Continuous flow local anesthetic wound infusion for post-operative analgesia following kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Some patients with end stage renal disease are or will become narcotic-dependent. Chronic narcotic use is associated with increased graft loss and mortality following kidney transplantation. We aimed to compare the efficacy of continuous flow local anesthetic wound infusion pumps (CFLAP) with patient controlled analgesia pumps (PCA) in reducing inpatient narcotic consumption in patients undergoing kidney transplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective analysis of patients undergoing kidney transplantation, we collected demographic and operative data, peri-operative outcomes, complications, and inpatient oral morphine milligram equivalent (OME) consumption. RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-eight patients underwent kidney transplantation from 2020 to 2022. 296 (59%) historical control patients received a PCA for postoperative pain control and the next 202 (41%) patients received a CFLAP. Median age [53.5 vs. 56.0 years, p = .08] and BMI [29.5 vs. 28.9 kg/m2, p = .17] were similar. Total OME requirement was lower in the CFLAP group [2.5 vs. 34 mg, p < .001]. Wound-related complications were higher in the CFLAP group [5.9% vs. 2.7%, p = .03]. Two (.9%) patients in the CFLAP group experienced cardiac arrhythmia due to local anesthetic toxicity and required lipid infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to PCA, CFLAP provided a 93% reduction in OME consumption with a small increase in the wound-related complication rate. The utility of local anesthetic pumps may also be applicable to patients undergoing any unilateral abdominal or pelvic incision.

Comparable kidney transplant outcomes in selected patients with a body mass index ≥ 40: A personalized medicine approach to recipient selection.

INTRODUCTION: Many kidney transplant (KT) centers decline patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m2 . This study's aim was to evaluate KT outcomes according to recipient BMI. METHODS: We performed a single-center, retrospective review of adult KTs comparing BMI ≥40 patients (n = 84, BMI = 42 ± 2 kg/m2 ) to a matched BMI < 40 cohort (n = 84, BMI = 28 ± 5 kg/m2 ). Patients were matched for age, gender, race, diabetes, and donor type. RESULTS: BMI ≥40 patients were on dialysis longer (5.2 ± 3.2 years vs. 4.1 ± 3.5 years, p = .03) and received lower kidney donor profile index (KDPI) kidneys (40 ± 25% vs. 53 ± 26%, p = .003). There were no significant differences in prevalence of delayed graft function, reoperations, readmissions, wound complications, patient survival, or renal function at 1 year. Long-term graft survival was higher for BMI ≥40 patients, including after adjusting for KDPI (BMI ≥40: aHR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.09-2.9). BMI ≥40 patients had similar BMI change in the first year post-transplant (delta BMI: BMI ≥ 40 +.9 ± 3.3 vs. BMI < 40 +1.1 ± 3.2, p = .59). CONCLUSIONS: Overall outcomes after KT were comparable in BMI ≥40 patients compared to a matched cohort with lower BMI with improved long-term graft survival in obese patients. BMI-based exclusion criteria for KT should be reexamined in favor of a more individualized approach.

Single center experience and literature review of kidney transplantation from non-ideal donors with acute kidney injury: Risk and reward.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited experience transplanting kidneys from either expanded criteria donors (ECD) or donation after circulatory death (DCD) deceased donors with terminal acute kidney injury (AKI). METHODS: AKI kidneys were defined by a donor terminal serum creatinine level >2.0 mg/dL whereas non-ideal deceased donor (NIDD) kidneys were defined as AKI/DCD or AKI/ECDs. RESULTS: From February 2007 to March 2023, we transplanted 266 single AKI donor kidneys including 29 from ECDs, 29 from DCDs (n = 58 NIDDs), and 208 from brain-dead standard criteria donors (SCDs). Mean donor age (43.7 NIDD vs. 33.5 years SCD), KDPI (66% NIDD vs. 45% SCD), and recipient age (57 NIDD vs. 51 years SCD) were higher in the NIDD group (all p < .01). Mean waiting times (17.8 NIDD vs. 24.2 months SCD) and dialysis duration (34 NIDD vs. 47 months SCD) were shorter in the NIDD group (p < .05). Delayed graft function (DGF, 48%) and 1-year graft survival (92.7% NIDD vs. 95.9% SCD) was similar in both groups. Five-year patient and kidney graft survival rates were 82.1% versus 89.9% and 82.1% versus 75.2% (both p = NS) in the NIDD versus SCD groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of kidneys from AKI donors can be safely liberalized to include selected ECD and DCD donors.

Long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation from deceased donors with terminal acute kidney injury: Single center experience and literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation from deceased donors (DDKTs) with terminal acute kidney injury (AKI) are not well defined. METHODS: Single center retrospective review of DDKTs from 1/31/07-12/31/19. AKI kidneys were defined by a doubling of the donor's admission serum creatinine (SCr) level AND a terminal SCr ≥2.0 mg/dl. RESULTS: A total of 188 AKI DDKTs were performed, including 154 from brain-dead standard criteria donors (SCD). Mean donor age was 36 years and mean Kidney Donor Profile Index was 50%; mean admission and terminal SCr levels were 1.3 and 3.1 mg/dl, respectively. With a mean follow-up of 94 months (median 89 months), overall patient (both 71.3%) and graft survival (54% AKI vs. 57% non-AKI) rates were comparable to concurrent DDKTs from brain-dead non-AKI SCDs (n = 769). Delayed graft function (DGF) was higher in AKI kidney recipients (47% vs. 20% non-AKI DDKTs, p < .0001). DGF was associated with lower graft survival in recipients of both AKI and non-AKI SCD kidneys but the impact was earlier and more pronounced in non-AKI recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite having more than twice the incidence of DGF, kidneys from deceased donors with terminal AKI have long-term outcomes comparable to non-AKI SCD kidneys and represent a safe and effective method to expand the donor pool.

Influence of donor and recipient sex on outcomes following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation in the new millennium: Single-center experience and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The influence of sex on outcomes following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKT) in the modern era is uncertain. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 255 patients undergoing SPKT from 11/2001 to 8/2020. Cases were stratified according to donor (D) sex, recipient (R) sex, 4 D/R sex categories, and D/R sex-matched versus mismatched. RESULTS: D-male was associated with slightly higher patient (p = .08) and kidney (p = .002) but not pancreas (p = .23) graft survival rates (GSR) compared to D-female. There were no differences in recipient outcomes other than slightly higher pancreas thrombosis (8% R-female vs. 4.2% R-male, p = .28) and early relaparotomy rates in female recipients (38% R-female vs. 29% R-male, p = .14). When analyzing the 4 D/R sex categories, the two D-male groups had higher kidney GSRs compared to the two D-female groups (p = .01) whereas early relaparotomy and pancreas thrombosis rates were numerically higher in the D-female/R-female group compared to the other three groups. Finally, there were no significant differences in outcomes between sex-matched and sex-mismatched groups although overall survival outcomes were lower with female donors irrespective of recipient sex. CONCLUSIONS: The influence of D/R sex following SPKT is subject to multiple confounding issues but survival rates appear to be higher in D-male/R-male and lower in D-female/R-male categories.

Does dialysis modality or duration influence outcomes in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant recipients? Single center experience and review of the literature.

AIM: The influence of dialysis modality and duration on outcomes following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKT) remains uncertain. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective review in 255 SPKT recipients according to dialysis modality (55 preemptive/no dialysis-ND, 70 peritoneal dialysis-PD, 130 hemodialysis-HD) and duration (55 none, 137 < 2 years, 41 2-4 years, 22 > 4 years). RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 9.4 years (median 9.2 years). Early (3-month) relaparotomy rate (20% ND vs. 36% PD/HD, p = .03) was lower in ND patients. There were no differences in early graft loss, patient survival, overall or death-censored kidney or pancreas graft survival rates (GSR) at 1 or 10 years follow-up. When analyzing dialysis duration, there were no differences in rates of pancreas thrombosis or early pancreas graft loss. Kidney delayed graft function (DGF) was lower in the ND/short dialysis groups combined (1.0%), compared to the intermediate/long dialysis groups combined (9.5%, p = .003). Early relaparotomy rates were higher with longer duration of dialysis (p = .045 between ND and >4 years of dialysis). Patient survival in the long dialysis group was 50% compared to 69.5% in the other three groups combined (p = .09). However, both overall and death-censored kidney and pancreas GSR were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Preemptively transplanted patients had a lower incidence of kidney DGF and relaparotomy whereas patient survival was slightly lower with longer dialysis vintage prior to SPKT. Dialysis modality and duration did not influence either overall or death-censored pancreas or kidney GSR in patients with short waiting times, low KDPI donor organs, and dialysis duration up to 4 years.

Does prolonged cold ischemia affect outcomes in donation after cardiac death donor kidney transplants?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze the combined effect of cold ischemia time (CIT) and donation after cardiac death (DCD, with requisite warm ischemia time, WIT) on kidney transplant (KT) outcomes. METHODS: Single center retrospective review of DCD KT recipients stratified by CIT. RESULTS: From 6/08 to 10/20, we performed 446 DCD KTs (115 CIT ≤20, 205 CIT 20-30, 88 CIT 30-40, 38 CIT ≥40 h). Mean WITs (26/25/27/23 min) and KDPI values (59%/55%/55%/59%) were similar while mean CITs (16.4/23.6/33.4/42.5 h) and pump times (10.3/13.6/16.1/20.4 h) differed across groups (P < .05). With a mean 6-year follow-up, patient survival (84%/84%/74%/84%) was similar. Kidney graft survival (GS) (72%/72%/56%/58%) and death censored GS (DCGS) (82%/80%/63%/67%) rates decreased whereas rates of primary nonfunction (PNF, .9%/2.4%/9.1%/7.9%) and delayed graft function (DGF) (36%/48%/50%/69%) increased with longer CIT (≥30 h, P < .05). Meaningful years free of dialysis, which we refer to as Allograft Life Years, were achieved in all cohorts (4.5/4.3/3.9/4.3 years per patient transplanted). CONCLUSION: DCD donor kidneys with prolonged CIT (≥30 h) are associated with increased rates of DGF and PNF, along with decreased GS and DCGS. Despite this, Allograft Life Years were gained even with longer CITs, demonstrating the utility of using these allografts.

Improved surgical outcomes following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation in the contemporary era.

BACKGROUND: Complications leading to early technical failure have been the Achilles' heel of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKT). The study purpose was to analyze longitudinally our experience with early surgical complications following SPKT with an emphasis on changes in practice that improved outcomes in the most recent era. STUDY DESIGN: Single center retrospective review of all SPKTs from 11/1/01 to 8/12/20 with enteric drainage. Early relaparotomy was defined as occurring within 3 months of SPKT. Patients were stratified into two sequential eras: Era 1 (E1): 11/1/01-5/30/13; Era 2 (E2) 6/1/13-8/12/20 based on changes in practice that occurred pursuant to donor age and pancreas cold ischemia time (CIT). RESULTS: 255 consecutive SPKTs were analyzed (E1, n = 165; E2, n = 90). E1 patients received organs from older donors (mean E1 27.3 vs. E2 23.1 years) with longer pancreas cold CITs) (mean E1 16.1 vs. E2 13.3 h, both p < .05). E1 patients had a higher early relaparotomy rate (E1 43.0% vs. E2 14.4%) and were more likely to require allograft pancreatectomy (E1 9.1% vs. E2 2.2%, both p < .05). E2 patients underwent systemic venous drainage more frequently (E1 8% vs. E2 29%) but pancreas venous drainage did not influence either relaparotomy or allograft pancreatectomy rates. The most common indications for early relaparotomy in E1 were allograft thrombosis (11.5%) and peri-pancreatic phlegmon/abscess (8.5%) whereas in E2 were thrombosis, pancreatitis/infection, and bowel obstruction (each 3%). CONCLUSION: Maximizing donor quality (younger donors) and minimizing pancreas CIT are paramount for reducing early surgical complications following SPKT.

Do pretransplant C-peptide levels predict outcomes following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation? A matched case-control study.

Following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKT), survival outcomes are reported as equivalent in patients with detectable pretransplant C-peptide levels (Cp+) and a "type 2″ diabetes mellitus (DM) phenotype compared to type 1 (Cp negative [Cp-]) DM. We retrospectively compared 46 Cp+ patients pretransplant (≥2.0 ng/mL, mean 5.4 ng/mL) to 46 Cp- (level < 0.5 ng/mL) case controls matched for recipient age, gender, race, and transplant date. Early outcomes were comparable. Actual 5-year patient survival (91% versus 94%), kidney graft survival (69% versus 86%, p = .15), and pancreas graft survival (60% versus 86%, p = .03) rates were lower in Cp+ versus Cp- patients, respectively. The Cp+ group had more pancreas graft failures due to insulin resistance (13% Cp+ versus 0% Cp-, p = .026) or rejection (17% Cp+ versus 6.5% Cp-, p = .2). Post-transplant weight gain > 5 kg occurred in 72% of Cp+ versus 26% of Cp- patients (p = .0001). In patients with functioning grafts, mean one-year post-transplant HbA1c levels (5.0 Cp+ versus 5.2% Cp-) were comparable, whereas Cp levels were higher in Cp+ patients (5.0 Cp+ versus 2.6 ng/mL Cp-). In this matched case-control study, outcomes were inferior in Cp+ compared to Cp- patients following SPKT, with post-transplant weight gain, insulin resistance, and rejection as potential mitigating factors.

Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation in Caucasian versus African American patients: Does recipient race influence outcomes?

The influence of African American (AA) recipient race on outcomes following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKT) is uncertain. METHODS: From 11/01 to 2/19, we retrospectively studied 158 Caucasian (C) and 57 AA patients (pts) undergoing SPKT. RESULTS: The AA group had fewer patients on peritoneal dialysis (30% C vs. 14% AA), more patients with longer dialysis duration (28% C vs. 51% AA), more sensitized (PRA ≥20%) patients (6% C vs. 21% AA), and more patients with pretransplant C-peptide levels ≥2.0 ng/ml (11% C vs. 35% AA, all P < .05). With a mean 9.2 year follow-up, patient survival (65% C vs. 77% AA, P = .098) slightly favored the AA group, whereas kidney (55% C vs. 60% AA) and pancreas (48% C vs. 54% AA) graft survival rates (GSRs) were comparable. Death-censored kidney (71% C vs. 68% AA) and pancreas (both 62%) GSRs demonstrated that death with a functioning graft (DWFG) was more common in C vs. AA patients (23% C vs. 12% AA, P = .10). The incidence of death-censored dual graft loss (usually rejection) was 7% C versus 21% AA (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Following SPKT, AA patients are at a greater risk for dual immunological graft loss whereas C patients are at greater risk for DWFG.

Recipient age and outcomes following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation in the new millennium: Single-center experience and review of the literature.

The influence of recipient age on outcomes following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKT) in the modern era is uncertain. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 255 patients undergoing SPKT from 11/01 to 8/20. Recipients were stratified according to age group: age <30 years (n = 16); age 30-39 years (n = 91); age 40-49 years (n = 86) and age ≥50 years (n = 62 [24.3%], including 9 patients ≥60 years of age). RESULTS: Three-month and one-year outcomes were comparable. The eight-year patient survival rate was lowest in the oldest age group (47.6% vs 78% in the 3 younger groups combined, p < .001). However, eight-year kidney and pancreas graft survival rates were comparable in the youngest and oldest age groups combined (36.5% and 32.7%, respectively), but inferior to those in the middle 2 groups combined (62% and 50%, respectively, both p < .05). Death-censored kidney and pancreas graft survival rates increased from youngest to oldest recipient age category because of a higher incidence of death with functioning grafts (22.6% in oldest group compared to 8.3% in the 3 younger groups combined, p = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Recipient age did not appear to significantly influence early outcomes following SPKT. Late outcomes are similar in younger and older recipients, but inferior to the middle 2 age groups.

Graft quality matters: Survival after simultaneous liver-kidney transplant according to KDPI.

BACKGROUND: Poor renal function is associated with higher mortality after liver transplantation. Our aim was to understand the impact of kidney graft quality according to the kidney donor profile index (KDPI) score on survival after simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplantation. METHODS: Using United Network of Organ Sharing data from 2002 to 2013 for adult deceased donor SLK recipients, we compared survival and renal graft outcomes according to KDPI. RESULTS: Of 4207 SLK transplants, 6% were from KDPI >85% donors. KDPI >85% recipients had significantly increased mortality (HR=1.83, 95%CI=1.44-2.31) after adjusting for recipient factors. Additionally, dialysis in the first week (HR=1.4, 95%CI=1.2-1.7) and death-censored kidney graft failure at 1 year (HR=5.7, 95%CI=4.6-7.0) were associated with increased mortality after adjusting for recipient factors and liver donor risk index score. CONCLUSIONS: KDPI >85% recipients had worse patient and graft survival after SLK. Poor renal allograft outcomes including dialysis in the first week and death-censored kidney graft failure at 1 year, which occurred more frequently with KDPI >85% grafts, were associated with significantly reduced patient survival. Questions remain about the survival impact of liver vs kidney graft quality given the close relationship between donor factors contributing to both, but KDPI can still be valuable as a metric readily available at the time of organ offers for SLK candidates.

Comparative effectiveness of liver transplant strategies for end-stage liver disease patients on renal replacement therapy.

There are complex risk-benefit tradeoffs with different transplantation strategies for end-stage liver disease patients on renal support. Using a Markov discrete-time state transition model, we compared survival for this group with 3 strategies: simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplantation, liver transplantation alone (LTA) followed by immediate kidney transplantation if renal function did not recover, and LTA followed by placement on the kidney transplant wait list. Patients were followed for 30 years from the age of 50 years. The probabilities of events were synthesized from population data and clinical trials according to Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores (21-30 and >30) to estimate input parameters. Sensitivity analyses tested the impact of uncertainty on survival. Overall, the highest survival rates were seen with SLK transplantation for both MELD score groups (82.8% for MELD scores of 21-30 and 82.5% for MELD scores > 30 at 1 year), albeit at the cost of using kidneys that might not be needed. Liver transplantation followed by kidney transplantation led to higher survival rates (77.3% and 76.4%, respectively, at 1 year) than placement on the kidney transplant wait list (75.1% and 74.3%, respectively, at 1 year). When uncertainty was considered, the results indicated that the waiting time and renal recovery affected conclusions about survival after SLK transplantation and liver transplantation, respectively. The subgroups with the longest durations of pretransplant renal replacement therapy and highest MELD scores had the largest absolute increases in survival with SLK transplantation versus sequential transplantation. In conclusion, the findings demonstrate the inherent tension in choices about the use of available kidneys and suggest that performing liver transplantation and using renal transplantation only for those who fail to recover their native renal function could free up available donor kidneys. These results could inform discussions about transplantation policy.

The Kidney Not Taken: Single-Kidney Use in Deceased Donors.

BACKGROUND: The nonuse rate for kidneys recovered from deceased donors is increasing, rising to 27% in 2023. In 10% of these cases, 1 kidney is transplanted but the mate kidney is not. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective, single-center cohort study from December 2001 to May 2023 comparing single kidneys transplanted at our center (where the contralateral kidney was not used) to kidneys where both were transplanted separately, at least 1 of which was at our center. RESULTS: We performed 395 single deceased-donor kidney transplants in which the mate kidney was not transplanted. Primary reasons for mate kidney nonuse were as follows: no recipient located or list exhausted (33.4%), kidney trauma or injury or anatomic abnormalities (18.7%), biopsy findings (16.7%), and poor renal function (13.7%). Mean donor and recipient ages were 51.5 ± 14.2 and 60 ± 12.6 years, respectively. Mean kidney donor profile index was 73% ± 22%, and 104 donors (26.3%) had kidney donor profile index >85%. Mean cold ischemia was 25.6 ± 7.4 hours, and 280 kidneys (70.7%) were imported. Compared with 2,303 concurrent control transplants performed at our center, primary nonfunction or thrombosis (5.1% single vs 2.8% control) and delayed graft function (35.4% single vs 30.1% control) were greater with single-kidney use (both p < 0.05). Median patient and death-censored graft survival were shorter in the single group (11.6 vs 13.5 years, p = 0.03 and 11.6 vs 19 years, p = 0.003), although the former was at least double median survival on the waiting list. In patients with functioning grafts in the single-kidney group, 1-year mean serum creatinine was 1.77 ± 0.8 mg/dL and estimated glomerular filtration rate was 44.8 ± 20 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that many mate kidneys are being inappropriately rejected, given the acceptable outcomes that can be achieved by transplanting the single kidney in appropriately selected recipients.

Knowing When to Ignore the Numbers: Single-Center Experience Transplanting Deceased Donor Kidneys with Poor Perfusion Parameters.

BACKGROUND: Hypothermic machine perfusion is frequently used in evaluating marginal kidneys with poor perfusion parameters (PPP) contributing to delays in kidney placement or discard. We examined outcomes in deceased donor kidney transplants with PPP compared with those with optimal perfusion parameters (OPP). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study from 2001 to 2021 comparing PPP (n = 91) with OPP (n = 598) deceased donor kidney transplants. PPP was defined as terminal flow ≤80 mL/min and terminal resistance ≥0.40 mmHg/mL/min. OPP was defined as terminal flow ≥120 mL/min and terminal resistance ≤0.20 mmHg/mL/min. RESULTS: Mean terminal flow was PPP 66 ± 16 vs OPP 149 ± 21 mL/min and resistance was PPP 0.47 ± 0.10 vs OPP 0.15 ± 0.04 mmHg/mL/min (both p < 0.001). Donor age, donation after cardiac death, and terminal serum creatinine levels were similar between groups. Mean Kidney Donor Profile Index was higher among PPP donors (PPP 65 ± 23% vs OPP 52 ± 27%, p < 0.001). The PPP transplant group had more females and lower weight and BMI. Delayed graft function was comparable (PPP 32% vs OPP 27%, p = 0.33) even though cold ischemia times trended toward longer in PPP kidneys (PPP 28 ± 10 vs OPP 26 ± 9 hours, p = 0.09). One-year patient survival (PPP 98% vs OPP 97%, p = 0.84) and graft survival (PPP 91% vs OPP 92%, p = 0.23) were equivalent. PPP did predict inferior overall and death-censored graft survival long-term (overall hazard ratio 1.63, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.23 and death-censored hazard ratio 1.77, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.74). At 1 year, the estimated glomerular filtration rate was higher with OPP kidneys (PPP 40 ± 17 vs OPP 52 ± 19 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term outcomes in PPP kidneys were comparable to OPP kidneys despite higher Kidney Donor Profile Index and longer cold ischemia times, suggesting a role for increased utilization of these organs with careful recipient selection.

Comparative effectiveness of donation after cardiac death versus donation after brain death liver transplantation: Recognizing who can benefit.

Due to organ scarcity and wait-list mortality, transplantation of donation after cardiac death (DCD) livers has increased. However, the group of patients benefiting from DCD liver transplantation is unknown. We studied the comparative effectiveness of DCD versus donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplantation. A Markov model was constructed to compare undergoing DCD transplantation with remaining on the wait-list until death or DBD liver transplantation. Differences in life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs according to candidate Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score were considered. A separate model for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with and without MELD exception points was constructed. For patients with a MELD score <15, DCD transplantation resulted in greater costs and reduced effectiveness. Patients with a MELD score of 15 to 20 experienced an improvement in effectiveness (0.07 QALYs) with DCD liver transplantation, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was >$2,000,000/QALY. Patients with MELD scores of 21 to 30 (0.25 QALYs) and >30 (0.83 QALYs) also benefited from DCD transplantation with ICERs of $478,222/QALY and $120,144/QALY, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated stable results for MELD scores <15 and >20, but the preferred strategy for the MELD 15 to 20 category was uncertain. DCD transplantation was associated with increased costs and reduced survival for HCC patients with exception points but led to improved survival (0.26 QALYs) at a cost of $392,067/QALY for patients without exception points. In conclusion, DCD liver transplantation results in inferior survival for patients with a MELD score <15 and HCC patients receiving MELD exception points, but provides a survival benefit to patients with a MELD score >20 and to HCC patients without MELD exception points.

Hepatitis C virus and kidney transplantation: Recent trends and paradigm shifts.

The management of HCV infection in kidney transplantation presents significant challenges. HCV, left untreated, worsens patient and graft survival after kidney transplantation through multiple mechanisms. The field has evolved significantly in recent years, due to the ability to effectively eliminate the virus with direct-acting antivirals. Limited data suggest that current HCV treatment improves outcomes of infected kidney transplant patients. Along with the ability to successfully treat HCV, the increased HCV prevalence among donors has led to transplantation of kidneys from HCV-viremic donors into uninfected recipients. The practice has become increasingly common, but optimization of protocols to guide this practice is currently under debate. We have searched the literature on HCV and kidney transplantation, and review here the epidemiology, clinical outcomes, HCV treatment, and studies on transplantation from positive donor to negative recipient. We also discuss the evolving clinical management paradigms and address unresolved questions, highlighting the need for additional data with longer follow up.