Increased Calculated Panel Reactive Antigen Is Associated With Increased Waitlist Time and Mortality in Lung Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Sensitized candidates with unacceptable antigens are a group that demands special attention in organ transplantation. Calculated panel reactive antigen (cPRA) is not used to modify allocation priorities in lung transplantation. The impact of cPRA on waiting list time and mortality is unknown. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of candidates for lung transplantation listed from May 2005 to 2018. Data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing STAR (Standard Analysis and Research) dataset was paired with additional unacceptable human leukocyte antigen (UA-HLA) data, which were used to calculate the listing cPRA. Candidates were stratified based on the lack of UA-HLAs or cPRA level for candidates with unacceptable antigens reported. Unadjusted competing risks and adjusted subdistribution hazard models were fit. RESULTS: A total of 29,085 candidates met inclusion criteria for analysis. Of these, 23,562 (81%) with no UA-HLAs, 3472 (11.9%) with a cPRA less than 50, and 2051 with a cPRA greater than or equal to 50 (7.1%). On adjusted analysis, a cPRA greater than or equal to 50 was independently associated with increased waitlist mortality at 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-1.88; P < .001) and decreased rate of transplantation (71.9% vs 69.5% vs 44.4%; P < .001). Furthermore, patients with a cPRA greater than or equal to 50 had a longer waitlist time compared with a cPRA less than 50 and no UA-HLA candidates (mean 293.69 days vs 162.38 days and 143.26 days, respectively; P < .001). However, once transplanted, posttransplant survival among the cohorts was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Further evaluation of organ allocation with consideration of a candidate's cPRA may be warranted in order to optimize equity in access to transplants.

Implications of blood group on lung transplantation rates: A propensity-matched registry analysis.

BACKGROUND: Blood type O lung allografts may be allocated to blood type identical (type O) or compatible (non-O) candidates. We tested the hypothesis that the current organ allocation schema in the United States-based on the Lung Allocation Score-prejudices against the allocation of allografts to type O candidates, given that the pool of potential donors is smaller. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort review of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network of Organ Sharing registry from May 2005 to March 2017 for adult candidates on the waiting list for first-time isolated lung transplantation. Demographic data were compiled and described, and 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity score matching was used to adjust for age and Lung Allocation Score at listing. RESULTS: A total of 26,396 candidates met inclusion criteria: 14,329 type non-O and candidates and 12,068 type O candidates. After matching, 11,951 candidates were included in each group. Of these, 77.0% of type non-O underwent lung transplantation vs 73.1% type O (p < 0.001). At 1 year, the waiting list mortality was higher for type O candidates (12.5%) than for non-O candidates (10.1%, p < 0.001). Of those undergoing transplantation, 5-year survival rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Type O candidates experience lower rates of transplantation and higher rates of waiting list mortality compared with matched type non-O candidates. Further evaluation of regional sharing of allografts to increase transplantation rates for type O candidates may be warranted to optimize equity in access to transplants.