Navigating the COVID-19 pandemic: Initial impacts and responses of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network in the United States.

COVID-19 has been sweeping the globe, hitting the United States particularly hard with a state of emergency declared on March 13, 2020. Transplant hospitals have taken various precautions to protect patients from potential exposure. OPTN donor, candidate, and transplant data were analyzed from January 5, 2020 to September 5, 2020. The number of new waiting list registrations decreased, with the Northeast seeing over a 50% decrease from the week of 3/8 versus the week of 4/5. The national transplant system saw near cessation of living donor transplantation (-90%) from the week of 3/8 to the week of 4/5. Similarly, deceased donor kidney transplant volume dropped from 367 to 202 (-45%), and other organs saw similar decreases: lung (-70%), heart (-43%), and liver (-37%). Deceased donors recovered dropped from 260 to 163 (-45%) from 3/8 compared to 4/5, including a 67% decrease for lungs recovered. The magnitude of this decrease varied by geographic area, with the largest percent change (-67%) in the Northeast. Despite the pandemic, discard rates across organ has remained stable. Although the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, OPTN data show recent evidence of stabilization, an indication that an early recovery of the number of living and deceased donors and transplants has ensued.

National landscape of HIV+ to HIV+ kidney and liver transplantation in the United States.

The HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act, enacted on November 21, 2013, enables research on the transplantation of organs from donors infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (HIV+) into HIV+ individuals who, prior to transplantation, are infected with HIV. In 2015, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network revised organ allocation policies on November 21, and on November 23, the Secretary of Health and Human Services published research criteria and revised the Final Rule accordingly. The HOPE Act appears to be underutilized to date. As of December 31, 2018, there were 56 donors recovered (50 donors transplanted) resulting in 102 organs transplanted (31 liver, 71 kidney). As of December 31, 2018, 212 registrations were indicated on the waiting list as willing to accept an HIV+ kidney or liver, most of which were waiting in active status. Due to the limited number of transplants performed to date, definitive safety conclusions cannot be reached at this time, though current data suggest that 1-year patient and graft survival does not deviate in a major way from that observed in HIV+ recipients of non-HIV+ organs or non-HIV+ recipients. As safety data are reviewed and disseminated, it is anticipated that HOPE participation will increase should safety signals remain low.

Risk of end-stage renal disease following live kidney donation.

IMPORTANCE: Risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in kidney donors has been compared with risk faced by the general population, but the general population represents an unscreened, high-risk comparator. A comparison to similarly screened healthy nondonors would more properly estimate the sequelae of kidney donation. OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of ESRD in kidney donors with that of a healthy cohort of nondonors who are at equally low risk of renal disease and free of contraindications to live donation and to stratify these comparisons by patient demographics. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 96,217 kidney donors in the United States between April 1994 and November 2011 and a cohort of 20,024 participants of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) were linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to ascertain development of ESRD, which was defined as the initiation of maintenance dialysis, placement on the waiting list, or receipt of a living or deceased donor kidney transplant, whichever was identified first. Maximum follow-up was 15.0 years; median follow-up was 7.6 years (interquartile range [IQR], 3.9-11.5 years) for kidney donors and 15.0 years (IQR, 13.7-15.0 years) for matched healthy nondonors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cumulative incidence and lifetime risk of ESRD. RESULTS: Among live donors, with median follow-up of 7.6 years (maximum, 15.0), ESRD developed in 99 individuals in a mean (SD) of 8.6 (3.6) years after donation. Among matched healthy nondonors, with median follow-up of 15.0 years (maximum, 15.0), ESRD developed in 36 nondonors in 10.7 (3.2) years, drawn from 17 ESRD events in the unmatched healthy nondonor pool of 9364. Estimated risk of ESRD at 15 years after donation was 30.8 per 10,000 (95% CI, 24.3-38.5) in kidney donors and 3.9 per 10,000 (95% CI, 0.8-8.9) in their matched healthy nondonor counterparts (P < .001). This difference was observed in both black and white individuals, with an estimated risk of 74.7 per 10,000 black donors (95% CI, 47.8-105.8) vs 23.9 per 10,000 black nondonors (95% CI, 1.6-62.4; P < .001) and an estimated risk of 22.7 per 10,000 white donors (95% CI, 15.6-30.1) vs 0.0 white nondonors (P < .001). Estimated lifetime risk of ESRD was 90 per 10,000 donors, 326 per 10,000 unscreened nondonors (general population), and 14 per 10,000 healthy nondonors. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with matched healthy nondonors, kidney donors had an increased risk of ESRD over a median of 7.6 years; however, the magnitude of the absolute risk increase was small. These findings may help inform discussions with persons considering live kidney donation.

Estimates of early death, acute liver failure, and long-term mortality among live liver donors.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We sought to estimate the risk of perioperative mortality or acute liver failure for live liver donors in the United States and avoid selection or ascertainment biases and sample size limitations. METHODS: We followed up 4111 live liver donors in the United States between April 1994 and March 2011 for a mean of 7.6 years; deaths were determined from the Social Security Death Master File. Survival data were compared with those from live kidney donors and healthy participants of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III. RESULTS: Seven donors had early deaths (1.7 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-3.5); risk of death did not vary with age of the liver recipient (1.7 per 1000 for adults vs 1.6 per 1000 for pediatric recipients; P = .9) or portion of liver donated (2.0 per 1000 for left lateral segment, 2.8 per 1000 for left lobe, and 1.5 per 1000 for right lobe; P = .8). There were 11 catastrophic events (early deaths or acute liver failures; 2.9 per 1000; 95% CI, 1.5-5.1); similarly, risk did not vary with recipient age (3.1 per 1000 adult vs 1.6 per 1000 pediatric; P = .4) or portion of liver donated (2.0 per 1000 for left lateral segment, 2.8 per 1000 for left lobe, and 3.3 per 1000 for right lobe; P = .9). Long-term mortality of live liver donors was comparable to that of live kidney donors and NHANES participants (1.2%, 1.2%, and 1.4% at 11 years, respectively; P = .9). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of early death among live liver donors in the United States is 1.7 per 1000 donors. Mortality of live liver donors does not differ from that of healthy, matched individuals over a mean of 7.6 years.

Liver allografts from hepatitis C positive donors can offer good outcomes in hepatitis C positive recipients: a US National Transplant Registry analysis.

Organ donors are screened for the hepatitis C antibody (anti-HCV) and those with positive tests can be used under extended criteria donation. However, there is still a question of long-term organ viability. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term outcomes of anti-HCV positive (HCV+) liver grafts. The US Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Scientific Registry was reviewed for the period from April 1994 to February 6, 2008 and 56,275 liver transplantations were analyzed. In total, there were 19,496 HCV+ recipients and 934 HCV+ donors. Patient and graft survival were assessed accounting for both donor and recipient anti-HCV status. Multivariable proportional hazards survival models were developed to adjust for factors known to affect post-transplant survival. With anti-HCV negative (HCV-) recipient/HCV- donor as the reference, the adjusted hazard ratio for death was similar for HCV+ recipient/HCV- donor compared with HCV+ recipient/HCV+ donor (1.176 vs. 1.165, P = 0.91). Our results suggest that HCV+ liver donors do not subject the HCV+ recipient to an increased risk for death over the HCV- donor, keeping in mind that careful donor and recipient selection is critical for the proper use of these extended criteria donors.

Perioperative mortality and long-term survival following live kidney donation.

CONTEXT: More than 6000 healthy US individuals every year undergo nephrectomy for the purposes of live donation; however, safety remains in question because longitudinal outcome studies have occurred at single centers with limited generalizability. OBJECTIVES: To study national trends in live kidney donor selection and outcome, to estimate short-term operative risk in various strata of live donors, and to compare long-term death rates with a matched cohort of nondonors who are as similar to the donor cohort as possible and as free as possible from contraindications to live donation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Live donors were drawn from a mandated national registry of 80 347 live kidney donors in the United States between April 1, 1994, and March 31, 2009. Median (interquartile range) follow-up was 6.3 (3.2-9.8) years. A matched cohort was drawn from 9364 participants of the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) after excluding those with contraindications to kidney donation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgical mortality and long-term survival. RESULTS: There were 25 deaths within 90 days of live kidney donation during the study period. Surgical mortality from live kidney donation was 3.1 per 10,000 donors (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-4.6) and did not change during the last 15 years despite differences in practice and selection. Surgical mortality was higher in men than in women (5.1 vs 1.7 per 10,000 donors; risk ratio [RR], 3.0; 95% CI, 1.3-6.9; P = .007), in black vs white and Hispanic individuals (7.6 vs 2.6 and 2.0 per 10,000 donors; RR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-7.1; P = .01), and in donors with hypertension vs without hypertension (36.7 vs 1.3 per 10,000 donors; RR, 27.4; 95% CI, 5.0-149.5; P < .001). However, long-term risk of death was no higher for live donors than for age- and comorbidity-matched NHANES III participants for all patients and also stratified by age, sex, and race. CONCLUSION: Among a cohort of live kidney donors compared with a healthy matched cohort, the mortality rate was not significantly increased after a median of 6.3 years.

Deceased donors with a past history of malignancy: an organ procurement and transplantation network/united network for organ sharing update.

Approximately 2% of deceased donor organ transplants result from donors with a past history of cancer. An analysis of Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing data on 39,455 deceased donors from 2000 to 2005 showed 1069 donors had a PHC, resulting in 2508 transplants, including 1236 kidneys, 891 livers, 199 hearts, 100 lungs, and 82 miscellaneous organs. The most common type of previous cancer in the donor was nonmelanoma skin cancer (n=776) followed by central nervous system malignancies (n=642) and carcinoma of the uterine cervix (n=336). One donor with a glioblastoma multiforme transmitted fatal tumors to three recipients. One donor with a history of melanoma 32 years earlier transmitted a fatal melanoma to a single recipient and, therefore, donors with a history of melanoma should not be used. Donors with a past history of cancer who have a nontraumatic cerebral hemorrhage cause concern because this hemorrhage may be the result of an unrecognized metastatic tumor.

Early mortality rates in older kidney recipients with comorbid risk factors.

BACKGROUND: There are over 60,000 candidates on the deceased donor kidney wait-list and the percentage of candidates over age 50 years continues to grow each year. National data have not previously been used to evaluate the association of comorbidities with mortality in older patients. METHODS: A multivariate analysis of 30,262 deceased donor primary kidney recipients aged 18-59 years and 8,895 aged >or=60 years evaluated the association of six recipient comorbidities on 90- and 365-day patient mortality rates. The additional effects of expanded criteria donors (ECD) and development of delayed graft function (DGF) were also evaluated. RESULTS: The 365-day mortality rate for recipients aged >or=60 years (10.5%) was more than twice that of recipients aged 18-59 years (4.4%) and comorbidities significantly increased mortality rates even higher (10.6-21.4%). The 365-day mortality rate for recipients aged >or=60 years who received an ECD kidney was 14.4% and who developed DGF was 15.9% while recipients with comorbidities but no DGF and no ECD ranged from 16.0 to 42.3%. The 365-day transplant mortality rate of recipients aged >or=60 years with comorbidities is higher than the 365-day wait-list mortality for patients with the same comorbidities, suggesting a lack of survival benefit from transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality rates for patients aged >or=60 years with comorbidities are higher than for those without comorbidities, significantly higher than for younger patients, and higher than for wait-listed patients. Thus, utility may be poorly served by allocating kidneys to older patients with comorbidities, and perhaps discussion of exclusionary listing criteria is warranted.

The rationale for the new deceased donor pancreas allocation schema.

BACKGROUND: To ensure the continued success of whole organ pancreas and islet transplantation, deceased donor pancreas allocation policy must continue to evolve. METHODS: To assess the existing system, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing Kidney and Pancreas Transplant Committee retrospectively analyzed the disposition and outcomes of deceased donor pancreata in the United States between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2003. RESULTS: During the time period studied, consent was obtained but the pancreas was not recovered in 48% (11,820) of organ donors. The most common reasons given for nonrecovery were poor quality of the pancreas and difficulty in placement. Of whole organ pancreata that were transplanted, 90% were from donors with a body mass index (BMI) 50 years (P=0.04), and there were trends toward lower graft survival with donor BMI >30 (P=0.06) and increasing cold-ischemia time. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these data, the OPTN adopted a new allocation algorithm in which pancreata from donors >30 kg/m or >50 years of age are, unless accepted for a local whole organ pancreas transplant candidate, preferentially allocated for islet transplantation. These data also suggest that many good quality pancreata are not procured, emphasizing the need for improved communication and cooperation between organ procurement organizations and pancreas and islet transplant programs.

Impact of the expanded criteria donor allocation system on the use of expanded criteria donor kidneys.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network recently implemented a policy allocating expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys by waiting time alone. ECD kidneys were defined as having a risk of graft failure > or = 1.7 times that of ideal donors. ECDs include any donor > or = 60 years old and donors 50 to 59 years old with at least two of the following: terminal creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, history of hypertension, or death by cerebrovascular accident. The impact of this policy on use of ECD kidneys is assessed. METHODS: The authors compared use of ECD kidneys recovered in the 18 months immediately before and after policy implementation. Differences were tested using t test and chi2 analyses. RESULTS: There was an 18.3% increase in ECD kidney recoveries and a 15.0% increase in ECD kidney transplants in the first 18 months after policy implementation. ECD kidneys made up 22.1% of all recovered kidneys and 16.8% of all transplants, compared with 18.8% (P<0.001) and 14.5% (P<0.001), respectively, in the prior period. The discard rate was unchanged. The median relative risk (RR) for graft failure for transplanted ECD kidneys was 2.07 versus 1.99 in the prepolicy period (P=not significant); the median RR for procured ECD kidneys was unchanged at 2.16. The percentage of transplanted ECD kidneys with cold ischemia times (CIT) <12 hr increased significantly; the corresponding percentage for CIT > or = 24 hr decreased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The recent increase in ECD kidney recoveries and transplants appears to be related to implementation of the ECD allocation system.

Skin cancer in organ transplant recipients: effect of pretransplant end-organ disease.

BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplant recipients are at increased risk for posttransplant neoplasms. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine whether various diseases causing end-organ failure are associated with different degrees of risk of skin cancer development after transplantation. METHODS: The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing Transplant Tumor Registry was searched for the incidence of skin cancer among kidney, liver, and heart transplant recipients in the United States between 1996 and 2001. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the association between disease diagnosis and posttransplant skin cancer. RESULTS: Transplant recipients with specific pretransplant diseases, such as polycystic kidney disease and cholestatic liver disease, were at increased risk for skin cancer. Patients with diabetes mellitus had a lower incidence of skin cancer after kidney transplantation. LIMITATIONS: The study had only a brief follow-up period, indirect assessment of photodamage, and possible underreporting. CONCLUSION: Transplant recipients with a history of certain diseases warrant intensive skin cancer surveillance and strict sun-protective practices.

Survival of mandatorily shared cadaveric kidneys and their paybacks in the zero mismatch era.

BACKGROUND: The United Network for Organ Sharing has mandated the national sharing of well-matched cadaveric kidneys with payback to the national pool. On March 6, 1995, the policy was extended to include sharing of cadaveric kidneys for which there is a recipient with a 0-HLA mismatch (0-MM). However, the beneficial effects of this policy have been questioned. To address these concerns, we analyzed the effects of this system on graft survival, cold ischemia time, and the transplantation of highly sensitized patients during the 0-MM era. METHODS: We analyzed cadaveric solitary kidney transplant data in the OPTN/The United Network for Organ Sharing database. Cox proportional hazards analyses were conducted on 29,401 transplants performed between March 6, 1995 and December 31, 1998 to assess the effects of mandatory sharing and paybacks on graft outcome. We also compared the outcome of pairs of kidneys in which one was shared as either an 0-MM kidney (n=833) or as a payback (n=440) and the mate was transplanted locally. RESULTS: Overall, 36% of kidneys were shared, 15.6% as 0-MM and 20.4% as paybacks or other shares. Although the sharing of 0-MM kidneys significantly increased cold ischemia time, the risk of graft loss was significantly decreased. The survival of payback kidneys was not significantly different from other shared kidneys. Sharing 0-MM kidneys appeared to increase the chances of transplantation of sensitized patients and 47% of the kidneys transplanted in patients with a panel reactive antibody of more than 80% were from 0-MM donors. CONCLUSIONS: National sharing of 0-MM kidneys appears to lead to a small but significant improvement in intermediate-term graft survival despite increasing cold ischemia time. The current policy also increases access of highly sensitized patients to transplantation.

Living kidney donors in need of kidney transplants: a report from the organ procurement and transplantation network.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to use the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database to determine the number of renal waitlist candidates who previously had been living donors. METHODS: All living renal donors in the OPTN database were cross-checked against the renal waitlist history files. Additionally, renal transplant programs were contacted that had listed candidates as qualified for four additional allocation points available to patients who previously had donated an organ. Confirmatory phone calls to transplant programs yielded additional cases previously unreported to the United Network for Organ Sharing. RESULTS: A total of 56 previous living donors were identified as having been subsequently listed for cadaveric kidney transplantation. Forty-three have received transplants; 36 currently have functioning grafts. One died after transplantation. Two candidates died while waiting. CONCLUSIONS: Living renal donation has long-term risks that may not be apparent in the short term. The numbers here reported underestimate the actual number of living donors with renal failure, because they include only patients listed for a kidney transplant. To determine risk factors for postdonation renal failure, long-term living-donor follow-up data are needed.

Transplant tumor registry: donors with central nervous system tumors1.

BACKGROUND: Despite 13,000 central nervous system (CNS) tumor deaths per year in the United States, CNS tumor donors comprise only 1% of cadaveric donors recovered per year. Concern about tumor transmission may be a possible reason for this very small percentage. Both the size of the candidate waiting list and the number of deaths on the waiting list are progressively increasing because of the donor shortage. METHODS: During a 96-month period, the United Network for Organ Sharing recorded 42,340 cadaver donors of whom 397 had a past history of a CNS tumor or the cause of death listed as a CNS tumor. A total of 1,220 organs were transplanted from these 397 donors. All recipients who reported a posttransplant malignancy during a mean follow-up of 36 months were identified. RESULTS: There was no difference in patient survival of organs from CNS tumor donors when compared to donors with no CNS tumors. CNS tumor donors were not used more often for either urgent or older recipients. A total of 39 patients reported posttransplant malignancies but none of these tumors were donor-derived. There is a wide variation in the number of CNS tumor donors utilized by individual organ procurement organizations. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of tumor transmission from donors with CNS malignancies seems to be small. Certain tumors, such as glioblastoma multiforme and medulloblastoma, carry a high risk of transmission and should be avoided. The risk of tumor transmission should be weighed against the risk of the patient dying on the waiting list without a transplant.

Transplant tumor registry: donor related malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Transmission of donor malignancies has been intermittently reported since the early days of clinical transplantation. The incidence of United States donor related malignancies has not previously been documented. METHODS: All donor related malignancies reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing from 4/1/94-7/1/01 in a cohort of 34,933 cadaveric donors and 108,062 recipients were investigated by contacting the transplant centers to verify that the reported tumors were of donor origin. Time and mode of discovery, as well as graft and patient outcome, were determined. The status of other recipients from the donor was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 21 donor related malignancies from 14 cadaveric and 3 living donors were reported. Fifteen tumors were donor transmitted and 6 were donor derived. Transmitted tumors are malignancies that existed in the donor at the time of transplantation. Derived tumors are de novo tumors that develop in transplanted donor hematogenous or lymphoid cells after transplantation. The cadaveric donor related tumor rate is 0.04% (14 of 34,993). The donor related tumor rate among transplanted cadaveric organs is 0.017% (18 of 108,062). Among patients developing donor related malignancies, the overall mortality rate was 38%, with that of transmitted tumors being 46% and derived tumors being 33%. The cadaveric donor related tumor mortality rate is 0.007% (8 of 108,062). CONCLUSIONS: The United States incidence of donor related tumors is extremely small. The donor related tumor death rate is also extremely small, particularly when compared with waiting-list mortality.

Association of the type of induction immunosuppression with posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder, graft survival, and patient survival after primary kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The use of antilymphocyte antibodies for induction therapy or for treatment for rejection has been associated with an increased risk of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD). The authors investigated the incidence of PTLD after monoclonal antilymphocyte, polyclonal antilymphocyte, interleukin (IL)-2 receptor antibody, or no induction therapy in primary kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: A multivariate Cox analysis of 38,519 primary kidney transplants from January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2000, was performed to compare the incidence of PTLD, graft survival, and patient survival among the induction groups. RESULTS: The actual incidence of PTLD was 0.85% in 2,713 recipients with monoclonal, 0.81% in 4,343 with polyclonal, 0.50% in 7,800 with IL-2, and 0.51% in 23,663 recipients with no induction therapy (P=0.02). The Cox model indicated that as compared with no induction, the increased risk of PTLD was 72% with monoclonal (P=0.03), 29% with polyclonal (P=0.27), and 14% with IL-2 induction (P=0.52). IL-2 receptor antibody was associated with a 17% reduced risk of graft loss (P=0.002) and a 21% reduced risk of mortality (P=0.005) compared with no induction. Monoclonal and polyclonal induction therapies were not associated with a reduced risk of graft loss or mortality. Mycophenolate mofetil discharge maintenance immunosuppression was associated with a significantly reduced risk of PTLD and graft loss compared with azathioprine. CONCLUSIONS: Among induction therapies, IL-2 receptor antibody induction was associated with the smallest risk of PTLD and improved graft and patient survival. Monoclonal or polyclonal induction was not associated with improved graft or patient survival, and monoclonal induction was associated with an increased risk of PTLD.

Aggressive pharmacologic donor management results in more transplanted organs.

BACKGROUND: Brain death results in adverse pathophysiologic effects in many cadaveric donors, resulting in cardiovascular instability and poor organ perfusion. Hormonal resuscitation (HR) has been reported to stabilize and improve cardiac function in brain-dead donors. The goal of this study was to examine the effect of HR on the brain-dead donor on the number of organs transplanted per donor. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all brain-dead donors recovered in the United States from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2001, was conducted. HR consisted of a methylprednisolone bolus and infusions of vasopressin and either triiodothyronine or L-thyroxine. Univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to detect differences between the HR group and those donors who did not receive HR. RESULTS: Of 10,292 consecutive brain-dead donors analyzed, 701 received three-drug HR. Univariate analysis showed the mean number of organs from HR donors (3.8) was 22.5% greater than that from nonhormonal resuscitation donors (3.1) (P <0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that HR was associated with the following statistically significant increased probabilities of an organ being transplanted from a donor: kidney 7.3%, heart 4.7%, liver 4.9%, lung 2.8%, and pancreas 6.0%. Extrapolation of these probabilities to the 5,921 brain-dead donors recovered in 2001 was calculated to yield a total increase of 2,053 organs. CONCLUSION: HR stabilizes certain brain-dead donors and is associated with significant increases in organs transplanted per donor.

Hormonal resuscitation yields more transplanted hearts, with improved early function.

BACKGROUND: Brain death results in cardiovascular instability and poor organ perfusion in many brain-dead donors. Hormonal resuscitation stabilizes certain brain-dead donors and is associated with significant increases in the numbers of organs transplanted per donor. The goal of this study was to examine the quality of hearts recovered from donors treated with hormonal resuscitation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 4,543 recipients of hearts recovered from brain-dead donors, reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database between November 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001, was conducted. Hormonal resuscitation consisted of a methylprednisolone bolus and infusions of vasopressin and either triiodothyronine or l-thyroxine. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the quality of hearts from donors who received three-drug hormonal resuscitation (3HR) treatment versus donors who did not receive all three drugs (non-3HR). Death within 30 days and early graft dysfunction were used as endpoints. RESULTS: Hearts from 3HR donors demonstrated a 1-month survival rate of 96.2%, compared with a 92.1% survival rate for non-3HR donor hearts (P<0.01). Early graft dysfunction occurred in 5.6% of 3HR donor hearts and 11.6% of non-3HR donor hearts (P<0.01). Multivariate results demonstrated a 46% reduced odds of death within 30 days and a 48% reduced odds of early graft dysfunction. Steroids alone and steroids plus triiodothyronine/l-thyroxine also significantly reduced prolonged graft dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that 3HR treatment of brain-dead donors results in increased numbers of transplanted hearts, with improved short-term graft function.

Survival after pancreas transplantation in patients with diabetes and preserved kidney function.

CONTEXT: Solitary pancreas transplantation (ie, pancreas alone or pancreas-after-kidney) for diabetes mellitus remains controversial due to procedure-associated morbidity/mortality, toxicity of immunosuppression, expense, and unproven effects on the secondary complications of diabetes. Whether transplantation offers a survival advantage over conventional therapies for diabetes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between solitary pancreas transplantation and survival in patients with diabetes and preserved kidney function. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective observational cohort study conducted at 124 transplant centers in the United States, in 11 572 patients with diabetes mellitus on the waiting list for pancreas transplantation (pancreas alone, pancreas-after-kidney, or simultaneous pancreas-kidney) at the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2000. All patients receiving a multiorgan (other than simultaneous pancreas-kidney) transplant were excluded, as were those listed for solitary pancreas transplantation who had a serum creatinine level greater than 2 mg/dL (176.8 micromol/L) at time of listing, or who ultimately received a simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: All-cause mortality within 4 years following transplantation (or within a comparable time on the waiting list for the group not undergoing transplantation). RESULTS: Overall relative risk of all-cause mortality for transplant recipients (compared with patients awaiting the same procedure) over 4 years of follow-up was 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-2.53; P =.06) for pancreas transplant alone, 1.42 (95% CI, 1.03-1.94; P =.03) for pancreas-after-kidney transplant, and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.39-0.48) for simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant. Transplant patient 1- and 4-year survival rates were 96.5% and 85.2% for pancreas transplant alone, respectively, and 95.3% and 84.5% for pancreas-after-kidney transplant, while 1- and 4-year survival rates for patients on the waiting list were 97.6% and 92.1% for pancreas transplant alone, respectively, and 97.1% and 88.1% for pancreas-after-kidney transplant. CONCLUSION: From 1995-2000, survival for those with diabetes and preserved kidney function and receiving a solitary pancreas transplant was significantly worse compared with the survival of waiting-list patients receiving conventional therapy.

Kidney transplantation after previous liver transplantation: analysis of the organ procurement transplant network database.

BACKGROUND: Patients after liver transplant have a high incidence of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We investigated kidney transplantation after liver transplantation using the Organ Procurement Transplant Network database. METHODS: The Organ Procurement Transplant Network database was queried for patients who received kidney transplantation after previous liver transplantation. These patients were compared with patients who received primary kidney transplantation alone during the same time period. RESULTS: Between 1997 and 2008, 157,086 primary kidney transplants were performed. Of these, 680 deceased donor kidney transplants and 410 living donor kidney transplants were performed in previous recipients of liver transplants. The number of kidney after liver transplants performed each year has increased from 37 per year to 124 per year in 2008. The time from liver transplant to kidney transplant increased from 8.2 to 9.0 years for living donor transplants and from 5.4 to 9.6 years for deceased donor. The 1, 3, and 5 year actuarial graft survival in both living donor kidney after liver transplant and deceased donor kidney after liver transplant are less than the kidney transplant alone patients. However, the death-censored graft survivals are equal. The patient survival is also less but is similar to what would be expected in liver transplant recipients who did not have ESRD. In 2008, kidney after liver transplantation represented 0.9% of the total kidney alone transplants performed in the United States. CONCLUSION: Kidney transplantation is an appropriate therapy for selected patients who develop ESRD after liver transplantation.