Association of Race and Ethnicity With High Longevity Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation Under the US Kidney Allocation System.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The US Kidney Allocation System (KAS) prioritizes candidates with a≤20% estimated posttransplant survival (EPTS) to receive high-longevity kidneys defined by a≤20% Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI). Use of EPTS in the KAS deprioritizes candidates with older age, diabetes, and longer dialysis durations. We assessed whether this use also disadvantages race and ethnicity minority candidates, who are younger but more likely to have diabetes and longer durations of kidney failure requiring dialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adult candidates for and recipients of kidney transplantation represented in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from January 2015 through December 2020. EXPOSURE: Race and ethnicity. OUTCOME: Age-adjusted assignment to≤20% EPTS, transplantation of a≤20% KDPI kidney, and posttransplant survival in longevity-matched recipients by race and ethnicity. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Multivariable logistic regression, Fine-Gray competing risks survival analysis, and Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: The cohort included 199,444 candidates (7% Asian, 29% Black, 19% Hispanic or Latino, and 43% White) listed for deceased donor kidney transplantation. Non-White candidates had significantly higher rates of diabetes, longer dialysis duration, and were younger than White candidates. Adjusted for age, Asian, Black, and Hispanic or Latino candidates had significantly lower odds of having a ETPS score of≤20% (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.81-0.91], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.50-0.54], and 0.49 [95% CI, 0.47-0.51]), and were less likely to receive a≤20% KDPI kidney (sub-hazard ratio, 0.70 [0.66-0.75], 0.89 [0.87-0.92], and 0.73 [0.71-0.76]) compared with White candidates. Among recipients with≤20% EPTS scores transplanted with a≤20% KDPI deceased donor kidney, Asian and Hispanic recipients had lower posttransplant mortality (HR, 0.45 [0.27-0.77] and 0.63 [0.47-0.86], respectively) and Black recipients had higher but not statistically significant posttransplant mortality (HR, 1.22 [0.99-1.52]) compared with White recipients. LIMITATIONS: Provider reported race and ethnicity data and 5-year post transplant follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: The US kidney allocation system is less likely to identify race and ethnicity minority candidates as having a≤20% EPTS score, which triggers allocation of high-longevity deceased donor kidneys. These findings should inform the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network about how to remedy the race and ethnicity disparities introduced through KAS's current approach of allocating allografts with longer predicted longevity to recipients with longer estimated posttransplant survival. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The US Kidney Allocation System prioritizes giving high-longevity, high-quality kidneys to patients on the waiting list who have a high estimated posttransplant survival (EPTS) score. EPTS is calculated based on the patient's age, whether the patient has diabetes, whether the patient has a history of organ transplantation, and the number of years spent on dialysis. Our analyses show that Asian, Black or African American, and Hispanic or Latino patients were less likely to receive high-longevity kidneys compared with White patients, despite having similar or better posttransplant survival outcomes.

Development and Validation of a Risk Score Predicting Death Without Transplant in Adult Heart Transplant Candidates.

Importance: The US heart allocation system prioritizes medically urgent candidates with a high risk of dying without transplant. The current therapy-based 6-status system is susceptible to manipulation and has limited rank ordering ability. Objective: To develop and validate a candidate risk score that incorporates current clinical, laboratory, and hemodynamic data. Design, Setting, and Participants: A registry-based observational study of adult heart transplant candidates (aged ≥18 years) from the US heart allocation system listed between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, split by center into training (70%) and test (30%) datasets. Adult candidates were listed between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: A US candidate risk score (US-CRS) model was developed by adding a predefined set of predictors to the current French Candidate Risk Score (French-CRS) model. Sensitivity analyses were performed, which included intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (VAD) in the definition of short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for the US-CRS. Performance of the US-CRS model, French-CRS model, and 6-status model in the test dataset was evaluated by time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for death without transplant within 6 weeks and overall survival concordance (c-index) with integrated AUC. Results: A total of 16 905 adult heart transplant candidates were listed (mean [SD] age, 53 [13] years; 73% male; 58% White); 796 patients (4.7%) died without a transplant. The final US-CRS contained time-varying short-term MCS (ventricular assist-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or temporary surgical VAD), the log of bilirubin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, the log of B-type natriuretic peptide, albumin, sodium, and durable left ventricular assist device. In the test dataset, the AUC for death within 6 weeks of listing for the US-CRS model was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83), for the French-CRS model was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.67-0.76), and 6-status model was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.62-0.73). Overall c-index for the US-CRS model was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73-0.80), for the French-CRS model was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.65-0.73), and 6-status model was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71). Classifying IABP and percutaneous VAD as short-term MCS reduced the effect size by 54%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this registry-based study of US heart transplant candidates, a continuous multivariable allocation score outperformed the 6-status system in rank ordering heart transplant candidates by medical urgency and may be useful for the medical urgency component of heart allocation.

Disparities in Unilateral Do Not Resuscitate Order Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: A unilateral do-not-resuscitate (UDNR) order is a do-not-resuscitate order placed using clinician judgment which does not require consent from a patient or surrogate. This study assessed how UDNR orders were used during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: We analyzed a retrospective cross-sectional study of UDNR use at two academic medical centers between April 2020 and April 2021. SETTING: Two academic medical centers in the Chicago metropolitan area. PATIENTS: Patients admitted to an ICU between April 2020 and April 2021 who received vasopressor or inotropic medications to select for patients with high severity of illness. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 1,473 patients meeting inclusion criteria were 53% male, median age 64 (interquartile range, 54-73), and 38% died during admission or were discharged to hospice. Clinicians placed do not resuscitate orders for 41% of patients ( n = 604/1,473) and UDNR orders for 3% of patients ( n = 51/1,473). The absolute rate of UDNR orders was higher for patients who were primary Spanish speaking (10% Spanish vs 3% English; p ≤ 0.0001), were Hispanic or Latinx (7% Hispanic/Latinx vs 3% Black vs 2% White; p = 0.003), positive for COVID-19 (9% vs 3%; p ≤ 0.0001), or were intubated (5% vs 1%; p = 0.001). In the base multivariable logistic regression model including age, race/ethnicity, primary language spoken, and hospital location, Black race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-4.9) and primary Spanish language (aOR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.1-9.4) had higher odds of UDNR. After adjusting the base model for severity of illness, primary Spanish language remained associated with higher odds of UDNR order (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7-4.7). CONCLUSIONS: In this multihospital study, UDNR orders were used more often for primary Spanish-speaking patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may be related to communication barriers Spanish-speaking patients and families experience. Further study is needed to assess UDNR use across hospitals and enact interventions to improve potential disparities.

Accuracy of models to prognosticate survival after surgery for pancreatic cancer in the era of neoadjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remain difficult to prognosticate. Multiple models attempt to predict survival following the resection of PDAC, but their utility in the neoadjuvant population is unknown. We aimed to assess their accuracy among patients that received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of patients who received NAC and underwent resection of PDAC. Two prognostic systems were evaluated: the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Nomogram (MSKCCPAN) and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. Discrimination between predicted and actual disease-specific survival was assessed using the Uno C-statistic and Kaplan-Meier method. Calibration of the MSKCCPAN was assessed using the Brier score. RESULTS: A total of 448 patients were included. There were 232 (51.8%) females, and the mean age was 64.1 years (±9.5). Most had AJCC Stage I or II disease (77.7%). For the MSKCCPAN, the Uno C-statistic at 12-, 24-, and 36-month time points was 0.62, 0.63, and 0.62, respectively. The AJCC system demonstrated similarly mediocre discrimination. The Brier score for the MSKCCPAN was 0.15 at 12 months, 0.26 at 24 months, and 0.30 at 36 months, demonstrating modest calibration. CONCLUSIONS: Current survival prediction models and staging systems for patients with PDAC undergoing resection after NAC have limited accuracy.

An updated estimate of posttransplant survival after implementation of the new donor heart allocation policy.

The Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) implemented a new heart allocation policy on October 18, 2018. Published estimates of lower posttransplant survival under the new policy in cohorts with limited follow-up may be biased by informative censoring. Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate 1-year posttransplant survival for pre-policy (November 1, 2016, to October 31, 2017) and post-policy cohorts (November 1, 2018, to October 31, 2019) with follow-up through March 2, 2021. We adjusted for changes in recipient population over time with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. To demonstrate the effect of inadequate follow-up on post-policy survival estimates, we repeated the analysis but only included follow-up through October 31, 2019. Transplant programs transplanted 2594 patients in the pre-policy cohort and 2761 patients in the post-policy cohort. With follow-up through March 2, 2021, unadjusted 1-year posttransplant survival was 90.6% (89.5%-91.8%) in the pre-policy cohort and 90.8% (89.7%-91.9%) in the post-policy cohort (adjusted HR = 0.93 [0.77-1.12]). Ignoring follow-up after October 31, 2019, the post-policy estimate was biased downward (1-year: 82.2%). When estimated with adequate follow-up, 1-year posttransplant survival under the new heart allocation policy was not significantly different.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Temperature Trajectories Correlate With Hyperinflammatory and Hypercoagulable Subphenotypes.

OBJECTIVES: Body temperature trajectories of infected patients are associated with specific immune profiles and survival. We determined the association between temperature trajectories and distinct manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Four hospitals within an academic healthcare system from March 2020 to February 2021. PATIENTS: All adult patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Using a validated group-based trajectory model, we classified patients into four previously defined temperature trajectory subphenotypes using oral temperature measurements from the first 72 hours of hospitalization. Clinical characteristics, biomarkers, and outcomes were compared between subphenotypes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 5,903 hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients were classified into four subphenotypes: hyperthermic slow resolvers (n = 1,452, 25%), hyperthermic fast resolvers (1,469, 25%), normothermics (2,126, 36%), and hypothermics (856, 15%). Hypothermics had abnormal coagulation markers, with the highest d-dimer and fibrin monomers (p < 0.001) and the highest prevalence of cerebrovascular accidents (10%, p = 0.001). The prevalence of venous thromboembolism was significantly different between subphenotypes (p = 0.005), with the highest rate in hypothermics (8.5%) and lowest in hyperthermic slow resolvers (5.1%). Hyperthermic slow resolvers had abnormal inflammatory markers, with the highest C-reactive protein, ferritin, and interleukin-6 (p < 0.001). Hyperthermic slow resolvers had increased odds of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and 30-day inpatient mortality (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.13-2.19) compared with hyperthermic fast resolvers. Over the course of the pandemic, we observed a drastic decrease in the prevalence of hyperthermic slow resolvers, from representing 53% of admissions in March 2020 to less than 15% by 2021. We found that dexamethasone use was associated with significant reduction in probability of hyperthermic slow resolvers membership (27% reduction; 95% CI, 23-31%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hypothermics had abnormal coagulation markers, suggesting a hypercoagulable subphenotype. Hyperthermic slow resolvers had elevated inflammatory markers and the highest odds of mortality, suggesting a hyperinflammatory subphenotype. Future work should investigate whether temperature subphenotypes benefit from targeted antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory strategies.

Hospital-Level Variation in Death for Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19.

RATIONALE: Variation in hospital mortality has been described for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the factors that explain these differences remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to utilize a large, nationally representative dataset of critically ill adults with COVID-19 to determine which factors explain mortality variability. METHODS: In this multicenter cohort study, we examined adults hospitalized in intensive care units with COVID-19 at 70 United States hospitals between March and June 2020. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. We examined patient-level and hospital-level variables. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with interhospital variation. The median odds ratio (OR) was calculated to compare outcomes in higher- vs. lower-mortality hospitals. A gradient boosted machine algorithm was developed for individual-level mortality models. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 4,019 patients were included, 1537 (38%) of whom died by 28 days. Mortality varied considerably across hospitals (0-82%). After adjustment for patient- and hospital-level domains, interhospital variation was attenuated (OR decline from 2.06 [95% CI, 1.73-2.37] to 1.22 [95% CI, 1.00-1.38]), with the greatest changes occurring with adjustment for acute physiology, socioeconomic status, and strain. For individual patients, the relative contribution of each domain to mortality risk was: acute physiology (49%), demographics and comorbidities (20%), socioeconomic status (12%), strain (9%), hospital quality (8%), and treatments (3%). CONCLUSION: There is considerable interhospital variation in mortality for critically ill patients with COVID-19, which is mostly explained by hospital-level socioeconomic status, strain, and acute physiologic differences. Individual mortality is driven mostly by patient-level factors. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Ethics of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation under Conventional and Crisis Standards of Care.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a form of life support for cardiac and/or pulmonary failure with unique ethical challenges compared to other forms of life support. Ethical challenges with ECMO exist when conventional standards of care apply, and are exacerbated during periods of absolute ECMO scarcity when "crisis standards of care" are instituted. When conventional standards of care apply, we propose that it is ethically permissible to withhold placing patients on ECMO for reasons of technical futility or when patients have terminal, short-term prognoses that are untreatable by ECMO. Under crisis standards of care, it is ethically permissible to broaden exclusionary criteria to also withhold ECMO from patients who have a low likelihood of recovery, to maximize the overall number of lives saved. Unilateral withdrawal of ECMO against a patient's preferences is unethical under conventional standards of care, but is ethical under crisis standards of care to increase access to ECMO to others in society. ECMO should only be rationed when true scarcity exists, and allocation protocols should be transparent to the public. When rationing must occur under crisis standards of care, it is imperative that oversight bodies assess for inequities in the allocation of ECMO and make frequent changes to improve any inequities.

Between-center variation in high-priority listing status under the new heart allocation policy.

Under the new US heart allocation policy, transplant centers listed significantly more candidates at high priority statuses (Status 1 and 2) with mechanical circulatory support devices than expected. We determined whether the practice change was widespread or concentrated among certain transplant centers. Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we used mixed-effect logistic regression to compare the observed listings of adult, heart-alone transplant candidates post-policy (December 2018 to February 2020) to seasonally matched pre-policy cohort (December 2016 to February 2018). US transplant centers (N = 96) listed similar number of candidates in each policy period (4472 vs. 4498) but listed significantly more at high priority status (25.5% vs. 7.0%, p < .001) than expected. Adjusted for candidate characteristics, 91 of 96 (94.8%) centers listed significantly more candidates at high-priority status than expected, with the unexpected increase varying from 4.8% to 50.4% (interquartile range [IQR]: 14.0%-23.3%). Centers in OPOs with highest Status 1A transplant rate pre-policy were significantly more likely to utilize high-priority status under the new policy (OR: 9.73, p = .01). The new heart allocation policy was associated with widespread and significantly variable changes in transplant center practice that may undermine the effectiveness of the new system.

Evaluation of Organ Dysfunction Scores for Allocation of Scarce Resources in Critically Ill Children and Adults During a Healthcare Crisis.

OBJECTIVES: When healthcare systems are overwhelmed, accurate assessments of patients' predicted mortality risks are needed to ensure effective allocation of scarce resources. Organ dysfunction scores can serve this essential role, but their evaluation in this context has been limited so far. In this study, we sought to assess the performance of three organ dysfunction scores in both critically ill adults and children at clinically relevant mortality thresholds and timeframes for resource allocation and compare it with two published prioritization schemas. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Three large academic medical centers in the United States. PATIENTS: Critically ill adults and children. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We calculated the daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score in adults and the Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction 2 score and the Pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score in children. There were 49,290 (11.6% mortality) and 19,983 children (2.5% mortality) included in the analysis. Both the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores had adequate discrimination across relevant timeframes and adequate distribution across relevant mortality thresholds. Additionally, we found that the only published state prioritization schema that includes pediatric and adult patients had poor alignment of mortality risks, giving adults a systematic advantage over children. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest analysis of organ dysfunction scores in a general population of critically ill adults and children to date, we found that both the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores had adequate performance across relevant mortality thresholds and timeframes for resource allocation. Published prioritization schemas that include both pediatric and adult patients may put children at a disadvantage. Furthermore, the distribution of patient and mortality risk in the published schemas may not adequately stratify patients for some high-stakes allocation decisions. This information may be useful to bioethicists, healthcare leaders, and policy makers who are developing resource allocation policies for critically ill patients.

COVID-19 Among African Americans: An Action Plan for Mitigating Disparities.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded across the United States, troubling disparities in mortality have emerged between different racial groups, particularly African Americans and Whites. Media reports, a growing body of COVID-19-related literature, and long-standing knowledge of structural racism and its myriad effects on the African American community provide important lenses for understanding and addressing these disparities.However, troubling gaps in knowledge remain, as does a need to act. Using the best available evidence, we present risk- and place-based recommendations for how to effectively address these disparities in the areas of data collection, COVID-19 exposure and testing, health systems collaboration, human capital repurposing, and scarce resource allocation.Our recommendations are supported by an analysis of relevant bioethical principles and public health practices. Additionally, we provide information on the efforts of Chicago, Illinois' mayoral Racial Equity Rapid Response Team to reduce these disparities in a major urban US setting.

Association of Transplant Center With Survival Benefit Among Adults Undergoing Heart Transplant in the United States.

Importance: In the United States, the number of deceased donor hearts available for transplant is limited. As a proxy for medical urgency, the US heart allocation system ranks heart transplant candidates largely according to the supportive therapy prescribed by transplant centers. Objective: To determine if there is a significant association between transplant center and survival benefit in the US heart allocation system. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational study of 29 199 adult candidates for heart transplant listed on the national transplant registry from January 2006 through December 2015 with follow-up complete through August 2018. Exposures: Transplant center. Main Outcomes and Measures: The survival benefit associated with heart transplant as defined by the difference between survival after heart transplant and waiting list survival without transplant at 5 years. Each transplant center's mean survival benefit was estimated using a mixed-effects proportional hazards model with transplant as a time-dependent covariate, adjusted for year of transplant, donor quality, ischemic time, and candidate status. Results: Of 29 199 candidates (mean age, 52 years; 26% women) on the transplant waiting list at 113 centers, 19 815 (68%) underwent heart transplant. Among heart transplant recipients, 5389 (27%) died or underwent another transplant operation during the study period. Of the 9384 candidates who did not undergo heart transplant, 5669 (60%) died (2644 while on the waiting list and 3025 after being delisted). Estimated 5-year survival was 77% (interquartile range [IQR], 74% to 80%) among transplant recipients and 33% (IQR, 17% to 51%) among those who did not undergo heart transplant, which is a survival benefit of 44% (IQR, 27% to 59%). Survival benefit ranged from 30% to 55% across centers and 31 centers (27%) had significantly higher survival benefit than the mean and 30 centers (27%) had significantly lower survival benefit than the mean. Compared with low survival benefit centers, high survival benefit centers performed heart transplant for patients with lower estimated expected waiting list survival without transplant (29% at high survival benefit centers vs 39% at low survival benefit centers; survival difference, -10% [95% CI, -12% to -8.1%]), although the adjusted 5-year survival after transplant was not significantly different between high and low survival benefit centers (77.6% vs 77.1%, respectively; survival difference, 0.5% [95% CI, -1.3% to 2.3%]). Overall, for every 10% decrease in estimated transplant candidate waiting list survival at a given center, there was an increase of 6.2% (95% CI, 5.2% to 7.3%) in the 5-year survival benefit associated with heart transplant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this registry-based study of US heart transplant candidates, transplant center was associated with the survival benefit of transplant. Although the adjusted 5-year survival after transplant was not significantly different between high and low survival benefit centers, compared with centers with survival benefit significantly below the mean, centers with survival benefit significantly above the mean performed heart transplant for recipients who had significantly lower estimated expected 5-year waiting list survival without transplant.

Fair Allocation of Scarce CAR T-Cell Therapies for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

This Viewpoint discusses the unfairness of current CAR T-cell therapy allocation practices and offers alternative methods to more fairly allocate therapy.

Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders by COVID-19 Status Throughout the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, whether performing CPR on patients with COVID-19 would be effective or increase COVID-19 transmission to health care workers was unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: Did the prevalence of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders by COVID-19 status change over the first year of the pandemic as risks such as COVID-19 transmission to health care workers improved? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study assessed DNR orders for all adult patients admitted to ICUs at two academic medical centers in Chicago, IL, between April 2020 and April 2021. DNR orders by COVID-19 status were assessed using risk-adjusted mixed-effects logistic regression and propensity score matching by patient severity of illness. RESULTS: The study population of 3,070 critically ill patients were 46% Black, 53% male, with median age (interquartile range [IQR]) 63 (50-73) years. Eighteen percent were COVID-19 positive and 27% had a DNR order. Black and Latinx patients had higher absolute rates of DNR orders than White patients (30% vs 29% vs 23%; P = .006). After adjustment for patient characteristics, illness severity, and hospital location, DNR orders were more likely in patients with COVID-19 in the nonpropensity score-matched (n = 3,070; aOR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.64-2.38) and propensity score-matched (n = 1,118; aOR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.45-2.52) cohorts. The prevalence of DNR orders remained higher for patients with COVID-19 than patients without COVID-19 during all months of the study period (difference in prevalence over time, P = .751). INTERPRETATION: In this multihospital study, DNR orders remained persistently higher for patients with COVID-19 vs patients without COVID-19 with similar severity of illness during the first year of the pandemic. The specific reasons why DNR orders remained persistently elevated for patients with COVID-19 should be assessed in future studies, because these changes may continue to affect COVID-19 patient care and outcomes.

Graft Survival of En Bloc Deceased Donor Kidneys Transplants Compared With Single Kidney Transplants.

BACKGROUND: The US Kidney Allocation System allocates en bloc deceased donor kidney grafts from donors <18 kg in sequence A along with single kidney transplants (SKTs) from kidney donor profile index (KDPI) top 20% donors. Although en bloc grafts outperform SKT grafts holding donor weight constant, it is unclear if en bloc grafts from the smallest pediatric donors perform the same as top 20% KDPI SKTs. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we compared the donor characteristics and graft survival of en bloc grafts from the smallest donors (<8 kg) and from larger donors (≥8 kg) with SKTs by KDPI sequence for transplants performed in 2021. RESULTS: Larger donor en blocs had similar 1-y survival to sequence A SKTs estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method (96% versus 96%, P = 0.9), but the smallest donor en blocs had significantly shorter 1-y survival than those SKTs (80% versus 96%, P < 0.01). Using transplants from 2010 to 2012, the smallest donor en blocs had similar 10-y survival to sequence A SKTs (69% versus 64%, P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that future updates of the Kidney Allocation System should include a score specific to pediatric donors to account for these differences in en bloc graft survival.

Hospital Policy Variation in Addressing Decisions to Withhold and Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Sociodemographic disparities in physician decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment exist. Little is known about the content of hospital policies that guide physicians involved in these decisions. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the prevalence of US hospitals with policies that address withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment; how do these policies approach ethically controversial scenarios; and how do these policies address sociodemographic disparities in decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This national cross-sectional survey assessed the content of hospital policies addressing decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. We distributed the survey electronically to American Society for Bioethics and Humanities members between July and August 2023 and descriptively analyzed responses. RESULTS: Among 93 respondents from hospitals or hospital systems representing all 50 US states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, 92% had policies addressing decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Hospitals varied in their stated guidance, permitting life-sustaining treatment to be withheld or withdrawn in cases of patient or surrogate request (82%), physiologic futility (81%), and potentially inappropriate treatment (64%). Of the 8% of hospitals with policies that addressed patient sociodemographic disparities in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment, these policies provided opposing recommendations to either exclude sociodemographic factors in decision-making or actively acknowledge and incorporate these factors in decision-making. Only 3% of hospitals had policies that recommended collecting and maintaining information about patients for whom life-sustaining treatment was withheld or withdrawn that could be used to identify disparities in decision-making. INTERPRETATION: Although most surveyed US hospital policies addressed withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, these policies varied widely in criteria and processes. Surveyed policies also rarely addressed sociodemographic disparities in these decisions.