Sex-based differences in timely emergency department evaluations for patients with drug poisoning.

OBJECTIVES: Unintentional poisoning was the leading cause of injury-related death in the United States in 2017. Prescribed and illicit drugs are the most common cause of poisoning, and timely management in the emergency department (ED) is important. Our aim was to identify any disparities in wait times associated with sex for drug poisoning-related ED visits. STUDY DESIGN: We examined ED visits using data from the 2009-2017 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). METHODS: Drug poisoning-related visits were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth or Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Delayed assessment was defined as wait times exceeding the recommended triage time. Weighted logistic regression was used. RESULTS: The average age was 36 years (standard error = 1.1), 54% female, 87% White and 29% had delayed assessment. Most common drugs were psychotropics (45%) and opioids (32%). Adjusting for race, payment source, urgency, multiple drug types and NSAIDs, females who had poisoning by substances other than opioids had 2.1 times higher likelihood of having a delayed assessment compared with males (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.1 [1.03-4.2]), although there was no difference between sexes among visits with opioid poisoning (P = 0.27). Neither race (P = 0.23) nor payment source (P = 0.22) were associated with delayed assessment, and the sex association was consistent across these groups. CONCLUSIONS: Females with non-opioid drug poisoning were more likely to have delayed assessment than men. None of the other demographic factors demonstrated a correlation. Identifying more populations vulnerable to delays in the ED can help guide the development of interventions and policies to expedite care and attenuate existing disparities.

Mood, body image, fear of kidney failure, life satisfaction, and decisional stability following living kidney donation: Findings from the KDOC study.

Prior studies demonstrate that most living kidney donors (LKDs) report no adverse psychosocial outcomes; however, changes in psychosocial functioning at the individual donor level have not been routinely captured. We studied psychosocial outcomes predonation and at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postdonation in 193 LKDs and 20 healthy controls (HCs). There was minimal to no mood disturbance, body image concerns, fear of kidney failure, or life dissatisfaction, indicating no incremental changes in these outcomes over time and no significant differences between LKDs and HCs. The incidence of any new-onset adverse outcomes postdonation was as follows: mood disturbance (16%), fear of kidney failure (21%), body image concerns (13%), and life dissatisfaction (10%). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that LKDs with more mood disturbance symptoms, higher anxiety about future kidney health, low body image, and low life satisfaction prior to surgery were at highest risk of these same outcomes postdonation. It is important to note that some LKDs showed improvement in psychosocial functioning from pre- to postdonation. Findings support the balanced presentation of psychosocial risks to potential donors as well as the development of a donor registry to capture psychosocial outcomes beyond the mandatory 2-year follow-up period in the United States.

Utility of Ecological Risk Factors for Evaluation of Transplant Center Performance.

There is substantial evidence across different healthcare contexts that social determinants of health are strongly associated with morbidity and mortality in the United States. These factors, including socioeconomic status, behavior and environmental risks, education, social support, healthy food, and access to healthcare also vary widely by region and individual communities. One of the implications of heterogeneity in these risks is the potential impact on measured quality of healthcare providers. In particular, there is concern that providers treating disproportionally vulnerable communities may be disadvantaged by lack of risk adjustment for these factors that affect health but not indicators of quality of care. Recently, the National Quality Forum has endorsed risk adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics based on these concerns. These issues are salient to transplant programs since social determinants of health impact transplant patient outcomes and vary by region. In this viewpoint, we argue that integration of ecological (area-level) factors in risk adjustment models used to assess transplant center quality should be strongly considered. We believe this reform could be accomplished rapidly, would attenuate disparities in access to care by reducing disincentives to treat patients from vulnerable communities, and improve risk adjustment and calibration of models used for center evaluations.

Integrating APOL1 Gene Variants Into Renal Transplantation: Considerations Arising From the American Society of Transplantation Expert Conference.

Thirteen percent of individuals of African ancestry express two variant copies of the gene encoding apolipoprotein 1 (APOL1) that has been associated with an increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the general population. Limited studies suggest that the survival of transplanted kidneys from donors expressing two APOL1 risk alleles is inferior to that of kidneys from donors with zero or one risk allele. In living kidney donation, two case reports describe donors expressing two APOL1 risk alleles who developed ESRD. Given the potential impact of APOL1 variants on the utility and safety of kidney transplantation and living kidney donation, the American Society of Transplantation convened a meeting with the goals of summarizing the current state of knowledge with respect to transplantation and APOL1, identifying knowledge gaps and studies to address these gaps, and considering approaches to integrating APOL1 into clinical practice. The authors recognize that current data are not sufficient to support traditional evidence-based guidelines but also recognize that it may require several years to generate the necessary data. Thus, approaches as to how APOL1 might currently be integrated into the clinical decision-making process were considered. This report summarizes the group's deliberations.

Predonation Prescription Opioid Use: A Novel Risk Factor for Readmission After Living Kidney Donation.

Implications of opioid use in living kidney donors for key outcomes, including readmission rates after nephrectomy, are unknown. We integrated Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data with records from a nationwide pharmacy claims warehouse and administrative records from an academic hospital consortium to quantify predonation prescription opioid use and postdonation readmission events. Associations of predonation opioid use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]) in the year before donation and other baseline clinical, procedural, and center factors with readmission within 90 days postdonation were examined by using multivariate logistic regression. Among 14 959 living donors, 11.3% filled one or more opioid prescriptions in the year before donation. Donors with the highest level of predonation opioid use (>305 mg/year) were more than twice as likely as nonusers to be readmitted (6.8% vs. 2.6%; aOR 2.49, 95% confidence interval 1.74-3.58). Adjusted readmission risk was also significantly (p < 0.05) higher for women (aOR = 1.25), African Americans (aOR = 1.45), spouses (aOR = 1.42), exchange participants (aOR = 1.46), uninsured donors (aOR = 1.40), donors with predonation estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (aOR = 2.68), donors with predonation pulmonary conditions (aOR = 1.54), and after robotic nephrectomy (aOR = 1.68). Predonation opioid use is independently associated with readmission after donor nephrectomy. Future research should examine underlying mechanisms and approaches to reducing risks of postdonation complications.

Effects of High-Risk Kidneys on Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Program Quality Reports.

There is a perception that transplanting high-risk kidneys causes programs to be identified as underperforming, thereby increasing the frequency of discards and diminishing access to transplant. Thus, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) has considered excluding transplants using kidneys from donors with high Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) scores (≥0.85) when assessing program performance. We examined whether accepting high-risk kidneys (KDPI ≥0.85) for transplant yields worse outcome evaluations. Despite a clear relationship between KDPI and graft failure and mortality, there was no relationship between a program's use of high-KDPI kidneys and poor performance evaluations after risk adjustment. Excluding high-KDPI donor transplants from the June 2015 evaluations did not alter the programs identified as underperforming, because in every case underperforming programs also had worse-than-expected outcomes among lower-risk donor transplants. Finally, we found that hypothetically accepting and transplanting additional kidneys with KDPI similar to that of kidneys currently discarded would not adversely affect program evaluations. Based on the study findings, there is no evidence that programs that accept higher-KDPI kidneys are at greater risk for low performance evaluations, and risk aversion may limit access to transplant for candidates while providing no measurable benefit to program evaluations.

Underutilization of Timely Kidney Transplants in Those With Living Donors.

Preemptive kidney transplant (PKTx) and kidney transplant (KTx) within 1 year of dialysis initiation have been associated with superior outcomes. Wait times should be minimal for transplants with living donors; however, there is lack of literature studying utilization of timely KTx in this population. We designed this retrospective study using data from United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files from 2000 to 2012 to assess the trends in utilization of PKTx and Early KTx (combination of PKTx or transplant within 1 year of dialysis initiation) in recipients of living donor KTx. Only 32.6% transplants were PKTx, and 61.9% were Early KTx. A significant improvement in proportion of PKTx was seen from 27.5% in 2000 to 35.4% in 2006, with no change since. Similarly, the proportion of Early KTx increased from 61.4% in 2000 to 63.6% in 2006, with no increase since. Similar results were seen after adjusted analysis and were independent of living donor type. Although there was some improvement in utilization of timely transplants in the early part of the last decade, there has been no improvement since. Considering the benefits of timely kidney transplant, it is important to understand the reasons behind the same and to improve utilization.

Association of Candidate Removals From the Kidney Transplant Waiting List and Center Performance Oversight.

Approximately 59 000 kidney transplant candidates have been removed from the waiting list since 2000 for reasons other than transplantation, death, or transfers. Prior studies indicate that low-performance (LP) center evaluations by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) are associated with reductions in transplant volume. There is limited information to determine whether performance oversight impacts waitlist management. We used national SRTR data to evaluate outcomes of 315 796 candidates on the kidney transplant waiting list (2007-2014). Compared to centers without LP, rates of waitlist removal (WLR) were higher at centers with LP evaluations (44.6/1000 follow-up years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 44.0, 45.1 versus 68.0/1000 follow-up years, 95% CI 66.6, 69.4), respectively, which was consistent after risk adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 1.59, 95% CI 1.55, 1.63). Candidate mortality following waitlist removal was lower at LP centers (AHR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87, 0.94). Analyses limited to LP centers indicated a significant increase in WLR (+28.6 removals/1000 follow-up years, p < 0.001), a decrease in transplant rates (-11.9/1000 follow-up years, p < 0.001) and a decrease in mortality after removal (-67.5 deaths/1000 follow-up years, p < 0.001) following LP evaluation. There is a significant association between LP evaluations and transplant center processes of care for waitlisted candidates. Further understanding is needed to determine the impact of performance oversight on transplant center quality of care and patient outcomes.

Direct and Indirect Costs Following Living Kidney Donation: Findings From the KDOC Study.

Some living kidney donors (LKDs) incur costs associated with donation, although these costs are not well characterized in the United States. We collected cost data in the 12 mo following donation from 182 LKDs participating in the multicenter prospective Kidney Donor Outcomes Cohort (KDOC) Study. Most LKDs (n = 167, 92%) had one direct cost or more following donation, including ground transportation (86%), health care (41%), meals (53%), medications (36%), lodging (23%), and air transportation (12%). LKDs missed 33 072 total work hours, 40% of which were unpaid and led to $302 175 in lost wages (mean $1660). Caregivers lost $68 655 in wages (mean $377). Although some donors received financial assistance, 89% had a net financial loss in the 12-mo period, with one-third (33%) reporting a loss exceeding $2500. Financial burden was higher for those with greater travel distance to the transplant center (Spearman's ρ = 0.26, p < 0.001), lower household income (Spearman's ρ = -0.25, p < 0.001), and more unpaid work hours missed (Spearman's ρ = 0.52, p < 0.001). Achieving financial neutrality for LKDs must be an immediate priority for the transplant community, governmental agencies, insurance companies, nonprofit organizations, and society at large.

Perioperative Complications After Living Kidney Donation: A National Study.

We integrated the US transplant registry with administrative records from an academic hospital consortium (97 centers, 2008-2012) to identify predonation comorbidity and perioperative complications captured in diagnostic, procedure, and registry sources. Correlates (adjusted odds ratio, aOR) of perioperative complications were examined with multivariate logistic regression. Among 14 964 living kidney donors, 11.6% were African American. Nephrectomies were predominantly laparoscopic (93.8%); 2.4% were robotic and 3.7% were planned open procedures. Overall, 16.8% of donors experienced a perioperative complication, most commonly gastrointestinal (4.4%), bleeding (3.0%), respiratory (2.5%), surgical/anesthesia-related injuries (2.4%), and "other" complications (6.6%). Major Clavien Classification of Surgical Complications grade IV or higher affected 2.5% of donors. After adjustment for demographic, clinical (including comorbidities), procedure, and center factors, African Americans had increased risk of any complication (aOR 1.26, p = 0.001) and of Clavien grade II or higher (aOR 1.39, p = 0.0002), grade III or higher (aOR 1.56, p < 0.0001), and grade IV or higher (aOR 1.56, p = 0.004) events. Other significant correlates of Clavien grade IV or higher events included obesity (aOR 1.55, p = 0.0005), predonation hematologic (aOR 2.78, p = 0.0002) and psychiatric (aOR 1.45, p = 0.04) conditions, and robotic nephrectomy (aOR 2.07, p = 0.002), while annual center volume >50 (aOR 0.55, p < 0.0001) was associated with lower risk. Complications after live donor nephrectomy vary with baseline demographic, clinical, procedure, and center factors, but the most serious complications are infrequent. Future work should examine underlying mechanisms and approaches to minimizing the risk of perioperative complications in all donors.

Critical Factors Associated With Missing Follow-Up Data for Living Kidney Donors in the United States.

Follow-up care for living kidney donors is an important responsibility of the transplant community. Prior reports indicate incomplete donor follow-up information, which may reflect both donor and transplant center factors. New UNOS regulations require reporting of donor follow-up information by centers for 2 years. We utilized national SRTR data to evaluate donor and center-level factors associated with completed follow-up for donors 2008-2012 (n = 30 026) using multivariable hierarchical logistic models. We compared center follow-up compliance based on current UNOS standards using adjusted and unadjusted models. Complete follow-up at 6, 12, and 24 months was 67%, 60%, and 50% for clinical and 51%, 40%, and 30% for laboratory data, respectively, but have improved over time. Donor risk factors for missing laboratory data included younger age 18-34 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.03, 1.58-2.60), black race (AOR = 1.17, 1.05-1.30), lack of insurance (AOR = 1.25, 1.15-1.36), lower educational attainment (AOR = 1.19, 1.06-1.34), >500 miles to center (AOR = 1.78, 1.60-1.98), and centers performing >40 living donor transplants/year (AOR = 2.20, 1.21-3.98). Risk-adjustment moderately shifted classification of center compliance with UNOS standards. There is substantial missing donor follow-up with marked variation by donor characteristics and centers. Although follow-up has improved over time, targeted efforts are needed for donors with selected characteristics and at centers with higher living donor volume. Adding adjustment for donor factors to policies regulating follow-up may function to provide more balanced evaluation of center efforts.

Predonation Direct and Indirect Costs Incurred by Adults Who Donated a Kidney: Findings From the KDOC Study.

Limited information exists on the predonation costs incurred by eventual living kidney donors (LKDs). Expenses related to completion of the donation evaluation were collected from 194 LKDs participating in the multi-center, prospective Kidney Donor Outcomes Cohort (KDOC) Study. Most LKDs (n = 187, 96%) reported one or more direct costs, including ground transportation (80%), healthcare (24%), lodging (17%) and air transportation (14%), totaling $101 484 (USD; mean = $523 ± 942). Excluding paid vacation or sick leave, donor and companion lost wages totaled $35 918 (mean = $187 ± 556) and $14 378 (mean = $76 ± 311), respectively. One-third of LKDs used paid vacation or sick leave to avoid incurring lost wages. Few LKDs reported receiving financial support from the transplant candidate (6%), transplant candidate's family (3%), a nonprofit organization (3%), the National Living Donor Assistance Center (7%), or transplant center (3%). Higher total costs were significantly associated with longer distance traveled to the transplant center (p < 0.001); however, total costs were not associated with age, sex, race/ethnicity, household income, marital status, insurance status, or transplant center. Moderate predonation direct and indirect costs are common for adults who complete the donation evaluation. Potential LKDs should be advised of these possible costs, and the transplant community should examine additional strategies to reimburse donors for them.

Consensus conference on best practices in live kidney donation: recommendations to optimize education, access, and care.

Live donor kidney transplantation is the best treatment option for most patients with late-stage chronic kidney disease; however, the rate of living kidney donation has declined in the United States. A consensus conference was held June 5-6, 2014 to identify best practices and knowledge gaps pertaining to live donor kidney transplantation and living kidney donation. Transplant professionals, patients, and other key stakeholders discussed processes for educating transplant candidates and potential living donors about living kidney donation; efficiencies in the living donor evaluation process; disparities in living donation; and financial and systemic barriers to living donation. We summarize the consensus recommendations for best practices in these educational and clinical domains, future research priorities, and possible public policy initiatives to remove barriers to living kidney donation.

Association between liver transplant center performance evaluations and transplant volume.

There has been increased oversight of transplant centers and stagnation in liver transplantation nationally in recent years. We hypothesized that centers that received low performance (LP) evaluations were more likely to alter protocols, resulting in reduced rates of transplants and patients placed on the waiting list. We evaluated the association of LP evaluations and transplant activity among liver transplant centers in the United States using national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data (January 2007 to July 2012). We compared the average change in recipient and candidate volume and donor and patient characteristics based on whether the centers received LP evaluations. Of 92 eligible centers, 27 (29%) received at least one LP evaluation. Centers without an LP evaluation (n = 65) had an average increase of 9.3 transplants and 14.9 candidates while LP centers had an average decrease of 39.9 transplants (p < 0.01) and 67.3 candidates (p < 0.01). LP centers reduced the use of older donors, donations with longer cold ischemia, and donations after cardiac death (p-values < 0.01). There was no association between the change in transplant volume and measured performance (R(2) = 0.002, p = 0.91). Findings indicate a strong association between performance evaluations and changes in candidate listings and transplants among liver transplant centers, with no measurable improvement in outcomes associated with reduction in transplant volume.

Effect of dialysis initiation for preemptively listed candidates in the revised kidney allocation policy.

The new allocation policy for deceased donor kidneys in the United States is expected to begin in late 2014. As part of this policy, prioritization to the highest quality deceased donor kidneys is dependent on candidate's estimated posttransplant survival (EPTS) score. In particular, candidates with low (≤20%) EPTS (indicating better estimated survival) will have greater access to donor offers. We evaluated the effect of dialysis initiation on preemptively listed candidates' EPTS score. Using current estimates, approximately 10% (n = 19,406) of candidates placed on the waiting list between 2008 and 2013 were listed preemptively and would have qualified for top 20% status. These patients were more likely younger, female, Caucasian and nondiabetic compared to other candidates. Among nondiabetic preemptively listed candidates, dialysis initiation decreases EPTS score (indicating better estimated survival and higher allocation priority) for approximately 5 months. In contrast, diabetic patients' EPTS score significantly increases (approximately 6%) immediately upon dialysis initiation. Our results reveal a counterintuitive aberration in the EPTS formula, which is important for decision making regarding organ selection and timing of dialysis initiation in the new allocation system. Revision of the EPTS formula should be considered to address these findings and further understanding of the impact of the new allocation system on candidates' prognosis is important.

Risk factors for retransplant kidney recipients: relisting and outcomes from patients' primary transplant.

As of November 2013, 14.5% of the waitlist for a donor kidney comprised patients awaiting a retransplant. We performed a retrospective cohort study of 11,698 adult solitary kidney recipients using national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data transplanted between 2002 and 2011. The aim was to investigate whether outcomes from patients' initial transplants are significant risk factors for patients' repeat transplants or for likelihood of relisting after a failed primary transplant. Retransplant recipients were more likely to be treated for acute rejection [adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.26 (1.07-1.48), p = 0.0053] or hospitalized (AOR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.08-1.31, p = 0.0005) within a year of retransplantation if these outcomes were experienced within a year of primary transplant. Delayed graft function following primary transplants was associated with 35% increased likelihood of recurrence (AOR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.18-1.54, p < 0.0001). An increase in 1-year GFR after primary transplant was associated with GFR 1 year postretransplant (ß = 6.82, p < 0.0001), and retransplant graft failure was inversely associated with 1-year primary transplant GFR (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.71-0.76 per 10 mL/min/1.73 m(2) ). A decreased likelihood for relisting was associated with hospitalization and higher GFR following primary transplantation. The increasing numbers of individuals requiring retransplants highlights the importance of incorporating prior transplant outcomes data to better inform relisting decisions and prognosticating retransplant outcomes.

KIR and HLA interactions are associated with control of primary CMV infection in solid organ transplant recipients.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a major source of morbidity and mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. Killer immunoglobulin-like receptors(KIR) are genetically polymorphic natural killer(NK) cell receptors important in antiviral responses. A retrospective, single-center cohort study was performed to study the interaction of KIR genotype and primary control of CMV infection after transplantation.Time to first CMV viremia was determined for a cohort of 531 CMV serology donor positive/recipient negative solid organ transplant recipients. Of the KIR genes,KIR2DL3 and KIR2DS2 were most strongly associated with time to CMV viremia in random survival forest analysis. As KIR2DL3 and KIR2DS2 both interact with HLA-C1, these interactions were evaluated. Seventy six recipients were found to be positive for both KIR2DL3 and KIR2DS2 and expressed only HLA-C1 antigens in both recipient and donor. These patients had a substantially reduced hazard of CMV viremia in the first year after solid organ transplantation (hazard ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.27­0.72, p=0.0012). In KIR2DL3+/KIR2DS2+/HLA-C1/1 recipients who received an organ from a non-C1/1 donor, this protective effect was not observed. These results improve our understanding of human NK cell function in primary CMV infection after transplant.

Trends in the inactive kidney transplant waitlist and implications for candidate survival.

In November 2003, OPTN policy was amended to allow kidney transplant candidates to accrue waiting time while registered as status 7, or inactive. We evaluated trends in inactive listings and the association of inactive status with transplantation and survival, studying 262,824 adult first-time KT candidates listed between 2000 and 2011. The proportion of waitlist candidates initially listed as inactive increased from 2.3% prepolicy change to 31.4% in 2011. Candidates initially listed as inactive were older, more often female, African American, and with higher body mass index. Postpolicy change, conversion from initially inactive to active status generally occurred early if at all: at 1 year after listing, 52.7% of initially inactive candidates had been activated; at 3 years, only 66.3% had been activated. Inactive status was associated with a substantially higher waitlist mortality (aHR 2.21, 95%CI:2.15-2.28, p<0.001) and lower rates of eventual transplantation (aRR 0.68, 95%CI:0.67-0.70, p<0.001). In summary, waitlist practice has changed significantly since November 2003, with a sharp increase in the number of inactive candidates. Using the full waitlist to estimate organ shortage or as a comparison group in transplant outcome studies is less appropriate in the current era.

The impact of deceased donor kidney risk significantly varies by recipient characteristics.

As of May 2012, over 92 000 patients were awaiting a solitary kidney transplant in the United States and new waitlist registrations have been rising for over a decade. The decreasing availability of donor organs makes it imperative that organ allocation be as efficient and effective as possible. We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult recipients in the United States (n=109 392) using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. The primary aim was to evaluate the interaction of donor risk with recipient characteristics on posttransplant outcomes. Donor quality (based on kidney donor risk index [KDRI]) had significant interactions by race, primary diagnosis and age. The hazard of KDRI on overall graft loss in non-African Americans was 2.16 (95%CI 2.08-2.25) versus 1.85 (95%CI 1.75-1.95) in African Americans (p<0.0001), 2.16 (95%CI 2.08-2.24) in nondiabetics versus 1.84 (95%CI 1.74-1.94) in diabetics (p<0.0001), and 2.22 (95%CI 2.13-2.32) in recipients<60 years versus 1.83 (95%CI 1.74-1.92) in recipients≥60 (p<0.0001). The relative hazard for diabetics at KDRI=0.5 was 1.49 but at KDRI=2.0 the hazard was significantly attenuated to 1.17; among African Americans the respective risks were 1.50 and 1.17 and among recipients 60 and over, it was between 1.64 and 1.22. These findings are critical considerations for informed decision-making for transplant candidates.

The prognostic value of kidney transplant center report cards.

SRTR report cards provide the basis for quality measurement of US transplant centers. There is limited data evaluating the prognostic value of report cards, informing whether they are predictive of prospective patient outcomes. Using national SRTR data, we simulated report cards and calculated standardized mortality ratios (SMR) for kidney transplant centers over five distinct eras. We ranked centers based on SMR and evaluated outcomes for patients transplanted the year following reports. Recipients transplanted at the 50th, 100th and 200th ranked centers had 18% (AHR = 1.18, 1.13-1.22), 38% (AHR = 1.38, 1.28-1.49) and 91% (AHR = 1.91, 1.64-2.21) increased hazard for 1-year mortality relative to recipients at the top-ranked center. Risks were attenuated but remained significant for long-term outcomes. Patients transplanted at centers meeting low-performance criteria in the prior period had 40% (AHR = 1.40, 1.22-1.68) elevated hazard for 1-year mortality in the prospective period. Centers' SMR from the report card was highly predictive (c-statistics > 0.77) for prospective center SMRs and there was significant correlation between centers' SMR from the report card period and the year following (ρ = 0.57, p < 0.001). Although results do not mitigate potential biases of report cards for measuring quality, they do indicate strong prognostic value for future outcomes. Findings also highlight that outcomes are associated with center ranking across a continuum rather than solely at performance margins.