95% CI: 1.1, 2.4]; C-statistic, 0.64; P = .02). SMI was significantly negatively associated with survival after adjustment for covariates. There was no evidence that myosteatosis was associated with mortality (HR, 1.3 [95% CI: 0.86, 2.1]; C-statistic, 0.64; P = .21). There was no evidence that BMI (HR, 1.2 [95% CI: 0.95, 1.4]), VAT (HR, 1.0 [95% CI: 0.98, 1.1]), SAT (HR, 1.0 [95% CI: 0.97, 1.0]), and VAT/SAT ratio (HR, 1.1 [95% CI: 0.90, 1.4]) were associated with mortality ( P = .15-.77). Conclusions Sarcopenia, as assessed on routine pre-liver transplant (LT) abdominal CT scans, was the only factor significantly associated with post-LT mortality. © RSNA, 2022 See also the editorial by Ruehm in this issue.

Steatotic livers represent a potentially underutilized resource to increase the donor graft pool; however, 1 barrier to the increased utilization of such grafts is the heterogeneity in the definition and the measurement of macrovesicular steatosis (MaS). Digital imaging software (DIS) may better standardize definitions to study posttransplant outcomes. Using HALO, a DIS, we analyzed 63 liver biopsies, from 3 transplant centers, transplanted between 2016 and 2018, and compared macrovesicular steatosis percentage (%MaS) as estimated by transplant center, donor hospital, and DIS. We also quantified the relationship between DIS characteristics and posttransplant outcomes using log-linear regression for peak aspartate aminotransferase, peak alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin on postoperative day 7, as well as logistic regression for early allograft dysfunction. Transplant centers and donor hospitals overestimated %MaS compared with DIS, with better agreement at lower %MaS and less agreement for higher %MaS. No DIS analyzed liver biopsies were calculated to be >20% %MaS; however, 40% of liver biopsies read by transplant center pathologists were read to be >30%. Percent MaS read by HALO was positively associated with peak aspartate aminotransferase (regression coefficient= 1.04 1.08 1.12 , p <0.001), peak alanine aminotransferase (regression coefficient = 1.04 1.08 1.12 , p <0.001), and early allograft dysfunction (OR= 1.10 1.40 1.78 , p =0.006). There was no association between HALO %MaS and total bilirubin on postoperative day 7 (regression coefficient = 0.99 1.01 1.04 , p =0.3). DIS provides reproducible quantification of steatosis that could standardize MaS definitions and identify phenotypes associated with good clinical outcomes to increase the utilization of steatite livers., (Copyright © 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Individuals considering living kidney donation face geographic, financial, and logistical challenges. Telemedicine can facilitate healthcare access/care coordination. Yet difficulties exist in telemedicine implementation and sustainability. We sought to examine centers' practices and providers' attitudes toward telemedicine to improve services for donors. We surveyed multidisciplinary providers from 194 active adult US living donor kidney transplant centers; 293 providers from 128 unique centers responded to the survey (center representation rate = 66.0%), reflecting 83.9% of practice by donor volume and 91.5% of US states/territories. Most centers (70.3%) plan to continue using telemedicine beyond the pandemic for donor evaluation/follow-up. Video was mostly used by nephrologists, surgeons, and psychiatrists/psychologists. Telephone and video were mostly used by social workers, while video or telephone was equally used by coordinators. Half of respondent nephrologists and surgeons were willing to accept a remote completion of physical exam; 68.3% of respondent psychiatrists/psychologists and social workers were willing to accept a remote completion of mental status exam. Providers strongly agreed that telemedicine was convenient for donors and would improve the likelihood of completing donor evaluation. However, providers (65.5%) perceived out-of-state licensing as a key policy/regulatory barrier. These findings help inform practice and underscore the instigation of policies to remove barriers using telemedicine to increase living kidney donation., (© 2022 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.)

Background: Organ transplantation from donors with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to recipients with HIV (HIV D+/R+) presents risks of donor-derived infections. Understanding clinical, immunologic, and virologic characteristics of HIV-positive donors is critical for safety., Methods: We performed a prospective study of donors with HIV-positive and HIV false-positive (FP) test results within the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act in Action studies of HIV D+/R+ transplantation (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602262, NCT03500315, and NCT03734393). We compared clinical characteristics in HIV-positive versus FP donors. We measured CD4 T cells, HIV viral load (VL), drug resistance mutations (DRMs), coreceptor tropism, and serum antiretroviral therapy (ART) detection, using mass spectrometry in HIV-positive donors., Results: Between March 2016 and March 2020, 92 donors (58 HIV positive, 34 FP), representing 98.9% of all US HOPE donors during this period, donated 177 organs (131 kidneys and 46 livers). Each year the number of donors increased. The prevalence of hepatitis B (16% vs 0%), syphilis (16% vs 0%), and cytomegalovirus (CMV; 91% vs 58%) was higher in HIV-positive versus FP donors; the prevalences of hepatitis C viremia were similar (2% vs 6%). Most HIV-positive donors (71%) had a known HIV diagnosis, of whom 90% were prescribed ART and 68% had a VL <400 copies/mL. The median CD4 T-cell count (interquartile range) was 194/µL (77-331/µL), and the median CD4 T-cell percentage was 27.0% (16.8%-36.1%). Major HIV DRMs were detected in 42%, including nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (33%), integrase strand transfer inhibitors (4%), and multiclass (13%). Serum ART was detected in 46% and matched ART by history., Conclusion: The use of HIV-positive donor organs is increasing. HIV DRMs are common, yet resistance that would compromise integrase strand transfer inhibitor-based regimens is rare, which is reassuring regarding safety., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Liver transplantation (LT) from donors-with-HIV to recipients-with-HIV (HIV D+/R+) is permitted under the HOPE Act. There are only three international single-case reports of HIV D+/R+ LT, each with limited follow-up. We performed a prospective multicenter pilot study comparing HIV D+/R+ to donors-without-HIV to recipients-with-HIV (HIV D-/R+) LT. We quantified patient survival, graft survival, rejection, serious adverse events (SAEs), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) breakthrough, infections, and malignancies, using Cox and negative binomial regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Between March 2016-July 2019, there were 45 LTs (8 simultaneous liver-kidney) at 9 centers: 24 HIV D+/R+, 21 HIV D-/R+ (10 D- were false-positive). The median follow-up time was 23 months. Median recipient CD4 was 287 cells/µL with 100% on antiretroviral therapy; 56% were hepatitis C virus (HCV)-seropositive, 13% HCV-viremic. Weighted 1-year survival was 83.3% versus 100.0% in D+ versus D- groups (p = .04). There were no differences in one-year graft survival (96.0% vs. 100.0%), rejection (10.8% vs. 18.2%), HIV breakthrough (8% vs. 10%), or SAEs (all p > .05). HIV D+/R+ had more opportunistic infections, infectious hospitalizations, and cancer. In this multicenter pilot study of HIV D+/R+ LT, patient and graft survival were better than historical cohorts, however, a potential increase in infections and cancer merits further investigation., (© 2021 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: Historically, donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers were frequently discarded because of higher mortality and graft loss after liver transplantation (LT). However, the demand for LT continues to outstrip the supply of "acceptable" organs. Additionally, changes in the donor pool, organ allocation, and clinical management of donors and recipients, and improved clinical protocols might have altered post-DCD-LT outcomes., Methods: We studied 5975 recovered DCD livers using US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017, with a comparison group of 78 235 adult donation after brain death (DBD) livers recovered during the same time period. We quantified temporal trends in discard using adjusted multilevel logistic regression and temporal trends in post-LT mortality and graft loss for DCD LT recipients using adjusted Cox regression., Results: DCD livers were more likely to be discarded than DBD livers across the entire study period, and the relative likelihood of discard increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of discard DCD versus DBD 3.854.455.14 2005-2007, 5.225.876.59 2015-2017) despite improving outcomes after DCD LT. Mortality risk for DCD LTs decreased in each time period (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.720.840.97, aHR 2012-2014 0.480.580.70, aHR 2015-2017 0.340.430.55), as did risk of graft loss (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.690.810.94, aHR 2012-2014 0.450.550.67, aHR 2015-2017 0.360.450.56)., Conclusions: Despite dramatic improvements in outcomes of DCD LT recipients, DCD livers remain substantially more likely to be discarded than DBD livers, and this discrepancy has actually increased over time. DCD livers are underutilized and have the potential to expand the donor pool., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Background: We studied the safety and reactogenicity SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in transplant recipients because immunosuppressed patients were excluded from vaccine trials., Methods: US transplant recipients were recruited into this prospective cohort study through social media; those who completed the full vaccine series between December 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021 were included. We collected demographics, medical history, and safety information within 7 d after doses 1 and 2 (D1, D2). Associations between characteristics and reactions were evaluated using modified Poisson regression., Results: We studied 741 transplant recipients who underwent BNT162b2 (54%) or mRNA-1273 (46%) vaccination. Median (interquartile range) age was 60 (44-69) y, 57% were female, and 10% were non-White. Although local site reactions decreased after D2 (85% D1 versus 78% D2, P < 0.001), systemic reactions increased (49% D1 versus 69% D2, P < 0.001). Younger participants were more likely to develop systemic symptoms after D1 (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] per 10 y = 0.850.900.94, P < 0.001) and D2 (aIRR per 10 y = 0.910.930.96, P < 0.001). Participants who experienced pain (aIRR = 1.111.662.47, P = 0.01) or redness (aIRR = 1.833.928.41, P < 0.01) were more likely to develop an antibody response to D1 of mRNA vaccines. No anaphylaxis, neurologic diagnoses, or SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses were reported. Infections were minimal (3% after D1, <0.01% after D2). One patient reported incident acute rejection post-D2., Conclusions: In solid organ transplant recipients undergoing mRNA vaccination, reactogenicity was similar to that reported in the original trials. Severe reactions were rare. These early safety data may help address vaccine hesitancy in transplant recipients., Competing Interests: The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a variable course across the United States. Understanding its evolving impact on heart and lung transplantation (HT and LT) will help with planning for next phases of this pandemic as well as future ones., Methods: We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from before the pandemic to predict the number of waitlist registrations and transplants expected to occur between March 15, 2020, and December 31, 2020 (if no pandemic had occurred), and compared these expectations to observed rates. The observed era was divided into wave 1 (March 15-May 31), wave 2 (June 1-September 30), and wave 3 (October 1-December 31). We used multilevel Poisson regression to account for center- and state-level COVID-19 incidence., Results: During wave 1, rates of heart registrations and transplants were 28% (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-0.77]) and 13% (IRR: 0.87 [95% CI, 0.80-0.93]) lower than expected; lung registrations and transplants were 40% (IRR: 0.60 [95% CI, 0.54-0.66]) and 28% (IRR: 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66-0.79]) lower. Decreases were greatest in states with the highest incidence where registrations were 53% (IRR: 0.47 [95% CI, 0.36-0.62]) and 59% (IRR: 0.41 [95% CI, 0.29-0.58]) and transplants were 57% (IRR: 0.43 [95% CI, 0.31-0.60]) and 58% (IRR: 0.42 [95% CI, 0.29-0.62]) lower than expected. Whereas HT largely recovered during waves 2 and 3, LT continued to fall short of expectations through the end of the year., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic in the US substantially reduced thoracic transplant access. Ongoing evaluation of the risks and benefits of this dramatic practice change is critical to inform clinical decision-making moving forward., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Transplantation Direct. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Kidney transplantation (KT) is controversial in patients with pretransplant pulmonary hypertension (PtPH). We aimed to quantify post-KT graft and patient survival as well as survival benefit in recipients with PtPH., Methods: Using UR Renal Data System (2000-2018), we studied 90 819 adult KT recipients. Delayed graft function, death-censored graft failure, and mortality were compared between recipients with and without PtPH using inverse probability weighted logistic and Cox regression. Survival benefit of KT was determined using stochastic matching and stabilized inverse probability treatment Cox regression., Results: Among 90 819 KT recipients, 2641 (2.9%) had PtPH. PtPH was associated with higher risk of delayed graft function (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.10-1.36; P  < 0.01), death-censored graft failure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38; P  < 0.01), and mortality (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.44-1.69; P  < 0.01). However, patients with PtPH who received a KT had a 46% reduction in mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.48-0.61; P  < 0.01) compared with those who remained on the waitlist., Conclusions: Although PtPH is associated with inferior post-KT outcomes, KT is associated with better survival compared with remaining on the waitlist. Therefore, KT is a viable treatment modality for appropriately selected patients with PtPH., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Transplantation Direct. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Importance: Historically, deceased organ donation was lower among Black compared with White populations, motivating efforts to reduce racial disparities. The overarching effect of these efforts in Black and other racial/ethnic groups remains unclear., Objective: To examine changes in deceased organ donation over time., Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study used data from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2017, from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to quantify the number of actual deceased organ donors, and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research Detailed Mortality File to quantify the number of potential donors (individuals who died under conditions consistent with organ donation). Data were analyzed from December 2, 2019, to May 14, 2020., Exposures: Race and ethnicity of deceased and potential donors., Main Outcomes and Measures: For each racial/ethnic group and year, a donation ratio was calculated as the number of actual deceased donors divided by the number of potential donors. Direct age and sex standardization was used to allow for group comparisons, and Poisson regression was used to quantify changes in donation ratio over time., Results: A total of 141 534 deceased donors and 5 268 200 potential donors were included in the analysis. Among Black individuals, the donation ratio increased 2.58-fold from 1999 to 2017 (yearly change in adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.05-1.05; P < .001). This increase was significantly greater than the 1.60-fold increase seen in White individuals. Nevertheless, substantial racial differences remained, with Black individuals still donating at only 69% the rate of White individuals in 2017 (P < .001). Among other racial minority populations, changes were less drastic. Deceased organ donation increased 1.80-fold among American Indian/Alaska Native and 1.40-fold among Asian or Pacific Islander populations, with substantial racial differences remaining in 2017 (American Indian/Alaska Native population donation at 28% and Asian/Pacific Islander population donation at 85% the rate of the White population). Deceased organ donation differences between Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino populations increased over time (4% lower in 2017)., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that differences in deceased organ donation between White and some racial minority populations have attenuated over time. The greatest gains were observed among Black individuals, who have been the primary targets of study and intervention. Despite improvements, substantial differences remain, suggesting that novel approaches are needed to understand and address relatively lower rates of deceased organ donation among all racial minorities.

Desensitization has enabled incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) across HLA/ABO barriers, but added immunomodulation might put patients at increased risk of infections. We studied 475 recipients from our center from 2010 to 2015, categorized by desensitization intensity: none/compatible (n = 260), low (0-4 plasmaphereses, n = 47), moderate (5-9, n = 74), and high (≥10, n = 94). The 1-year cumulative incidence of infection was 50.1%, 49.8%, 66.0%, and 73.5% for recipients who received none, low, moderate, and high-intensity desensitization (P < .001). The most common infections were UTI (33.5% of ILDKT vs. 21.5% compatible), opportunistic (21.9% vs. 10.8%), and bloodstream (19.1% vs. 5.4%) (P < .001). In weighted models, a trend toward increased risk was seen in low (wIRR = 0.77 1.40 2.56 ,P = .3) and moderately (wIRR = 0.88 1.35 2.06 ,P = .2) desensitized recipients, with a statistically significant 2.22-fold (wIRR = 1.33 2.22 3.72 ,P = .002) increased risk in highly desensitized recipients. Recipients with ≥4 infections were at higher risk of prolonged hospitalization (wIRR = 2.62 3.57 4.88 , P < .001) and death-censored graft loss (wHR = 1.15 4.01 13.95 ,P = .03). Post-KT infections are more common in desensitized ILDKT recipients. A subset of highly desensitized patients is at ultra-high risk for infections. Strategies should be designed to protect patients from the morbidity of recurrent infections, and to extend the survival benefit of ILDKT across the spectrum of recipients., (© 2020 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.)

Incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (ILDKTr) have pre-existing donor-specific antibody (DSA) that, despite desensitization, may persist or reappear with resulting consequences, including delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR). To quantify the risk of DGF and AR in ILDKT and downstream effects, we compared 1406 ILDKTr to 17 542 compatible LDKT recipients (CLDKTr) using a 25-center cohort with novel SRTR linkage. We characterized DSA strength as positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch (PLNF); positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch (PFNC); or positive cytotoxic crossmatch (PCC). DGF occurred in 3.1% of CLDKT, 3.5% of PLNF, 5.7% of PFNC, and 7.6% of PCC recipients, which translated to higher DGF for PCC recipients (aOR =  1.03 1.68 2.72 ). However, the impact of DGF on mortality and DCGF risk was no higher for ILDKT than CLDKT (p interaction > .1). AR developed in 8.4% of CLDKT, 18.2% of PLNF, 21.3% of PFNC, and 21.7% of PCC recipients, which translated to higher AR (aOR PLNF =  1.45 2.09 3.02 ; PFNC =  1.67 2.40 3.46 ; PCC =  1.48 2.24 3.37 ). Although the impact of AR on mortality was no higher for ILDKT than CLDKT (p interaction = .1), its impact on DCGF risk was less consequential for ILDKT (aHR =  1.34 1.62 1.95 ) than CLDKT (aHR =  1.96 2.29 2.67 ) (p interaction = .004). Providers should consider these risks during preoperative counseling, and strategies to mitigate them should be considered., (© 2020 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Kidneys from older (age ≥50 years) donation after cardiac death (DCD50) donors are less likely to be transplanted due to inferior posttransplant outcomes. However, candidates who decline a DCD50 offer must wait for an uncertain future offer. To characterize the survival benefit of accepting DCD50 kidneys, we used 2010-2018 Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data to identify 92 081 adult kidney transplantation candidates who were offered a DCD50 kidney that was eventually accepted for transplantation. DCD50 kidneys offered to candidates increased from 590 in 2010 to 1441 in 2018. However, 34.6% of DCD50 kidneys were discarded. Candidates who accepted DCD50 offers had 49% decreased mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.46 0.51 0.55 , cumulative mortality at 6-year 23.3% vs 34.0%, P < .001) compared with those who declined the same offer (decliners). Six years after their initial DCD50 offer decline, 43.0% of decliners received a deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT), 6.3% received living donor kidney transplant (LDKT), 22.6% died, 22.0% were removed for other reasons, and 6.0% were still on the waitlist. Comparable survival benefit was observed even with DCD donors age ≥60 (aHR: 0.42 0.52 0.65 , P < .001). Accepting DCD50 kidneys was associated with a substantial survival benefit; providers and patients should consider these benefits when evaluating offers., (© 2020 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Infections remain a major threat to successful kidney transplantation (KT). To characterize the landscape and impact of post-KT infections in the modern era, we used United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data linked to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) to study 141 661 Medicare-primary kidney transplant recipients from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2014. Infection diagnoses were ascertained by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes. The cumulative incidence of a post-KT infection was 36.9% at 3 months, 53.7% at 1 year, and 78.0% at 5 years. The most common infections were urinary tract infection (UTI; 46.8%) and pneumonia (28.2%). Five-year mortality for kidney transplant recipients who developed an infection was 24.9% vs 7.9% for those who did not, and 5-year death-censored graft failure (DCGF) was 20.6% vs 10.1% (P < .001). This translated to a 2.22-fold higher mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.15 2.22 2.29 , P < .001) and 1.92-fold higher DCGF risk (aHR: 1.84 1.91 1.98 , P < .001) for kidney transplant recipients who developed an infection, although the magnitude of this higher risk varied across infection types (for example, 3.11-fold higher mortality risk for sepsis vs 1.62-fold for a UTI). Post-KT infections are common and substantially impact mortality and DCGF, even in the modern era. Kidney transplant recipients at high risk for infections might benefit from enhanced surveillance or follow-up to mitigate these risks., (© 2020 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: Transplant recipients with HIV may have worse outcomes with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to impaired T-cell function coupled with immunosuppressive drugs. Alternatively, immunosuppression might reduce inflammatory complications and/or antiretrovirals could be protective., Methods: Prospective reporting of all cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection was required within the HOPE in Action Multicenter Consortium, a cohort of kidney and liver transplant recipients with HIV who have received organs from donors with and without HIV at 32 transplant centers in the United States., Results: Between March 20, 2020 and September 25, 2020, there were 11 COVID-19 cases among 291 kidney and liver recipients with HIV (4%). In those with COVID-19, median age was 59 y, 10 were male, 8 were kidney recipients, and 5 had donors with HIV. A higher proportion of recipients with COVID-19 compared with the overall HOPE in the Action cohort were Hispanic (55% versus 12%) and received transplants in New York City (73% versus 34%, P < 0.05). Most (10/11, 91%) were hospitalized. High-level oxygen support was required in 7 and intensive care in 5; 1 participant opted for palliative care instead of transfer to the intensive care unit. HIV RNA was undetectable in all. Median absolute lymphocyte count was 0.3 × 103 cells/μL. Median CD4 pre-COVID-19 was 298 cells/μL, declining to <200 cells/μl in 6/7 with measurements on admission. Treatment included high-dose steroids (n = 6), tocilizumab (n = 3), remdesivir (n = 2), and convalescent plasma (n = 2). Four patients (36%) died., Conclusions: Within a national prospective cohort of kidney and liver transplant recipients with HIV, we report high mortality from COVID-19., Competing Interests: D.L.S. reports speaking honoraria from Novartis. C.M.D. reports serving on a grant review committee for Gilead Sciences as well as research grants paid to the institution from Abbvie and GlaxoSmithKline. C.B.S. has received grants paid to her institution from GlaxoSmithKline, ViiV, Abbott, Merck, Gilead, Chimerix, Shire, Schering, Ablynx, and Janssen. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In March 2020, COVID-19 infections began to rise exponentially in the USA, placing substantial burden on the healthcare system. As a result, there was a rapid change in transplant practices and policies, with cessation of most procedures. Our goal was to understand changes to pediatric kidney transplantation (KT) at the national level during the COVID-19 epidemic., Methods: Using SRTR data, we examined changes in pediatric waitlist registration, waitlist removal or inactivation, and deceased donor and living donor (DDKT/LDKT) events during the start of the disease transmission in the USA compared with the same time the previous year., Results: We saw an initial decrease in DDKT and LDKT by 47% and 82% compared with expected events and then a continual increase, with numbers reaching expected prepandemic levels by May 2020. In the early phase of the pandemic, waitlist inactivation and removals due to death or deteriorating condition rose above expected values by 152% and 189%, respectively. There was a statistically significant decrease in new waitlist additions (IRR 0.49 0.65 0.85 ) and LDKT (IRR 0.17 0.38 0.84 ) in states with high vs. low COVID activity. Transplant recipients during the pandemic were more likely to have received a DDKT, but had similar calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) values, waitlist time, and cause of kidney failure as before the pandemic., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic initially reduced access to kidney transplantation among pediatric patients in the USA but has not had a sustained effect.

The transmission of cancer from a donor organ is a rare event but has important consequences. Aim of this systematic review was to summarize all the published evidence on cancer transmission in kidney recipients. We reviewed published case reports and series describing the outcome of recipients with donor-transmitted cancer until August 2019. A total of 128 papers were included, representing 234 recipients. The most common transmitted cancers were lymphoma (n = 48, 20.5%), renal cancer (42, 17.9%), melanoma (40, 17.1%), non-small cell lung cancer (n = 13, 5.6%), neuroendocrine cancers comprising small cell lung cancer (n = 11, 4.7%) and choriocarcinoma (n = 10, 4.3%). There was a relative lack of glioblastoma and gastrointestinal cancers with only 6 and 5 cases, respectively. Melanoma and lung cancer had the worst prognosis, with 5-years overall survival of 43% and 19%, respectively; while renal cell cancer and lymphomas had a favorable prognosis with 5-years overall survival of 93 and 63%, respectively. Metastasis of cancer outside the graft was the most important adverse prognostic factor. Overall reporting was good, but information on donors' cause of death and investigations at procurement was often lacking. Epidemiology of transmitted cancer has evolved, thanks to screening with imaging and blood tests, as choriocarcinoma transmission have almost abolished, while melanoma and lymphoma are still difficult to detect and prevent.

The first sustained increase in live kidney donation in the United States in 15 years was observed from 2017 to 2019. To help sustain this surge, we studied 35 900 donors (70.3% white, 14.5% Hispanic, 9.3% black, 4.4% Asian) to understand the increase in 2017-2019 vs 2014-2016 using Poisson regression. Among biologically related donors aged <35, 35-49, and ≥50 years, the number of donors did not change across race/ethnicity but increased by 38% and 29% for Hispanic and black ≥50. Among unrelated donors <35, 35-49, and ≥50, white donors increased by 18%, 14%, and 27%; Hispanic donors <35 did not change but increased by 22% and 35% for 35-49 and ≥50; black donors <35 declined by 23% and did not change for 35-49 and ≥50; Asian donors did not change. Among kidney paired donors <35, 35-49, and ≥50, white donors increased by 42%, 50%, and 68%; Hispanic donors <35 and 35-49 increased by 36% and 55% and did not change for ≥50; black donors did not change; Asian donors <35 did not change but increased by 107% and 82% for 35-49 and ≥50. The increase in donation was driven predominantly by unrelated and paired white donors. Donation among unrelated black individuals should be promoted., (© 2020 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

The evaluation and care of non-US citizen, non-US residents who wish to come to the United States to serve as international living kidney donors (ILKDs) can pose unique challenges. We surveyed US transplant programs to better understand practices related to ILKD care. We distributed the survey by email and professional society list-servs (Fall 2018, assessing 2017 experience). Eighty-five programs responded (36.8% program response rate), of which 80 considered ILKD candidates. Only 18 programs had written protocols for ILKD evaluation. Programs had a median of 3 (range: 0,75) ILKD candidates who initiated contact during the year, from origin countries spanning 6 continents. Fewer (median: 1, range: 0,25) were approved for donation. Program-reported reasons for not completing ILKD evaluations included visa barriers (58.6%), inability to complete evaluation (34.3%), concerns regarding follow-up (31.4%) or other healthcare access (28.6%), and financial impacts (21.4%). Programs that did not evaluate ILKDs reported similar concerns. Staff time required to evaluate ILKDs was estimated as 1.5-to-3-times (47.9%) or >3-times (32.9%) that needed for domestic candidates. Among programs accepting ILKDs, on average 55% reported successful completion of 1-year follow-up. ILKD evaluation is a resource-intensive process with variable outcomes. Planning and commitment are necessary to care for this unique candidate group., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Donor livers with ≥30% macrosteatosis (steatotic livers) represent a possible expansion to the donor pool, but are frequently discarded as they are associated with an increased risk of mortality and graft loss. We hypothesized that there are certain recipient phenotypes that would tolerate donor steatosis well, and are therefore best suited to receive these grafts., Methods: Using national registry data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between 2006 and 2017, we compared 2048 liver transplant recipients of steatotic livers with 69 394 recipients of nonsteatotic (<30%) livers. We identified recipient factors that amplified the impact of donor steatosis on mortality and graft loss using interaction analysis, classifying recipients without these factors as preferred recipients. We compared mortality and graft loss with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers in preferred and nonpreferred recipients using Cox regression., Results: Preferred recipients of steatotic livers were determined to be first-time recipients with a model for end-stage liver disease 15-34, without primary biliary cirrhosis, and not on life support before transplant. Preferred recipients had no increased mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.921.041.16; P = 0.5) or graft loss (HR: 0.931.031.15; P = 0.5) with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers. Conversely, nonpreferred recipients had a 41% increased mortality risk (HR: 1.171.411.70; P < 0.001) and 39% increased risk of graft loss (HR: 1.161.391.66; P < 0.001) with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers., Conclusions: The risks of liver transplantation with steatotic donor livers could be minimized by appropriate recipient matching.

Prioritization of highly sensitized (HS) candidates under the kidney allocation system (KAS) and growth of large, multicenter kidney-paired donation (KPD) clearinghouses have broadened the transplant modalities available to HS candidates. To quantify temporal trends in utilization of these modalities, we used SRTR data from 2009 to 2017 to study 39 907 adult HS (cPRA ≥ 80%) waitlisted candidates and 19 003 recipients. We used competing risks regression to quantify temporal trends in likelihood of DDKT, KPD, and non-KPD LDKT for HS candidates (Era 1: January 1, 2009-December 31, 2011; Era 2: January 1, 2012-December 3, 2014; Era 3: December 4, 2014-December 31, 2017). Although the likelihood of DDKT and KPD increased over time for all HS candidates (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] Era 3 vs 1 for DDKT: 1.74 1.85 1.97 , P < .001 and for KPD: 1.70 2.20 2.84 , P < .001), the likelihood of non-KPD LDKT decreased (aSHR: 0.69 0.82 0.97 , P = .02). However, these changes affected HS recipients differently based on cPRA. Among recipients, more cPRA 98%-99.9% and 99.9%+ recipients underwent DDKT (96.2% in Era 3% vs 59.1% in Era 1 for cPRA 99.9%+), whereas fewer underwent non-KPD LDKT (1.9% vs 30.9%) or KPD (2.0% vs 10.0%). Although KAS increased DDKT likelihood for the most HS candidates, it also decreased the use of non-KPD LDKT to transplant cPRA 98%+ candidates., (© 2020 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: There is concern in the transplant community that outcomes for the most highly sensitized recipients might be poor under Kidney Allocation System (KAS) high prioritization., Methods: To study this, we compared posttransplant outcomes of 525 pre-KAS (December 4, 2009, to December 3, 2014) calculated panel-reactive antibodies (cPRA)-100% recipients to 3026 post-KAS (December 4, 2014, to December 3, 2017) cPRA-100% recipients using SRTR data. We compared mortality and death-censored graft survival using Cox regression, acute rejection, and delayed graft function (DGF) using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) using negative binomial regression., Results: Compared with pre-KAS recipients, post-KAS recipients were allocated kidneys with lower Kidney Donor Profile Index (median 30% versus 35%, P < 0.001) but longer cold ischemic time (CIT) (median 21.0 h versus 18.6 h, P < 0.001). Compared with pre-KAS cPRA-100% recipients, those post-KAS had higher 3-year patient survival (93.6% versus 91.4%, P = 0.04) and 3-year death-censored graft survival (93.7% versus 90.6%, P = 0.005). The incidence of DGF (29.3% versus 29.2%, P = 0.9), acute rejection (11.2% versus 11.7%, P = 0.8), and median LOS (5 d versus 5d, P = 0.2) were similar between pre-KAS and post-KAS recipients. After accounting for secular trends and adjusting for recipient characteristics, post-KAS recipients had no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.861.623.06, P = 0.1), death-censored graft failure (aHR: 0.521.001.91, P > 0.9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.580.861.27, P = 0.4), acute rejection (aOR: 0.610.941.43, P = 0.8), and LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: 0.981.161.36, P = 0.08)., Conclusions: We did not find any statistically significant worsening of outcomes for cPRA-100% recipients under KAS, although longer-term monitoring of posttransplant mortality is warranted.

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.)