Delays in Prior Living Kidney Donors Receiving Priority on the Transplant Waiting List.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prior living donors (PLDs) receive very high priority on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) kidney waiting list. Program delays in adding PLDs to the waiting list, setting their status to active, and submitting requests for PLD priority can affect timely access to transplantation. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We used the OPTN and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data to examine timing of (1) listing relative to start of dialysis, (2) activation on the waiting list, and (3) requests for PLD priority relative to listing date. There were 210 PLDs (221 registrations) added to the OPTN kidney waiting list between January 1, 2010 and July 31, 2015. RESULTS: As of September 4, 2015, 167 of the 210 PLDs received deceased donor transplants, six received living donor transplants, two died, five were too sick to transplant, and 29 were still waiting. Median waiting time to deceased donor transplant for PLDs was 98 days. Only 40.7% of 221 PLD registrations (n=90) were listed before they began dialysis; 68.3% were in inactive status for <90 days, 17.6% were in inactive status for 90-365 days, 8.6% were in inactive status for 1-2 years, and 5.4% were in inactive status for >2 years. Median time of PLDs waiting in active status before receiving PLD priority was 2 days (range =0-1450); 67.4% of PLDs received PLD priority within 7 days after activation, but 15.4% waited 8-30 days, 8.1% waited 1-3 months, 4.1% waited 3-12 months, and 5.0% waited >1 year in active status for PLD priority. After receiving priority, most were transplanted quickly. Median time in active status with PLD priority before deceased donor transplant was 23 days. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than one half of listed PLDs were listed before starting dialysis. Most listed PLDs are immediately set to active status and receive PLD priority quickly, but a substantial number spends time in active status without PLD priority or a large amount of time in inactive status, which affects access to timely transplants.

Characteristics and survival of patients with chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy undergoing heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: New anti-neoplastic drugs have improved survival of cancer patients but have also been associated with chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy (CCMP), ultimately requiring orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). We conducted this study to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with CCMP treated with OHT and compare them with outcomes of patients with other forms of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICMP). METHODS: We retrospectively identified 232 CCMP patients and 8,890 NICMP patients from the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry who underwent OHT between January 2000 and December 2008. Survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Categoric characteristics and outcomes groups were compared using the χ(2) and Fisher exact test. Comparisons for continuous variables were made using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Multivariable analyses of predictors of survival were performed using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. RESULTS: Short-term and long-term post-transplant survival of the 232 CCMP patients was similar to the 8,890 NICMP patients (p = 0.19). Survival (95% confidence interval) at 1, 3, and 5 years was, respectively, 86% (0.81-0.91), 79% (0.76-0.87), and 71% 0.73-0.85) in the CCMP patients and 87% (0.86-0.88), 81% (0.82-0.84), and 74% (0.80-0.81) in the NICMP patients (p = 0.19). Compared with NICMP patients, CCMP patients had higher rates of post-OHT infection (22% vs 14%, p = 004) and malignancies (5% vs 2%, p = 0.006), but neither affected survival. There was only 1 malignancy recurrence in the CCMP patients and no differences in post-OHT death due to malignancies between the groups. Importantly, CCMP patients were twice as likely as NICMP patients to require right ventricular assist devices before OHT (5.6% vs 2.3%, p = 0.0021). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CCMP selected for OHT are younger, have less comorbidity, and are more likely to require biventricular mechanical support pre-OHT than other NICMP patients who receive allografts. Despite the higher incidence of malignancy and infection in CCMP patients who have received a heart transplant, their survival is comparable to those who receive allografts for other cardiomyopathies.

Changing outcomes in patients bridged to heart transplantation with continuous- versus pulsatile-flow ventricular assist devices: an analysis of the registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Patients bridged to heart transplantation with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been reported to have higher post-transplant mortality compared with those without LVADs. Our aim was to determine the impact of the type of LVAD and implant era on post-transplant survival. METHODS: In this study we included 8,557 patients from the registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. We examined post-transplant outcomes in 1,100 patients bridged to transplant with pulsatile-flow LVADs between January 2000 and June 2004 (first era), 880 patients bridged with pulsatile-flow LVADs between July 2004 and May 2008 (second era), and 417 patients bridged with continuous-flow LVADs in the second era. Patients who required intravenous inotropes but not LVAD support (n = 2,728) and patients who did not require either LVAD or inotropes (n = 3,432) served as controls. RESULTS: Post-transplant survival of patients bridged with pulsatile LVADs improved significantly between the first and the second era (p = 0.03). In the second era, there was no significant difference in post-transplant survival of patients bridged with pulsatile- vs continuous-flow LVADs (p = 0.26), and survival rates in the 2 groups were not statistically different from that of the non-LVAD group. Graft rejection was similar in patients bridged with LVADs compared to those without LVADs. CONCLUSIONS: In the most recent era, the use of either pulsatile- or continuous-flow LVADs did not result in increased post-transplant mortality. This finding is important as the proportion of patients with LVADs at the time of transplant has been rising.