OPTN/SRTR 2022 Annual Data Report: Deceased Organ Donation.

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients uses data collected by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network to calculate metrics such as organs recovered per donor, organs transplanted per donor, and organs recovered for transplant but not transplanted (ie, nonuse). In 2022, there were 14,905 deceased donors, a 7.5% increase from 13,863 in 2021, and this number has been increasing since 2010. The number of deceased donor organs used for transplant increased to 37,334 in 2022, a 4.6% increase from 35,687 in 2021; this number has been increasing since 2012. The increase may be due in part to the rising number of deaths of young people amid the ongoing opioid epidemic. The number of organs transplanted included 10,130 left kidneys, 10,039 right kidneys, 298 en bloc kidneys, 922 pancreata, 8,847 livers, 83 intestines, 4,169 hearts, and 2,633 lungs. Compared with 2021, transplants of all organs except pancreata and intestines increased in 2022. In 2022, 3,563 left kidneys, 3,673 right kidneys, 156 en bloc kidneys, 366 pancreata, 965 livers, 4 intestines, 54 hearts, and 219 lungs were not used. These data suggest an opportunity to increase the number of transplants by reducing the number of unused organs. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no dramatic increase in the number of unused organs and there was an increase in the total numbers of donors and transplants.

Adjusting for race in metrics of organ procurement organization performance.

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients has previously reported the effects of adjusting for demographic variables, including race, in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) organ procurement organization (OPO) performance metrics: donation rate and transplant rate. CMS chose not to adjust for most demographic variables other than age (for the transplant rate), arguing that there is no biological reason that these variables would affect the organ donation/utilization decision. However, organ donation is a process based on altruism and trust, not a simple biological phenomenon. Focusing only on biological impacts on health ignores other pathways through which demographic factors can influence OPO outcomes. In this study, we update analyses of demographic adjustment on the OPO metrics for 2020 with a specific focus on adjusting for race. We find that adjusting for race would lead to 8 OPOs changing their CMS tier rankings, including 2 OPOs that actually overperform the national rate among non-White donors improving from a tier 3 ranking (facing decertification without possibility of recompeting) to a tier 2 ranking (allowing the possibility of recompeting). Incorporation of stratified and risk-adjusted metrics in public reporting of OPO performance could help OPOs identify areas for improvement within specific demographic categories.

"You don't know what you don't know": A qualitative study of informational needs of patients, family members, and living donors to inform transplant system metrics.

INTRODUCTION: Informational needs and potential use of transplant metrics, especially among patients, remain understudied and a critical component of the transplant community's commitment to patient-centered care. We sought to understand the perspectives and needs of patients, family members/caregivers, living donors, and deceased donor family members. METHODS: We examined decision-making experiences and perspectives on the needs of these stakeholder groups for data about the national transplant system among 58 participants of 14 focus groups and 6 interviews. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged: 1) informational priorities and unmet needs (transplantation system processes, long-term outcomes data, prelisting data, patient-centered outcomes, and ability to compare centers and regions); 2) challenges obtaining relevant and trustworthy information (patient burden and effort, challenges with medical jargon, and difficulty finding trustworthy information); and 3) burden of facing the unknown (stress and anxiety leading to difficulty processing information, challenges facing the transplant journey when you "don't know what you don't know"). CONCLUSION: Patient, family member, and living donor participation in shared decision-making has been limited by inadequate access to patient-centered information. New metrics and patient-facing data presentations should address these content gaps using best practices to improve understanding and support shared decision-making.

OPTN/SRTR 2021 Annual Data Report: Deceased Organ Donation.

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients uses data collected by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network to calculate metrics such as donation rate, organ yield, and rate of organs recovered for transplant but not transplanted (ie, nonuse). In 2021, there were 13,862 deceased donors, a 10.1% increase from 12,588 in 2020, and an increase from 11,870 in 2019; this number has been increasing since 2010. The number of deceased donor transplants increased to 41,346 transplants in 2021, a 5.9% increase from 39,028 in 2020; this number has been increasing since 2012. The increase may be due in part to the rising number of deaths of young people amid the ongoing opioid epidemic. The number of organs transplanted included 9,702 left kidneys, 9,509 right kidneys, 551 en bloc kidneys, 964 pancreata, 8,595 livers, 96 intestines, 3,861 hearts, and 2,443 lungs. Compared with 2019, transplants of all organs except lungs increased in 2021, which is remarkable as this occurred despite the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, 2,951 left kidneys, 3,149 right kidneys, 184 en bloc kidneys, 343 pancreata, 945 liver, 1 intestine, 39 hearts, and 188 lungs were not used. These numbers suggest an opportunity to increase numbers of transplants by reducing nonused organs. Despite the pandemic, there was no dramatic increase in number of nonused organs and there was an increase in total numbers of donors and transplants. The new Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metrics for donation rate and transplant rate have also been described and vary across organ procurement organizations; the donation rate metric varied from 5.82 to 19.14 and the transplant rate metric varied from 18.7 to 60.0.

Association of Socioeconomic Position With Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Survival After Lung Transplant.

Importance: A recent National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine study found that transplant outcomes varied greatly based on multiple factors, including race, ethnicity, and geographic location. They proposed a number of recommendations including studying opportunities to improve equity in organ allocation. Objective: To evaluate the role of donor and recipient socioeconomic position and region as a mediator of observed racial and ethnic differences in posttransplant survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included lung transplant donors and recipients with race and ethnicity information and a zip code tabulation area-defined area deprivation index (ADI) from September 1, 2011, to September 1, 2021, whose data were in the US transplant registry. Data were analyzed from June to December 2022. Exposures: Race, neighborhood disadvantage, and region of donors and recipients. Main Outcomes and Measures: Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression were used to study the association of donor and recipient race with ADI on posttransplant survival. Kaplan-Meier method estimation was performed by donor and recipient ADI. Generalized linear models by race were fit, and mediation analysis was performed. Bayesian conditional autoregressive Poisson rate models (1, state-level spatial random effects; 2, model 1 with fixed effects for race and ethnicity, 3; model 2 excluding region; and 4: model 1 with fixed effects for US region) were used to characterize variation in posttransplant mortality and compared using ratios of mortality rates to the national average. Results: Overall, 19 504 lung transplant donors (median [IQR] age, 33 [23-46] years; 3117 [16.0%] Hispanic individuals, 3667 [18.8%] non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 11 935 [61.2%] non-Hispanic White individuals) and recipients (median [IQR] age, 60 [51-66] years; 1716 [8.8%] Hispanic individuals, 1861 [9.5%] non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 15 375 [78.8%] non-Hispanic White individuals) were included. ADI did not mediate the difference in posttransplant survival between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White recipients; it mediated only 4.1% of the survival difference between non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic recipients. Spatial analysis revealed the increased risk of posttransplant death among non-Hispanic Black recipients may be associated with region of residence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of lung transplant donors and recipients, socioeconomic position and region of residence did not explain most of the difference in posttransplant outcomes among racial and ethnic groups, which may be due to the highly selected nature of the pretransplant population. Further research should evaluate other potentially mediating effects contributing to inequity in posttransplant survival.

Impacts of removing race from the calculation of the kidney donor profile index.

The kidney donor risk index (KDRI), standardized as the kidney donor profile index (KDPI), estimates graft failure risk for organ allocation and includes a coefficient for the Black donor race that could create disparities. This study used the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to recalculate KDRI coefficients with and without the Black race variable for deceased donor kidney transplants from 1995 to 2005 (n = 69 244). The recalculated coefficients were applied to deceased kidney donors from 2015 to 2021 (n = 72 926) to calculate KDPI. Removing the Black race variable had a negligible impact on the model's predictive ability. When the Black race variable was removed, the proportion of Black donors above KDPI 85%, a category with a higher risk of organ nonuse, declined from 31.09% to 17.75%, closer to the 15.68% above KDPI 85% among non-Black donors. KDPI represents percentiles relative to all other donors, so the number of Black donors moving below KDPI 86% was roughly equal to the number of non-Black donors moving above KDPI 85%. Removing the Black donor indicator from KDRI/KDPI may improve equity without substantial overall impact on the transplantation system, though further improvement may require the use of absolute measures of donor risk KDRI rather than relative measures of risk KDPI.

Designing a Liver Transplant Patient and Family Decision Support Tool for Organ Offer Decisions.

BACKGROUND: For liver transplant candidates on the waiting list, deciding to accept a donor organ with known or potential risk factors can be stressful and can lead to declined offers. Current education for patients and family often takes place during transplant evaluations and can be overwhelming and result in low retention and poor understanding of donor quality. METHODS: In the first phase, we sought to understand provider experiences when counseling patients about donor risks and donor offers. We conducted interviews and focus groups with liver transplant providers at 1 local center and at a national clinician conference. Twenty providers participated: 15 hepatologists and 5 surgeons. The provider feedback was used to create an initial outline of content that is consistent with decision support frameworks. In a second phase, graphic design collaborators created mockups of a patient-friendly tool. We reviewed mockups with 4 transplant coordinators and 9 liver transplant candidates for feedback on clarity and utility to prepare for an organ offer. Patient responses allowed a comparison of perceived readiness to receive an offer call before and after viewing mockups. RESULTS: We identified themes relating to the offer process, repetition and timing of education, and standardization and tailoring of content. The results indicated a gap in available education after the evaluation session, and information specific to offer decisions is needed. Patient feedback emphasized the need to review the offer process before a real offer. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and providers responded favorably to a patient tool addressing existing gaps in education while waiting for a donor offer. Additional patient, family, and provider feedback will guide the development of an interactive tool to prepare patients and families for an offer decision.

Design of a patient-centered decision support tool when selecting an organ transplant center.

Patients in the US in need of a life-saving organ transplant must complete a long process of medical decisions, and a first step is to identify a transplant center to complete an evaluation. This study describes a patient-centered process of testing and refinement of a new website (www.transplantcentersearch.org) that was developed to provide data to patients who are seeking a transplant center. Mixed methods, including online surveys and structured usability testing, were conducted to inform changes in an iterative process. Survey data from 684 participants indicated the effects of different icon styles on user decisions. Qualitative feedback from 38 usability testing participants informed improvements to the website interface. The mixed methods approach was feasible and well suited to the need to address multiple development steps of a patient-facing tool. The combined methods allowed for large survey sample sizes and also allowed interaction with a functioning website and in-depth qualitative discussions. The approach is applicable for a broad range of target user groups who are faced with challenging decisions and a need for information tailored to individual users. The survey and usability testing concluded with a functioning website that is positively received by users and meets the objective to support patient decisions when seeking an organ transplant.

Identifying Needs and Barriers to Engage Family Members in Transplant Candidate Care.

INTRODUCTION: Friends and family members provide critical support to patients on the waitlist for deceased donor kidney transplantation. However, little is known about how best to support and engage them effectively to improve patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted 5 focus groups with the family members of patients on the waitlist for a deceased donor kidney (n=23) to identify individual- and group-level targets for an intervention. Discussions encouraged participants to reflect on their support roles, experiences at the transplant evaluation, interactions with providers, knowledge of transplant options and expected outcomes. Transcripts of study sessions were coded using an iterative and inductive process. RESULTS: The thematic analysis produced two main themes related to experiences providing care to patients on the waitlist for kidney transplantation. First, participants revealed that supporting a patient on the waitlist created challenges that reverberate through their entire social structure. Family members discussed frustrations with adapting to their patient's kidney health needs, feelings of isolation, and barriers to identifying and building effective support networks. Second, participants described multiple challenges that prevented their patient-family unit from making informed decisions about transplant care. These challenges included communication with their patient, patients resisting help, difficulty understanding the information, and feeling helpless. CONCLUSION: Family members providing care to patients with end-stage kidney disease require targeted support to overcome the unique challenges associated with their role in helping to meet their patient's clinical needs. Interventions to engage friends and family members in the care of kidney transplant candidates need to effectively address these challenges.

Designing a patient-specific search of transplant program performance and outcomes: Feedback from heart transplant candidates and recipients.

BACKGROUND: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients provides transplant program-specific information, but it is unclear what patients and stakeholders need to know. Acceptance criteria for the candidate waitlist and donor organs vary by program and region, but there is no means to search for programs by the clinical profiles of recipients and donors. METHODS: We examined variability in program-specific characteristics that could influence access to transplantation. We also conducted three interviews and three focus groups with heart transplant candidates and recipients. Participants evaluated prototypes of a patient-specific search tool and its capacity to identify programs tailored to specific patient needs. Patient experiences and feedback influenced the development of tools. RESULTS: The distribution of recipient and donor characteristics influenced access to transplantation, as age and body mass index varied across programs (all with p < .01). Several themes emerged related to decision-making and the perceived usability of the patient-specific search. Perceptions of the prototypes varied, but were positive overall and support making the patient-specific search publicly available. Participants revealed barriers to evaluating transplant programs and suggest that patient-specific search results may optimize the process. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-specific tool (http://transplantcentersearch.org/) is valued by heart transplant patients and is important to maximizing access to transplant.

Development of a Patient-specific Search of Transplant Program Outcomes and Characteristics: Feedback From Kidney Transplant Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients face obstacles in finding a transplant program that meets their healthcare needs. Acceptance criteria and waiting times vary by region and program. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients provides program-specific information, but it is unclear what patients and referring physicians need to know. METHODS: We examined variability in program-specific characteristics that could influence access to transplantation. We also conducted 20 interviews and 16 focus groups with transplant candidates, recipients, and their family members. Participants were shown prototypes of a patient-specific search tool and evaluated its capacity to identify programs tailored to the needs of individual patients. RESULTS: The distribution of recipient and donor characteristics that may impact access to transplantation, such as recipients on Medicaid, varied across programs (all with P < 0.01). Several themes emerged related to impressions of access to transplantation and the usability of patient-specific search functions. Perceptions of the prototypes and results varied, but were positive overall and support providing an individualized search of program level data. Participants revealed significant barriers to identifying and evaluating transplant programs and suggest that patient-specific search results reduce the anxiety associated with selecting a program. CONCLUSIONS: Providing patient-specific tools is valued by patients and important to maximizing access to transplant.

Tool to Aid Patients in Selecting a Liver Transplant Center.

Variations in candidate and donor acceptance criteria may influence access and mortality for liver transplantation. We sought to understand how recipient and donor characteristics vary across centers and how patients interpret this information, and we used these data to develop a tool to provide tailored information to candidates seeking a center (www.transplantcentersearch.org). We analyzed liver recipient data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to determine how recipient and donor characteristics (eg, age, Medicaid use, and human immunodeficiency virus status) varied across programs. Data included recipients and donors at each US program between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. The variation in characteristics was plotted with centers stratified by total transplant volume and by volume of each characteristic. A subset of characteristics was plotted to show variation over 3 years. We created mockups of potential reports displaying recipient characteristics alongside pretransplant and posttransplant outcomes and solicited feedback at patient and family interviews and focus groups, which included 39 individuals: 10 pilot interviews with candidates seeking liver transplant at the University of Minnesota-Fairview (UMNF) and 5 focus groups with 13 UMNF candidates, 6 UMNF family members, and 10 national recipients. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis. Several themes emerged: (1) Candidates experience gaps in existing education about center options; (2) patients requested information about how selection criteria might impact access to transplant; and (3) information tailored to a candidate's medical characteristics can inform decisions. Characteristics shown on mockups varied across centers (P < 0.01). Variation was widespread for small and large centers. In conclusion, variation exists in recipient and donor characteristics across centers. Liver transplant patients provide positive feedback upon viewing patient-specific search tools.

Comparing Pretransplant and Posttransplant Outcomes When Choosing a Transplant Center: Focus Groups and a Randomized Survey.

BACKGROUND: In response to calls for an increased focus on pretransplant outcomes and other patient-centered metrics in public reports of center outcomes, a mixed methods study evaluated how the content and presentation style of new information influences decision-making. The mixed methods design utilized qualitative and quantitative phases where the strengths of one method help address limitations of the other, and multiple methods facilitate comparing results. METHODS: First, a series of organ-specific focus groups of kidney, liver, heart, and lung patients helped to develop and refine potential displays of center outcomes and understand patient perceptions. A subsequent randomized survey included adult internet users who viewed a single, randomly-selected variation of 6 potential online information displays. Multinomial regression evaluated the effects of graphical presentations of information on decision-making. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven candidates and recipients joined 23 focus groups. Survey responses were analyzed from 975 adults. Qualitative feedback identified patient perceptions of uncertainty in outcome metrics, in particular pretransplant metrics, and suggested a need for clear guidance to interpret the most important metric for organ-specific patient mortality. In the randomized survey, only respondents who viewed a note indicating that transplant rate had the largest impact on survival chose the hospital with the best transplant rate over the hospital with the best posttransplant outcomes (marginal relative risk and 95% confidence interval, 1.161.501.95). CONCLUSIONS: The presentation of public reports influenced decision-making behavior. The combination of qualitative and quantitative research helped to guide and enhance understanding of the impacts of proposed changes in reported metrics.

How patients choose kidney transplant centers: A qualitative study of patient experiences.

Little is known about how patients make the critical decision of choosing a transplant center. In the United States, acceptance criteria, waiting times, and mortality vary significantly by geography and center. We sought to understand patients' experiences and perspectives when selecting transplant centers. We included 82 kidney transplant patients in 20 semi-structured interviews, nine focus groups with local candidates, and three focus groups with national recipients. Sites included two local transplant centers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and national recipients from across the United States. Transcripts were analyzed by two researchers using a thematic analysis. Several themes emerged related to priorities and barriers when choosing a center. Patients were often unfamiliar with options, even with multiple local centers. Patients described being referred to a specific center by a trusted provider. Patients prioritized perceived reputation, comfort, and convenience. Insurance coverage was both a source of information and a barrier to options. Patients underestimated differences across centers and the effects on being waitlisted and receiving a transplant. Barriers in decision making included an overwhelming scope of information and difficulty locating information relevant to patients with unique medical needs. Informed decisions could be improved by the dissemination of understandable information better tailored to individual patient needs.