Impact of removing OPTN region from vascularized composite allograft allocation.

On 6/18/2020, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) implemented new policy replacing OPTN region with a 500 nautical mile (NM) circle around the donor hospital for the purpose of vascularized composite allograft (VCA) allocation. We used OPTN data to assess deceased donor VCA transplants in the 3 years pre- (6/19/2017-6/17/2020) vs. post-implementation (6/18/2020-6/17/2023). A total of 19 deceased donor VCA transplants were performed pre-policy (10 uterus, 3 bilateral upper limb, 1 unilateral upper limb, 3 face, 1 abdominal wall and 1 penis), and 11 post-policy (4 uterus, 1 bilateral upper limb, 2 face, 1 trachea, 2 abdominal wall, and 1 bilateral upper limb and face). Median distance from donor hospital to transplant hospital increased from 70 NM (range: 0-524 NM) pre-policy to 119 NM (range: 0-464 NM) post-policy. The majority of transplants in both policy eras were within 500 NM of the donor hospital [89.5% (N = 17/19) vs. 100% (N = 11/11)] and most remained within the same OPTN region as the donor hospital [68.4% (N = 13/19) vs. 90.9% (N = 10/11)]. Although it is difficult to draw strong conclusions about the policy's impact due to the low transplant volume and timing of implementation relative to the COVID-19 pandemic, data in the 3 years post-implementation suggest that 500 NM circles were a reasonable replacement for OPTN region in VCA allocation. The OPTN will continue to review data to monitor the policy's impact and inform future changes to VCA allocation, such as the transition to continuous distribution, a points-based framework expected to replace the current framework.

A modular simulation framework for organ allocation.

BACKGROUND: We describe and validate a new simulation framework addressing important limitations of the Simulated Allocation Models (SAMs) long used to project population effects of transplant policy changes. METHODS: We developed the Computational Open-source Model for Evaluating Transplantation (COMET), an agent-based model simulating interactions of individual donors and candidates over time to project population outcomes. COMET functionality is organized into interacting modules. Donors and candidates are synthetically generated using data-driven probability models which are adaptable to account for ongoing or hypothetical donor/candidate population trends and evolving disease management. To validate the first implementation of COMET, COMET-Lung, we attempted to reproduce lung transplant outcomes for U.S. adults from 2018-2019 and in the 6 months following adoption of the Composite Allocation Score (CAS) for lung transplant. RESULTS: Simulated (median [Interquartile Range, IQR]) vs observed outcomes for 2018-2019 were: 0.162 [0.157, 0.167] vs 0.170 waitlist deaths per waitlist year; 1.25 [1.23, 1.28] vs 1.26 transplants per waitlist year; 0.115 [0.112, 0.118] vs 0.113 post-transplant deaths per patient year; 202 [102, 377] vs 165 nautical miles travel distance. The model accurately predicted the observed precipitous decrease in transplants received by type O lung candidates in the six months following CAS implementation. CONCLUSIONS: COMET-Lung closely reproduced most observed outcomes. The use of synthetic populations in the COMET framework paves the way for examining possible transplant policy and clinical practice changes in populations reflecting realistic future states. Its flexible, modular nature can accelerate development of features to address specific research or policy questions across multiple organs.

Sarcopenia in cirrhotic patients: Does frailty matter while waiting for a liver transplant?

Sarcopenia reflects patient frailty and should be routinely assessed due to its high prevalence in cirrhotic patients awaiting liver transplants. Pre-transplant nutritional optimization should be tailored for patients with a definitive diagnosis of sarcopenia, therefore improving functional status at transplant and reducing post-transplant mortality. Hepatologists and transplant surgeons should have raised awareness regarding sarcopenia and the reflected frailty that hinder posttransplant outcomes. The policymakers should also take into account when modifying the organ allocation model that sarcopenia or frailty might become a decisive factor in allocating organs for cirrhotic patients, in order to ensure post-transplant survival and quality of life.

Increasing waiting times for status 2 patients in new United Network for Organ Sharing allocation system: Impact on waitlist and posttransplant outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Since the heart transplant allocation policy change in 2018, there has been an increase in temporary mechanical circulatory support for Status 2 patients. We sought to examine the temporal pattern of waitlist and posttransplant outcomes for Status 2 patients. METHODS: Adult patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry who were listed as Status 2 from January 2019 to June 2022 were included. Temporal trends in waitlist time, waitlist events, and posttransplant outcomes were assessed. Probability of transplant or death after being listed was compared over time. Multivariable regression was performed to identify risk factors for mortality after transplant. RESULTS: A total of 6310 patients were included. From 2019 to 2022, the number of Status 2 patients listed increased from 4.2 to 5.9 per day. Microaxial ventricular assist devices at Status 2 listing increased over time (P < .001). During the study period, median waitlist time (18 days vs 23 days, P < .001) as well as Status 2 days (8 days vs 12 days, P < .001) increased. Waitlist mortality remained stable (5.5%); however, probability of transplant within 90 days of Status 2 listing progressively declined (P < .001). Finally, longer waitlist duration was independently associated with 30-day posttransplant mortality (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.01, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Since the allocation policy change there has been a steady rise in the number of patients listed for Status 2. This has led to increasing waitlist times and lower probability of transplantation for Status 2 patients, which may have negative consequences for posttransplant outcomes.

Waitlist and transplant outcomes in heart transplant candidates bridged with temporary endovascular right ventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND: Advances in mechanical circulatory support and changes in allocation policy have shifted waitlisting practices for heart transplantation (HT) in the United States. This analysis reports waitlist and transplant outcomes among HT candidates bridged with temporary endovascular right ventricular assist devices (tRVADs). METHODS: Patients awaiting HT from 2008 to 2022 in the United Network of Organ Sharing registry were grouped by the presence of tRVAD while waitlisted and propensity matched. Waitlist outcomes were HT and a competing outcome of death/deterioration requiring waitlist inactivation. Competing-risks regression was used to model waitlist outcomes. Subanalyses were performed to compare waitlist outcomes among patients with durable and temporary left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) with and without concomitant tRVADs. One-year posttransplant mortality was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Of 41,507 HT candidates, 133 (0.3%) had tRVADs. After propensity matching, patients with tRVAD had a similar likelihood of HT and an elevated hazard for death/deterioration (hazard ratio 2.2, 95% confidence interval 1.4-3.2, p < 0.001) compared to those without tRVAD. Most patients with tRVAD (84%) had concomitant LVADs. tRVAD was associated with an elevated risk for deterioration/death among those with temporary LVADs but not durable LVADs. For patients undergoing HT, tRVAD was associated with an increased risk for 1-year mortality compared to propensity-matched recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Bridging with tRVAD is uncommon and primarily used in patients requiring biventricular support. tRVADs are associated with waitlist inactivation or death, particularly with concomitant temporary LVAD support. As temporary devices are increasingly used as a bridge to HT, outcomes of patients with tRVADs should inform future allocation policy, particularly for candidates with biventricular failure.

Non-inferior outcomes in lower urgency patients transplanted with extended criteria donor hearts.

BACKGROUND: Recent work has suggested that outcomes among heart transplant patients listed at the lower-urgency (United Network for Organ Sharing Status 4 or 6) status may not be significantly impacted by donor comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to investigate outcomes of extended criteria donors (ECD) in lower versus higher urgency patients undergoing heart transplantation. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was queried for all adult patients undergoing heart transplantation from October 18, 2018 through December 31, 2021. Patients were stratified by degree of urgency (higher urgency: UNOS 1 or 2 vs lower urgency: UNOS 4 or 6) and receipt of ECD hearts, as defined by donor hearts failing to meet established acceptable use criteria. Outcomes were compared using propensity score matched cohorts. RESULTS: Among 9,160 patients included, 2,320 (25.4%) were low urgency. ECD hearts were used in 35.5% of higher urgency (HU) patients and 39.2% of lower urgency (LU) patients. While ECD hearts had an impact on survival among high-urgency patients (p < 0.01), there was no difference in 1- and 2-year survival (p > 0.05) found among low urgency patients receiving ECD versus standard hearts. Neither ECDs nor individual ECD criteria were independently associated with mortality in low urgency patients (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Post-transplant outcomes among low urgency patients are not adversely affected by receipt of ECD vs. standard hearts. Expanding the available donor pool by optimizing use of ECDs in this population may increase transplant frequency, decrease waitlist morbidity, and improve postoperative outcomes for the transplant community at large.

Revised Heart Allocation Policy Improved Waitlist Mortality and Waiting Time With Maintained Outcomes in En-Bloc Heart-Lung Transplant Candidates and Recipients.

The revised United Network for Organ Sharing heart allocation policy was implemented in October 2018. Using a national transplant database, this study evaluated the transplant rate, waitlist mortality, waiting time, and other outcomes of en-bloc heart-lung transplantation recipients. Adult patients registered on the national database for heart-lung transplants before and after the policy update were selected as cohorts. Baseline characteristics, transplant rates, waitlist mortality, waiting times, and other outcomes were compared between the two periods. In total, 370 patients were registered for heart-lung transplants during the pre- and post-periods. There were significantly higher transplant rates, shorter waitlist times, and substantially reduced waitlist mortality in the post-period. Registered patients waitlisted in the post-period had significantly higher utilization of intra-aortic balloon pumps, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and overall life support, including ventricular assist devices. Transplant recipients had significantly longer ischemic times, increased transport distances, and shorter waiting times before transplantation in the post-policy period. Transplant recipients held similar short-term survival before and after the policy change (log-rank test, p = 0.4357). Therefore, the revised policy significantly improved access to en-bloc heart-lung allografts compared with the prior policy, with better waitlist outcomes and similar post-transplant outcomes.

Decreased survival of simultaneous heart-kidney transplant recipients in the new heart allocation era.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) modified their heart allocation policy to reduce waitlist mortality. The rates of simultaneous heart-kidney transplant (SHKT) have dramatically increased in recent years, despite increased rates of posttransplant renal failure in the new policy era. This study sought to investigate the impact of the new allocation system on waitlist and posttransplant outcomes of simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation. METHODS: Adult patients listed for SHKT between 2012 and 2021 were included. Patients were cross-validated across both Thoracic and Kidney UNOS databases to confirm accurate listing and transplant data. Patients were stratified according to listing era. The Fine and Gray model was used to assess waitlist outcomes and posttransplant renal graft function. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used to compare posttransplant survival. RESULTS: A total of 2,588 patients were included, of whom 1,406 (54.1%) were listed between 2012 and 2018 (era 1) and 1,182 (45.9%) between 2019 and 2021 (era 2). Era 2 was associated with increased likelihood of transplant (adjusted Sub-hazard ratios (aSHR): 1.52; p < 0.01) and decreased waitlist mortality (aSHR: 0.63; p < 0.01). Posttransplant survival at 2 years was decreased in era 2 (78.8% vs 86.9%; p < 0.01). Undersized hearts (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.02; p < 0.01), use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (HR: 2.67; p < 0.1), and transplants performed following the policy change (HR: 1.45; p = 0.03) were associated with increased mortality. Actuarial survival (combined waitlist and posttransplant) was significantly lower in the modern era (71.6% vs 62.2%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The allocation policy change has improved waitlist outcomes in patients listed for SHKT but potentially at the cost of worsened posttransplant outcomes.

New system, old problem: Increased wait time for high-priority transplant candidates.

The 2018 heart allocation policy sought to improve risk stratification and reduce waitlist mortality for the sickest patients. This study sought to evaluate changes in wait times for the highest priority patients since policy implementation. All adult single-organ transplant recipients were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry from October 18, 2018, to July 8, 2022, and separated into 4 periods. Outcomes were compared by blood type and UNOS region. Over the study period, 897 of 9,143 patients were listed as status 1 with no significant change in median wait time by blood type or region. More patients were listed as status 2 (4,523/9,143), and each subsequent period postpolicy change was associated with a 4.2-day increase in mean status 2 waitlist time (95% confidence interval 3.0-5.5, p < 0.0001). Wait times were longest for candidates with blood type O and shortest for AB & A. Regional variations continued, however, wait time increased in every region over time.

Improving outcomes of in situ split liver transplantation in Italy over the last 25 years.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Split liver transplant(ation) (SLT) is still considered a challenging procedure that is by no means widely accepted. We aimed to present data on 25-year trends in SLT in Italy, and to investigate if, and to what extent, outcomes have improved nationwide during this time. METHODS: The study included all consecutive SLTs performed from May 1993 to December 2019, divided into three consecutive periods: 1993-2005, 2006-2014, and 2015-2019, which match changes in national allocation policies. Primary outcomes were patient and graft survival, and the relative impact of each study period. RESULTS: SLT accounted for 8.9% of all liver transplants performed in Italy. A total of 1,715 in situ split liver grafts were included in the analysis: 868 left lateral segments (LLSs) and 847 extended right grafts (ERGs). A significant improvement in patient and graft survival (p <0.001) was observed with ERGs over the three periods. Predictors of graft survival were cold ischaemia time (CIT) <6 h (p = 0.009), UNOS status 2b (p <0.001), UNOS status 3 (p = 0.009), and transplant centre volumes: 25-50 cases vs. <25 cases (p = 0.003). Patient survival was significantly higher with LLS grafts in period 2 vs. period 1 (p = 0.008). No significant improvement in graft survival was seen over the three periods, where predictors of graft survival were CIT <6 h (p = 0.007), CIT <6 h vs. ≥10 h (p = 0.019), UNOS status 2b (p = 0.038), and UNOS status 3 (p = 0.009). Retransplantation was a risk factor in split liver graft recipients, with significantly worse graft and patient survival for both types of graft (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed Italian SLT outcomes to have improved over the last 25 years. These results could help to dispel reservations regarding the use of this procedure. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Split liver transplant(ation) (SLT) is still considered a challenging procedure and is by no means widely accepted. This study included all consecutive in situ SLTs performed in Italy from May 1993 to December 2019. With more than 1,700 cases, it is one of the largest series, examining long-term national trends in in situ SLT since its introduction. The data presented indicate that the outcomes of SLT improved during this 25-year period. Improvements are probably due to better recipient selection, refinements in surgical technique, conservative graft-to-recipient matching, and the continuous, yet carefully managed, expansion of donor selection criteria under a strict mandatory split liver allocation policy. These results could help to dispel reservations regarding the use of this procedure.

Use of exception status listing and related outcomes during two heart allocation policy periods.

BACKGROUND: The October 2018 update to the heart allocation policy was intended to decrease exception status requests, whereby candidates are listed at a specific status due to perceived need despite not meeting prespecified criteria of illness severity. We assessed the use of exception status and waitlist outcomes before and after the 2018 policy. METHODS: We used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients on adult heart transplant candidates listed from 2015 to 2021. We assessed (1) the use of exception status across patient characteristics between the two periods and (2) transplant rate and waitlist mortality or delisting due to deterioration in each period. Patients listed by exception versus standard criteria were compared with multivariable logistic regression, and waitlist outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with medical urgency and exception status as time-dependent covariates. RESULTS: During the study period (n = 19,213), heart transplants under exception status increased postpolicy from 10.0% to 32.3%, with 20.6% of transplants performed for patients at status 2 exception. Exception status candidates postpolicy were more frequently Black or Hispanic/Latino and less likely to have hypertrophic or restrictive cardiomyopathy and had worse hemodynamics. Exception status listing was associated with higher transplant rates in both periods. Postpolicy, candidates listed status 1 exception had a lower likelihood for waitlist mortality or delisting (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.99; and p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Under the 2018 policy, exception status listings dramatically increased. The policy change shifted the population of patients listed by exception status and affected waitlist mortality, which suggests a need to further evaluate the policy's impact.

Increased volume of organ offers and decreased efficiency of kidney placement under circle-based kidney allocation.

The newest kidney allocation policy kidney allocation system 250 (KAS250) broadened geographic distribution while increasing allocation system complexity. We studied the volume of kidney offers received by transplant centers and the efficiency of kidney placement since KAS250. We identified deceased-donor kidney offers (N = 907,848; N = 36,226 donors) to 185 US transplant centers from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021 (policy implemented March 15, 2021). Each unique donor offered to a center was considered a single offer. We compared the monthly volume of offers received by centers and the number of centers offered before the first acceptance using an interrupted time series approach (pre-/post-KAS250). Post-KAS250, transplant centers received more kidney offers (level change: 32.5 offers/center/mo, P < .001; slope change: 3.9 offers/center/mo, P = .003). The median monthly offer volume post-/pre-KAS250 was 195 (interquartile range 137-253) vs. 115 (76-151). There was no significant increase in deceased-donor transplant volume at the center level after KAS250, and center-specific changes in offer volume did not correlate with changes in transplant volume (r = -0.001). Post-KAS250, the number of centers to whom a kidney was offered before acceptance increased significantly (level change: 1.7 centers/donor, P < .001; slope change: 0.1 centers/donor/mo, P = .014). These findings demonstrate the logistical burden of broader organ sharing, and future allocation policy changes will need to balance equity in transplant access with the operational efficiency of the allocation system.

Characteristics of donor lungs declined on site and impact of lung allocation policy change.

OBJECTIVE: National and institutional data suggest an increase in organ discard rate (donor lungs procured but not implanted) after a new lung allocation policy was introduced in 2017. However, this measure does not include on-site decline rate (donor lungs declined intraoperatively). The objective of this study is to examine the impact of the allocation policy change on on-site decline. METHODS: We used a Washington University (WU) and our local organ procurement organization (Mid-America Transplant [MTS]) database to abstract data on all accepted lung offers from 2014 to 2021. An on-site decline was defined as an event in which the procuring team declined the organs intraoperatively, and the lungs were not procured. Logistic regression models were used to investigate potentially modifiable reasons for decline. RESULTS: The overall study cohort comprised 876 accepted lung offers, of which 471 donors were at MTS with WU or others as the accepting center and 405 at other organ procurement organizations with WU as the accepting center. At MTS, the on-site decline rate increased from 4.6% to 10.8% (P = .01) after the policy change. Given the greater likelihood of non-local organ placement and longer travel distance after policy change, the estimated cost of each on-site decline increased from $5727 to $9700. In the overall group, latest partial pressure of oxygen (odds ratio [OR], 0.993; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.989-0.997), chest trauma (OR, 2.474; CI, 1.018-6.010), chest radiograph abnormality (OR, 2.902; CI, 1.289-6.532), and bronchoscopy abnormality (OR, 3.654; CI, 1.813-7.365) were associated with on-site decline, although lung allocation policy era was unassociated (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: We found that nearly 8% of accepted lungs are declined on site. Several donor factors were associated with on-site decline, although lung allocation policy change did not have a consistent impact on on-site decline.

National Liver Allocation Policy-Consensus Document by the Liver Transplantation Society of India for a Nationally Uniform System of Allocation of Deceased Donor Liver Grafts.

Background: Deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is increasing in India and now constitutes nearly one-third of all liver transplantation procedures performed in the country. There is currently no uniform national system of allocation of deceased donor livers. Methods: A national task force consisting of 19 clinicians involved in liver transplantation from across the country was constituted under the aegis of the Liver Transplantation Society of India to develop a consensus document addressing the above issues using a modified Delphi process of consensus development. Results: The National Liver Allocation Policy consensus document includes 46 statements covering all aspects of DDLT, including minimum listing criteria, listing for acute liver failure, DDLT wait-list management, system of prioritisation based on clinical urgency for adults and children, guidelines for allocation of paediatric organs and allocation priorities for liver grafts recovered from public sector hospitals. Conclusion: This document is the first step in the setting up of a nationally consistent policy of deceased donor liver allocation.

Impact of the 2018 UNOS Heart Transplant Policy Changes on Patient Outcomes.

In 2018, the United Network for Organ Sharing implemented a 6-tier allocation policy to replace the prior 3-tier system. Given increasing listings of critically ill candidates for heart transplantation and lengthening waitlist times, the new policy aimed to better stratify candidates by waitlist mortality, shorten waiting times for high priority candidates, add objective criteria for common cardiac conditions, and further broaden sharing of donor hearts. There have been significant shifts in cardiac transplantation practices and patient outcomes following the implementation of the new policy, including changes in listing practices, waitlist time and mortality, transplant donor characteristics, post-transplantation outcomes, and mechanical circulatory support use. This review aims to highlight emerging trends in United States heart transplantation practice and outcomes following the implementation of the 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing heart allocation policy and to address areas for future modification.

State of pediatric liver transplantation in the United States and achieving zero wait list mortality with ideal outcomes: A statement from the Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplant Surgeon's Working Group.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplant is a life-saving therapy that can restore quality life for several pediatric liver diseases. However, it is not available to all children who need one. Expertise in medical and surgical management is heterogeneous, and allocation policies are not optimally serving children. Technical variant grafts from both living and deceased donors are underutilized. METHODS: Several national efforts in pediatric liver transplant to improve access to and outcomes from liver transplant for children have been instituted and include adjustments to allocation policies, UNOS-sponsored collaborative improvement projects, and the emergence of national learning networks to study ongoing challenges in the field the Surgical Working group of the Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplantation (SNEPT) discusses key issues and proposes potential solutions to eliminate the persistent wait list mortality that pediatric patients face. RESULTS: A discussion of the factors impacting pediatric patients' access to liver transplant is undertaken, along with a proposal of several measures to ensure equitable access to life-saving liver transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric liver transplant wait list mortality can and should be eliminated. Several measures, including collaborative efforts among centers, could be leveraged to acheive this goal.

A national assessment of one-year heart outcomes after the 2018 adult heart allocation change.

PURPOSE: On 10/18/2018 the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) implemented modifications to adult heart allocation to better stratify the most medically urgent candidates by WL mortality. This paper reviews two years of post-policy monitoring with focus on post-transplant outcomes, especially for recipients with MCSDs. METHODS: Cohorts of WL additions and recipients pre (10/18/16-10/17/18) and post (10/18/18-10/17/20) policy implementation were compared using the OPTN database. Competing risks analyses of waitlist mortality and Kaplan-Meier one-year post-transplant survival were performed by medical urgency statuses and policy era. Similar analyses were performed for subsets of candidates and recipients on devices. RESULTS: Pre-implementation status 1A candidates had the highest cumulative incidence of removal from the waitlist due to death or too sick to transplant and the highest cumulative incidence of transplant, followed by statuses 1B and 2. Median time to transplant decreased from 226 to 85 days for those transplanted. There was no difference in one-year patient survival (pre=91.3% [90.2, 92.4]; post=91.8% [90.8, 92.9]; p=0.44) overall, or for recipients transplanted with an LVAD (pre=91.7% [90.1, 93.2]; post=91.4% [89.7, 93.2]; p=0.85) or IABP (pre=91.7% [88.1, 95.4]; post=92.1% [90.1, 94.0]; p=0.92). CONCLUSION: The policy improved stratification of the most medically urgent candidates according to risk of death on the WL with decreased median wait times, higher transplant rates and no observed adverse effect on 1-year patient survival. No adverse effects for candidates listed or transplanted on IABP, ECMO, or LVAD were observed.

Modern outcomes of heart-lung transplantation: assessing the impact of the updated US allocation system.

OBJECTIVES: In 2018, the United Network for Organ Sharing modified their heart allocation policy to reduce waitlist mortality and prioritize patients with the greatest acuity. Considering declining rates of combined heart-lung transplantation, this study sought to investigate the impact of the new allocation system on waitlist and post-transplant outcomes of patients listed for combined heart-lung transplantation. METHODS: Adult patients listed for combined heart-lung transplant between 2012 and 2021 were included. Patients were stratified according to listing era. Competing risk regression was used to assess waitlist outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to establish risk factors for post-transplant mortality. RESULTS: A total of 511 patients were included, of whom 295 (57.8%) were listed in era 1 and 216 (42.2%) in era 2. Era 2 was associated with increased likelihood of transplant (adjusted standard hazard ratio (aSHR): 1.60 [1.23-2.07]; P < 0.01) and decreased waitlist mortality (aSHR: 0.43 [0.25-0.73]; P < 0.01). Despite longer ischaemic times and increased use of preoperative veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in era 2, early post-transplant survival was equivalent. Predicted heart mass ratio <0.8 (Hazard ratio (HR); 3.24; P = 0.01), ventilator support (HR: 3.83; P < 0.01) and greater ischaemic times (HR: 1.80; P < 0.01) independently predicted the mortality. Procedures at high centre volumes (HR: 0.36; P = 0.04) were associated with decreased mortality. Use of ECMO was not predictive of mortality in the modern era. CONCLUSIONS: The allocation policy change has led to improvements in waitlist outcomes in patients listed for heart-lung transplantation. Despite increased ischaemic times and use of ECMO, early post-transplant survival was equivalent.

The New Distance-Based Kidney Allocation System: Implications for Patients, Transplant Centers, and Organ Procurement Organizations.

Purpose of Review: The goal of deceased donor kidney allocation policy is to provide objective prioritization for donated kidneys, and policy has undergone a series of revisions in the past decade in attempt to achieve equity and utility in access to kidney transplantation. Most recently, to address geographic disparities in access to kidney transplantation, the Kidney Allocation System changed to a distance-based allocation system-colloquially termed "KAS 250"-moving away from donor service areas as the geographic basis of allocation. We review the early impact of this policy change on access to transplant for patients, and on complexity of organ allocation and transplantation for transplant centers and organ procurement organizations. Recent Findings: Broader sharing of kidneys has increased complexity of the allocation system, as transplant centers and OPOs now interact in larger networks. The increased competition resulting from this system, and the increased operational burden on centers and OPOs resulting from greater numbers of organ offers, may adversely affect organ utilization. Preliminary results suggest an increase in transplant rate overall but a trend toward higher kidney discard and increased cold ischemia time. Summary: The KAS 250 allocation policy changed the geographic basis of deceased donor kidney distribution in a manner that is intended to reduce geographic disparities in access to kidney transplantation. Close monitoring of this policy's impact on patients, transplant center behavior, and process measures is critical to the aim of maximizing access to transplant while achieving transplant equity.