Declining Medicare reimbursement in abdominal transplantation from 2000 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is a major payer for abdominal transplant services. Reimbursement reductions could have a major impact on the transplant surgical workforce and hospitals. Yet government reimbursement trends in abdominal transplantation have not been fully characterized. METHODS: We performed an economic analysis to characterize changes in inflation-adjusted trends in Medicare surgical reimbursement for abdominal transplant procedures. Using the Medicare Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool, we performed a procedure code-based surgical reimbursement rate analysis. Reimbursement rates were adjusted for inflation to calculate overall changes in reimbursement, overall year-over-year, 5-year year-over-year, and compound annual growth rate from 2000 to 2021. RESULTS: We observed declines in adjusted reimbursement of common abdominal transplant procedures, including liver (-32.4%), kidney with and without nephrectomy (-24.2% and -24.1%, respectively), and pancreas transplant (-15.2%) (all, P < .05). Overall, the yearly average change for liver, kidney with and without nephrectomy, and pancreas transplant were -1.54%, -1.15%, -1.15%, and -0.72%. Five-year annual change averaged -2.69%, -2.35%, -2.64%, and -2.43%, respectively. The overall average compound annual growth rate was -1.27%. CONCLUSION: This analysis depicts a worrisome reimbursement pattern for abdominal transplant procedures. Transplant surgeons, centers, and professional organizations should note these trends to advocate sustainable reimbursement policy and to preserve continued access to transplant services.

Solid Organ Transplantation From SARS-CoV-2-infected Donors to Uninfected Recipients: A Single-center Experience.

BACKGROUND: The risk of donor-derived severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in solid organ (heart, lung, liver, kidney, pancreas, and intestine) transplant recipients is poorly understood. Since hematogenous transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has not been documented to date, nonlung solid organs might be suitable for transplantation since they likely portend a low risk of viral transmission. METHODS: Abdominal solid organs from SARS-CoV-2-infected donors were transplanted into uninfected recipients. RESULTS: Between April 18, 2021, and October 30, 2021, we performed transplants of 2 livers, 1 simultaneous liver and kidney, 1 kidney, and 1 simultaneous kidney and pancreas from SARS-CoV-2-infected donors into 5 uninfected recipients. None of the recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection or coronavirus disease 2019, and when tested, allograft biopsies showed no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. CONCLUSIONS: Transplanting nonlung organs from SARS-CoV-2-infected donors into uninfected recipients demonstrated no evidence of virus transmission.

Correlation of Chronic Histologic Changes on Preimplantation Frozen Section Biopsy With Transplant Outcomes After Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation.

CONTEXT.­: It is unclear if preimplantation frozen section biopsy correlates with outcomes after deceased donor kidney transplantation. OBJECTIVE.­: To assess if chronic histologic changes on the preimplant frozen section correlates with graft loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate independently of kidney donor profile index (KDPI). DESIGN.­: Seven hundred three preimplantation biopsies were reviewed and a Banff sum score was calculated using glomerular sclerosis, interstitial fibrosis, vascular intimal thickening, and arteriolar hyalinosis. The posttransplant outcomes were compared for preimplantation biopsy Banff sum 0-1, 2-3, and 4-9. The cohort was also stratified by KDPI 85 or less versus more than 85. RESULTS.­: For the entire biopsy cohort, graft survival, estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year, and chronic changes on a 1-year posttransplant biopsy were superior in the group with preimplantation Banff sum 0-1. After stratifying by KDPI, the Banff sum no longer correlated with graft survival. In a univariate mode, using the Banff sum score as a continuous variable, a higher Banff sum score was significantly associated with graft failure (P = .03); however, after adjusting the KDPI, the Banff sum score no longer correlated with graft failure (P = .45). The 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate and 1-year biopsy changes were superior in the group with Banff sum 0-1 only in the cohort with KDPI 85 or less. CONCLUSIONS.­: In donor kidneys used for transplant, preimplantation biopsy chronic changes correlate with estimated glomerular filtration rate and biopsy findings at 1 year, but biopsies with mostly mild chronicity and Banff sum scores less than or equal to 5 did not impact graft survival beyond KDPI.

Intraoperative fluid management and kidney transplantation outcomes: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing kidney transplantation traditionally receive liberal amounts of fluid during surgery. However, excessive fluids can lead to fluid overload and ileus. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared the effect of restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy on kidney transplantation outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent deceased-donor kidney transplantation at Mayo Clinic from January 2014 to March 2019 were included. Those who received <3 L of intravenous fluids intraoperatively were categorized as "restrictive;" those who received ≥3 L were categorized as "liberal." The primary outcome was incidence of delayed graft function (DGF). Secondary outcomes included length of stay, readmission within 30 days, time to return of bowel function, and incidence of postoperative complications. RESULTS: Of the 1171 patients included, 557 were in the restrictive group and 614 in the liberal group. The mean (SD) fluid intake was 2.17 (.54) L in the restrictive group and 3.67 (.68) L in the liberal group (P<.001). There was no difference in DGF (relative risk, 1.03; P = .56), length of stay (P = .34), readmission (P = .80), return of bowel function (P = .71), or other postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative restrictive fluid therapy during kidney transplantation was not associated with DGF or worse outcomes when compared with liberal fluid therapy.

Liver Transplant in a Polymerase Chain Reaction-Positive COVID-19 Recipient: A Case Report.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has ushered in an era of hesitation in performing transplants in affected patients. This stems from the paucity of data regarding the testing modalities, long-term implications, and uncertain prognosis in this group of patients. Current guidance from the Centers for Disease Control recommends assessing symptoms rather than polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity. In light of these recommendations, we describe a case of an orthotopic liver transplant in a patient infected with COVID-19 with persistent PCR positivity for 40 days before retransplant. The patient's perioperative and postoperative course was uncomplicated. Our experience leads us to advocate for liver transplants in patients who are PCR positive for COVID-19 after careful individualized and multidisciplinary evaluation regarding their liver disease and COVID-19 symptomatology.

Early technical pancreas failure in Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Recipients does not impact renal allograft outcomes.

Early pancreas loss in simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplants has been associated with longer perioperative recovery and reduced kidney allograft function. We assessed the impact of early pancreas allograft failure on transplant outcomes in a contemporary cohort of SPK patients (n = 218). Early pancreas allograft loss occurred in 12.8% (n = 28) of recipients. Delayed graft function (DGF) was more common (21.4% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.03) in the early pancreas loss group, but there were no differences in hospital length of stay (median 6.5 vs. 7.0, p = 0.22), surgical wound complications (p = 0.12), or rejection episodes occurring in the first year (p = 0.87). Despite differences in DGF, both groups had excellent renal function at 1 year post-transplant (eGFR 64.1 ± 20.8 vs. 65.8 ± 22.9, p = 0.75). There were no differences in patient (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.18-1.87, p = 0.26) or kidney allograft survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.23-3.06, p = 0.77). One- and 2-year protocol kidney biopsies were comparable between the groups and showed minimal chronic changes; the early pancreas loss group showed more cv changes at 2 years (p = 0.04). Current data demonstrate good outcomes and excellent kidney allograft function following early pancreas loss.

Robot Assisted Renal Allograft Nephrectomy: Initial Case Series and Description of Technique.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes and perioperative complication rates following robot- assisted transplant nephrectomy ((RATN). METHODS: All patients who underwent RATN at our institution were included. No exclusion criteria were applied. Clinical records were retrospectively reviewed and reported. This included preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes. Complications were reported utilizing the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Descriptive statistics were reported using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables, means and standard deviation for continuous variables. RESULTS: Between July 2014 and April 2018, 15 patients underwent RATN. Most patients had the transplant in the right iliac fossa (13/15). Ten patients underwent a concomitant procedure. The total operative time for the entire cohort was 336 (±102) minutes (including cases who had concomitant procedures) and 259 (±46 minutes) when cases with concomitant procedures were excluded. Mean estimated blood loss was 383 (±444) mL. Postoperatively, 3 patients required blood transfusion. Average hospital stay was 4 (±2.7) days. Most patients had finding consistent with graft rejection on final pathology. There were 5 complications; 3 of which were minor (grade 2 = 2 and grade 3 = 1); one patient had a wound infection requiring dressing (3A) and one patient died due to pulmonary embolism following discharge. Limitations include small series and retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSION: This case series demonstrate that RATN is technically feasible. With continued experience and larger case series, the robotic approach may provide a minimally invasive alternative to open allograft nephrectomy.

Financial compensation for organ donors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With an increasing demand for donor organs, strategies to increase the number of available donor organs have become more focused. Compensating donors for donation is one strategy proposed to increase the availability of organs for transplant. This has been implemented in several systems internationally, but debate continues in the United States with respect to appropriate strategies. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) currently prohibits the transfer of any human organ 'for valuable consideration' for transplantation, but allows for the removal of financial disincentives. RECENT FINDINGS: Several proposals currently exist for compensating patients for living donation. Recent data have focused on studying and creating mechanisms for reimbursement of costs incurred as part of the donation process, which is related to the removal of disincentives to living donation. Others have advocated for the provision of actual incentives to patients for the act of donating, in an attempt to further expand living donation. The current debate focuses on what measures can reasonably be taken to increase donation, and whether additional incentives will encourage more donation or reduce the motivation for altruistic donation. SUMMARY: Currently, the transplant community broadly supports the removal of disincentives for living donors, including reimbursement of expenses for travel, housing and lost wages incurred during evaluation, surgery and after care. Others have advocated for financial incentives to further increase the number of donor organs available for transplant. Although the removal of disincentives is currently allowed under the existing legal structure of NOTA, providing financial incentives for living donation would require further evaluation of the economics, law, ethics and public readiness for a significant policy shift.