The suggestion of mitigating disparity in the liver transplantation field among ABO blood type.

Medical literature highlights differences in liver transplantation (LT) waitlist experiences among ABO blood types. Type AB candidates reportedly have higher LT rates and reduced mortality. Despite liver offering guidelines, ABO disparities persist. This study examines LT access discrepancies among blood types, focusing on type AB, and seeks equitable strategies. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2003-2022), 170 276 waitlist candidates were retrospectively analyzed. Dual predictive analyses (LT opportunity and survival studies) evaluated 1-year recipient pool survival, considering waitlist and post-LT survival, alongside anticipated allocation value per recipient, under 6 scenarios. Of the cohort, 97 670 patients (57.2%) underwent LT. Type AB recipients had the highest LT rate (73.7% vs 55.2% for O), shortest median waiting time (90 vs 198 days for A), and lowest waitlist mortality (12.9% vs 23.9% for O), with the lowest median model for end-stage liver disease-sodium (MELD-Na) score (20 vs 25 for A/O). The LT opportunity study revealed that reallocating type A (or A and O) donors originally for AB recipients to A recipients yielded the greatest reduction in disparities in anticipated value per recipient, from 0.19 (before modification) to 0.08. Meanwhile, the survival study showed that ABO-identical LTs reduced disparity the most (3.5% to 2.8%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings were specific to the MELD-Na score < 30 population, indicating current LT allocation may favor certain blood types. Prioritizing ABO-identical LTs for MELD-Na score < 30 recipients could ensure uniform survival outcomes and mitigate disparities.

The impact of macro- and micro-steatosis on the outcomes of patients who undergo liver transplant: Analysis of the UNOS-STAR database.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The presence of steatosis in a donor liver and its relation to post-transplantation outcomes are not well defined. This study evaluates the effect of the presence and severity of micro- and macro-steatosis of a donor graft on post-transplantation outcomes. METHODS: The UNOS-STAR registry (2005-2019) was used to select patients who received a liver transplant graft with hepatic steatosis. The study cohort was stratified by the presence of macro- or micro-vesicular steatosis, and further stratified by histologic grade of steatosis. The primary endpoints of all-cause mortality and graft failure were compared using sequential Cox regression analysis. Analysis of specific causes of mortality was further performed. RESULTS: There were 9184 with no macro-steatosis (control), 150 with grade 3 macro-steatosis, 822 with grade 2 macro-steatosis and 12 585 with grade 1 macro-steatosis. There were 10 320 without micro-steatosis (control), 478 with grade 3 micro-steatosis, 1539 with grade 2 micro-steatosis and 10 404 with grade 1 micro-steatosis. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality or graft failure among recipients who received a donor organ with any evidence of macro- or micro-steatosis, compared to those receiving non-steatotic grafts. There was increased mortality due to cardiac arrest among recipients of a grade 2 macro-steatosis donor organ. CONCLUSION: This study shows no significant difference in all-cause mortality or graft failure among recipients who received a donor liver with any degree of micro- or macro-steatosis. Further analysis identified increased mortality due to specific aetiologies among recipients receiving donor organs with varying grades of macro- and micro-steatosis.

Evaluating the Association Between Social Vulnerability and Outcomes of Heart Transplantation in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) is a tool that was developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help identify communities that are at risk of harm from social, economic, or environmental factors. This study evaluates the association between SVI and outcomes of adult heart transplantation (HT) in the United States. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was used to identify all isolated adult (≥18 y) HT recipients and their home address zip codes between 2010 and 2021. Recipients were classified into three SVI risk groups: low risk (SVI: <0.33), intermediate risk (SVI: 0.33-0.65), and high risk (SVI: ≥0.66). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate recipient survival probability based on SVI risk. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were built to evaluate the association of SVI with 1- and 5-y mortality. RESULTS: A total of 22,400 recipients distributed over 9753 zip codes were included. Unadjusted 1-y survival rates in the three risk groups were as follows: low risk: 90.5%, intermediate risk: 91.1%, high risk 90.9%, and Log-rank P = 0.550 and 5-y survival rates were as follows: low risk: 80.8%, intermediate risk: 78.6%, high risk: 76.1%, and Log-rank P < 0.001. Compared to low-risk recipients, risk-adjusted 1-y mortality hazard ratio was 1.02 (0.92-1.14, P = 0.657) for intermediate risk and 1.09 (0.95-1.24, P = 0.222) for high-risk recipients. Risk-adjusted 5-y mortality hazard ratio was 1.07 (0.99-1.16, P = 0.095) for intermediate-risk recipients and 1.17 (1.06-1.28, P = 0.002) for high-risk recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Social vulnerability is associated with HT outcomes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention SVI may be a useful tool in identifying at-risk geographic areas where targeted efforts may be prudent for reducing disparities in HT outcomes.

Primary Team Versus Local Recovery in Liver Transplantation in the Modern Era: A National Analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing Database.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of acuity circles (AC) in 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of local surgeons to recover livers for transplant; however, the impact on liver transplant (LT) outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Deceased donor adult LT recipients from the UNOS database were identified.  Recipients were grouped by donor surgeon: local versus primary recovery.  Patient and graft survival as well as trends in local recovery in the 2 years pre-AC and post-AC were assessed. RESULTS: The utilization of local recovery in LT increased from 22.3% to 37.9% post-AC (p < 0.01).  LTs with local recovery had longer cold ischemia times (6.5 h [5.4-7.8] vs. 5.3 h [4.4-6.5], p < 0.01) and traveled further (210 miles [89-373] vs. 73 miles [11-196], p < 0.01) than those using primary recovery. Multivariate analyses revealed no differences in patient or graft survival between local and primary recovery, and between OPO and local surgeon. There was no difference in survival when comparing simultaneous liver-kidney, donation after circulatory death, MELD ≥ 30, or redo-LT by recovery team.  Recovery and utilization rates were also noted to be higher post-AC (51.4% vs. 48.6% pre-AC, p < 0.01) as well as when OPO surgeons recovered the allografts (72.5% vs. 66.0%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Nearly 40% of LTs are performed using local recovery, and utilization rates and trends continue to change with changing organ-sharing paradigms such as AC.  This practice appears safe with outcomes similar to recovery by the primary team in appropriately selected recipients and may lead to increased access and the ability to transplant more livers.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Stroke After Combined Heart-Kidney and Heart-Liver Transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: While stroke is a well-recognized complication of isolated heart transplantation, stroke in patients undergoing simultaneous heart-liver (HLT) and heart-kidney transplantation (HKT) has not been explored. This study assessed postoperative stroke incidence, risk factors, and outcomes in HLT and HKT compared with isolated heart transplant. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for adult patients undergoing HLT, HKT, and isolated heart transplants between 1994 and 2022. Patients were stratified by presence of in-hospital stroke after transplant. Post-transplant survival at 1-year was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests. Separate multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to identify risk factors for stroke after HKT and HLT. RESULTS: Of 2326 HKT recipients, 85 experienced stroke, and of 442 HLT recipients, 19 experienced stroke. Stroke was more common after HKT and HLT than after an isolated heart transplant (3.7% vs. 4.3% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.01). One-year post-transplant survival was lower in those with stroke among both HKT recipients (64.5% vs. 88.7%, p(log-rank) < 0.001) and HLT recipients (43.8% vs. 87.4%, p(log-rank) < 0.001. Pre-transplant pVAD, prior stroke, postoperative dialysis, diabetes, prior cardiac surgery, and heart cold ischemic time were independent risk factors for stroke after HKT, after adjusting for age, sex, and need for blood transfusion on the waitlist. For HLT, postoperative dialysis was a significant risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke is more common after HKT and HLT than after isolated heart transplant, and results in poor survival. Independent risk factors for stroke include pre-transplant percutaneous VAD (HKT) and postoperative dialysis (HKT and HLT).

The Spread Pattern of New Practice in Liver Transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Introducing new liver transplantation (LT) practices, like unconventional donor use, incurs higher costs, making evaluation of their prognostic justification crucial. This study reexamines the spread pattern of new LT practices and its prognosis across the United States. METHODS: The study investigated the spread pattern of new practices using the UNOS database (2014-2023). Practices included LT for hepatitis B/C (HBV/HCV) nonviremic recipients with viremic donors, LT for COVID-19-positive recipients, and LT using onsite machine perfusion (OMP). One year post-LT patient and graft survival were also evaluated. RESULTS: LTs using HBV/HCV donors were common in the East, while LTs for COVID-19 recipients and those using OMP started predominantly in California, Arizona, Texas, and the Northeast. K-means cluster analysis identified three adoption groups: facilities with rapid, slow, and minimal adoption rates. Rapid adoption occurred mainly in high-volume centers, followed by a gradual increase in middle-volume centers, with little increase in low-volume centers. The current spread patterns did not significantly affect patient survival. Specifically, for LTs with HCV donors or COVID-19 recipients, patient and graft survivals in the rapid-increasing group was comparable to others. In LTs involving OMP, the rapid- or slow-increasing groups tended to have better patient survival (p = 0.05) and significantly improved graft survival rates (p = 0.02). Facilities adopting new practices often overlap across different practices. DISCUSSION: Our analysis revealed three distinct adoption groups across all practices, correlating the adoption aggressiveness with LT volume in centers. Aggressive adoption of new practices did not compromise patient and graft survivals, supporting the current strategy. Understanding historical trends could predict the rise in future LT cases with new practices, aiding in resource distribution.

Impact of race-neutral eGFR calculations on African American kidney transplant candidate wait time: A single center retrospective analysis.

Race-inclusive estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) could contribute to racial disparity in access to kidney transplantation. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) issued a policy allowing waiting time modification for candidates affected by race-inclusive eGFR calculations. Implementation of the new OPTN policy at the kidney transplant program of the Mount Sinai Hospital involved review of 921 African American candidates, of whom 240 (26%) candidates gained a median of 1 year and 10 months. The duration of time candidates gained varied from a minimum of 5 days to a maximum of 12 years and 3 months; 45.4% gained at least 2 years, and 12% gained at least 4 years of wait time. Among those who gained wait time, 20 (8.3%) candidates received deceased donor kidney transplants. Candidates who gained wait time had similar sociodemographic characteristics as those who did not, except that the median age for the former was higher by 3 years (59 vs. 56). Our early data suggest that the current policy on waiting time modification for candidates affected by race-inclusive estimation of GFR has the potential to improve racial disparity in access to kidney transplantation. However, the generalizability of our findings to other centers requires further study.

Impact of age over 70 years in the new allocation system on the outcomes of heart transplantation in the US.

BACKGROUND: United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation criteria changed in 2018 to accommodate the increased prevalence of patients on a ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplant and prioritize sicker people in anticipation of a heart graft. We aimed to assess the impact of patient age in the new allocation policy on mortality following heart transplantation. Secondary outcomes included the effect of age ≥70 on post-transplant events, including stroke, dialysis, pacemaker, and rejection requiring treatment. METHODS: The UNOS Registry was queried to identify patients who underwent heart transplants alone in the US between 2000 and 2021. Patients were divided into groups according to their age (over 70 and under 70 years old). RESULTS: Patients aged over 70 were more likely to require dialysis during follow-up, but less likely to experience rejection requiring treatment, compared with patients aged <70. Age ≥70 in the new allocation system was a significant predictor of 1-year mortality (adjusted HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.05-1.91; p = .024), but its effect on 5-year mortality was not significant after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted HR: 1.27; 95% CI:.97-1.66; p = .077). Undergoing transplantation under the new allocation policy vs the old allocation policy was not a significant predictor of mortality in patients over 70 years old. CONCLUSIONS: Age ≥70 is a significant predictor of 1-year mortality following heart transplantation, but not at 5 and 10 years; however, the new allocation does not seem to have changed the outcomes for this group of patients.

Influence of cardiac diagnosis on outcomes of pediatric heart-lung transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Pediatric Heart-lung transplant (HLTX) is performed for endstage congenital heart disease (CHD) with irreversible pulmonary hypertension or non-congenital heart disease (NCHD) with end-stage heart and lung disease. CHD could influence the outcomes of HTLX due to increased complexity of the operation as compared to NCHD. In this study we evaluated the influence of cardiac diagnosis on outcomes of pediatric HTLX. METHODS: The UNOS database (1987-2022) was queried for primary HTLX in patients <18 years. The data were extracted for demographics, pretransplant characteristics, post-transplant outcomes, and analyzed for the impact of cardiac diagnosis on post-transplant outcomes. Standard statistical tests were used. Survival was compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Ninety of the 213 patients who underwent HLTX had CHD. There were no demographic differences. Heart listing status was similar but with a higher LAS score for NCHD. NCHD had higher pre-operative life support use (mechanical ventilation, inotropes or dialysis) but the use of ECMO as a bridge to transplantation was similar. Wait-list times were longer for CHD. The ischemic times were similar. Post-transplant dialysis, stroke, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and rejection were similar. Survival at 30-days, 1-year, and long-term survival at 17 years was similar. Non-survivors at 30-days post-transplant were on life support, used ECMO as a bridge, had lower wait-list times, longer ischemic times and had strokes. Non-survivors at 1-year had similar factors in addition to a higher dialysis use. CONCLUSION: Cardiac diagnosis had no impact on outcomes after Pediatric HLTX. Patients on life support or ECMO before transplantation were transplanted faster but with lower survival.

Chronological and Geographical Variations in the Incidence and Acceptance of COVID-19-Positive Donors and Outcomes Among Abdominal Transplant Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Given the importance of understanding COVID-19-positive donor incidence and acceptance, we characterize chronological and geographic variations in COVID-19 incidence relative to COVID-19-positive donor acceptance. METHODS: Data on deceased donors and recipients of liver and kidney transplants were obtained from the UNOS database between 2020 and 2023. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to assess trends in COVID-19-positive donor incidence. Posttransplant graft and patient survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: From among 38 429 deceased donors, 1517 were COVID-19 positive. Fewer kidneys (72.4% vs. 76.5%, p < 0.001) and livers (56.4% vs. 62.0%, p < 0.001) were used from COVID-19-positive donors versus COVID-19-negative donors. Areas characterized by steadily increased COVID-19 donor incidence exhibit the highest transplantation acceptance rates (92.33%), followed by intermediate (84.62%) and rapidly increased (80.00%) COVID-19 incidence areas (p = 0.016). Posttransplant graft and patient survival was comparable among recipients, irrespective of donor COVID-19 status. CONCLUSIONS: Regions experiencing heightened rates of COVID-19-positive donors are associated with decreased acceptance of liver and kidney transplantation. Similar graft and patient survival is noted among recipients, irrespective of donor COVID-19 status. These findings emphasize the need for adaptive practices and unified medical consensus in navigating a dynamic pandemic.

Simultaneous split liver/kidney transplantation: A national and single center experience report.

BACKGROUND: End-stage liver disease (ESLD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are prevalent diseases for which the definitive treatment is transplantation. With limited organ supply, strategies to maximize organ availability has led to increasing rates of split liver transplantations for ESLD patients. Therefore, simultaneous split liver and kidney transplantations (SSLK) for patients with ESLD and ESRD could represent a treatment option for comorbid patients. However, current practice and outcomes after SSLK are unknown. METHODS: We aim to report national trends and our experience with patients undergoing SSLK. We performed a retrospective review of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Standard Transplant Analysis and Research file from January 2011-April 2022. Descriptive analysis of preoperative characteristics, postoperative outcomes and actuarial graft and patient survivals are reported. RESULTS: National review of the UNOS transplant registry from 2011-2021 of adult patients undergoing initial transplantation via SSLK demonstrates that this procedure remains uncommon, with only 76 such cases captured in that time. Nevertheless, survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years remains robust, at 94%, 92%, and 90% for patients overall, 90%, 88%, 88%, for the liver graft, and 93%, 91%, 88% for the kidney graft, respectively. Review of a single center experience with three such patients from 2019-2021 has shown a safe, enduring transplant option with no graft complications seen. CONCLUSIONS: SSLK is both safe and a feasible option to optimize organ supply while allowing recipients to receive quality liver and kidney grafts and should be considered more often by transplant centers going forward.

Outcomes of kidney, liver, and simultaneous liver and kidney transplants from hepatitis c infected donors to hepatitis c naïve recipients: A large single center experience.

BACKGROUND: With the introduction of direct-acting antiviral therapies (DAAs), the non-use rate of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive donor organs (D+) has decreased significantly. We present the donor, recipient, and transplant allograft characteristics, along with recipient outcomes, in one of the largest cohorts of HCV-D+ transplants into HCV-naïve recipients (R-). METHODS: Charts of HCV D+/R- kidney (KT), liver (LT), and simultaneous liver-kidney (SLKT) transplant recipients between January 2019 and July 2022 were reviewed. Primary outcomes of interest included waitlist times and 1-year graft failure. Secondary outcomes included hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, post-transplant complications, effectiveness of DAA therapy, and characteristics of patients who relapsed from initial DAA therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-five HCV D+/R- transplants at our center [42 KT (26 nucleic acid testing positive [NAT+], 16 NAT-), 12 LT (eight NAT+, four NAT-), and one SLKT (NAT+)] had a median waitlist time of 69 days for KT, 87 days for LT, and 15 days for SLKT. There were no graft failures at 1 year. All viremic recipients were treated with a 12-week course of DAAs, of which 100% achieved end of treatment response (EOTR)-85.7% (n = 30) achieved sustained virologic response (SVR) and 14.3% relapsed (n = 5; four KT, one LT). All relapsed recipients were retreated and achieved SVR. The most common post-transplantation complications include BK virus infection (n = 9) for KT and non-allograft infections (n = 4) for LT. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has demonstrated no graft failures or recipient deaths at 1 year, and despite a 14.3% relapse rate, we achieved 100% SVR. Complications rates of D+/R- appeared comparable to national D-/R- complication rates. Further studies comparing D+/R- to D-/R- outcomes are needed.

The short and long-term prognostic influences of liver grafts with high bilirubin levels at the time of organ recovery.

BACKGROUND: Donors with hyperbilirubinemia are often not utilized for liver transplantation (LT) due to concerns about potential liver dysfunction and graft survival. The potential to mitigate organ shortages using such donors remains unclear. METHODS: This study analyzed adult deceased donor data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2002-2022). Hyperbilirubinemia was categorized as high total bilirubin (3.0-5.0 mg/dL) and very high bilirubin (≥5.0 mg/dL) in brain-dead donors. We assessed the impact of donor hyperbilirubinemia on 3-month and 3-year graft survival, comparing these outcomes to donors after circulatory death (DCD). RESULTS: Of 138 622 donors, 3452 (2.5%) had high bilirubin and 1999 (1.4%) had very high bilirubin levels. Utilization rates for normal, high, and very high bilirubin groups were 73.5%, 56.4%, and 29.2%, respectively. No significant differences were found in 3-month and 3-year graft survival between groups. Donors with high bilirubin had superior 3-year graft survival compared to DCD (hazard ratio .83, p = .02). Factors associated with inferior short-term graft survival included recipient medical condition in intensive care unit (ICU) and longer cold ischemic time; factors associated with inferior long-term graft survival included older donor age, recipient medical condition in ICU, older recipient age, and longer cold ischemic time. Donors with ≥10% macrosteatosis in the very high bilirubin group were also associated with worse 3-year graft survival (p = .04). DISCUSSION: The study suggests that despite many grafts with hyperbilirubinemia being non-utilized, acceptable post-LT outcomes can be achieved using donors with hyperbilirubinemia. Careful selection may increase utilization and expand the donor pool without negatively affecting graft outcome.

Assessing the Role of Primary Heart Failure Etiology on Cardiac Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There are diverse indications for heart transplantation (HTx), often categorized into ischemic (ICM) and nonischemic (NICM) cardiomyopathy. Although there is extensive research comparing the outcomes for these disease processes following certain therapeutic interventions, there are limited data on how recipient etiology impacts post-HTx survival. Our investigation seeks to identify this relationship. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using adult HTx patients from the United Network for Organ Sharing database between 2000 and 2021. Patients with a combined heart-lung transplant or previous HTx were excluded. ICM included coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. NICM included nonischemic dilated (NIDCM), hypertrophic (HCM), and restrictive (RCM) cardiomyopathy. Overall survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: A total of 42 268 patients were included in our study. Recipients with ICM were older and more likely to be males, obese, diabetics, and smokers. We found that patients with ICM had an increased incidence of transplant CAD (OR = 1.23, p < 0.001) and risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.22, p < 0.001) compared to NICM. When NICM was expanded, RCM had a similar hazard risk compared to ICM (HR = 1.03, p = 0.650), whereas both NIDCM (HR = 0.81, p < 0.001) and HCM (HR = 0.70, p < 0.001) had improved survival. CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence to suggest that ICM has decreased survival when compared to NICM. When NICM was expanded, RCM was found to have an increased mortality risk similar to ICM, whereas NIDCM and HCM both had superior outcomes. The clinical implication of this investigation will allow clinicians to better understand the prognosis of certain patient groups.

Does lung procurement and exposure to Perfadex impact heart transplantation outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Some studies have shown increased incidence of Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) after heart and lung procurement for heart transplant recipients. There have been limited investigations of the impact of lung procurement on heart procurement and the potential effects of the exposure to the type of lung preservation solution, the volume of the lung preservation solution and adequacy of decompression of the heart during heart and lung procurement and the impact on heart transplant outcomes. METHODS: Adult heart transplant recipients in the UNOS database recorded from January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2022 formed the study cohort. Any heart that was procured with a lung team that utilized Perfadex preservation solution (XVIVO, Gothenburg, Sweden) was classified as exposed to Perfadex and otherwise classified as not exposed to Perfadex. Lung procurements performed with a preservation solution other than Perfadex or unknown were excluded (n = 2486). Simple comparisons were made with t-tests or chi-squared tests. Logistic regression models were used to predict 30 day and 1 year survival. Accelerated failure time models were employed to analyze time to death and time to rejection. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 34 192 heart transplants, of which 21 928 donors were not exposed to Perfadex (64.1%). There were statistically, but not clinically, significant differences in donor characteristics for these groups including in donor age (33.34 ± 11.01 not exposed vs. 30.70 ± 10.69 exposed; p < .001), diabetic donor (4% not exposed vs. 3% exposed; p = .004), and ischemic time (3.28 ± 1.09 h not exposed vs. 3.24 ± 1.05 h exposed; p = .002). In adjusted models, for all included donors, Perfadex exposure was associated with increased short term mortality, but no long term difference (1 year mortality OR 1.10, p = .014). CONCLUSION: Perfadex exposure was associated with increased short-term mortality for heart transplant recipients. Mechanistic investigation is warranted.

Procurement Trends, Indications, and Outcomes of Heart-Lung Transplantation in the Contemporary Era.

BACKGROUND: Evolving trends in organ procurement and technological innovation prompted an investigation into recent trends, indications, and outcomes following combined heart-lung transplantation (HLTx). METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for all adult (≥18 years) HLTx performed between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2023. Patients with previous transplants were excluded. The primary endpoint was the effect of donor, recipient, and transplantation characteristics on 1- and 5-year survival. Secondary analyses included a comparison of HLTx at high- and low-volume centers, an assessment of HLTx following donation after circulatory death (DCD), and an evaluation of HLTx volume over time. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to assess factors associated with mortality. Temporal trends were evaluated with linear regression. RESULTS: After exclusions, 319 patients were analyzed, of whom 5 (1.6%) were DCD. HLTx volume increased from 2013 to 2023 (p < 0.001). One- and 5-year survival following HLTx was 84.0% and 59.5%, respectively. One-year survival was higher for patients undergoing HLTx at a high-volume center (88.3% vs. 77.9%; p = 0.012). After risk adjustment, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support 72 h posttransplant and predischarge dialysis were associated with increased 1-year mortality (HR = 3.19, 95% CI = 1.86-5.49 and HR = 3.47, 95% CI = 2.17-5.54, respectively) and 5-year mortality (HR = 2.901, 95% CI = 1.679-5.011 and HR = 3.327, 95% CI = 2.085-5.311, respectively), but HLTx at a high-volume center was not associated with either. CONCLUSIONS: HLTx volume has resurged, with DCD HLTx emerging as a viable procurement strategy. Factors associated with 1- and 5-year survival may be used to guide postoperative management following HLTx.

Long-Term Outcomes After Lung Transplantation in Children With Intellectual Disabilities.

BACKGROUND: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) started recording data on intellectual disability status in 2008. This study aimed to characterize the long-term outcomes for children with intellectual disabilities (IDs) undergoing lung transplantation. METHODS: All pediatric patients (under 18 years old) undergoing bilateral lung transplantation were identified using the UNOS database. The patients were grouped into the following categories: no cognitive delay, possible cognitive delay, and definite cognitive delay. The primary endpoint was graft survival at 3-year posttransplantation. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate the independent effect of cognitive disability on graft survival. RESULTS: Five hundred four pediatric patients who underwent lung transplantation between March 2008 and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. 59 had a definite cognitive delay (12%), 23 had a possible delay (5%), and 421 had no delay (83%). When comparing these three groups, there was no significant difference in 60-day graft survival (p = 0.4), 3-year graft survival (p = 0.6), 3-year graft survival for patients who survived at least 60-day posttransplantation (p = 0.9), distribution of causes of death (p = 0.24), nor distribution treatment of rejection within 1-year posttransplantation (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Intellectual disability does not impact long-term outcomes after bilateral lung transplantation. Intellectual disability should not be a contraindication to bilateral lung transplantation on the basis of inferior graft survival.

Predicting wait time for pediatric kidney transplant: a novel index.

BACKGROUND: Over one thousand pediatric kidney transplant candidates are added to the waitlist annually, yet the prospective time spent waiting is unknown for many. Our study fills this gap by identifying variables that impact waitlist time and by creating an index to predict the likelihood of a pediatric candidate receiving a transplant within 1 year of listing. This index could be used to guide patient management by giving clinicians a potential timeline for each candidate's listing based on a unique combination of risk factors. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 3757 pediatric kidney transplant candidates from the 2014 to 2020 OPTN/UNOS database was performed. The data was randomly divided into a training set, comprising two-thirds of the data, and a testing set, comprising one-third of the data. From the training set, univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify significant predictive factors affecting wait times. A predictive index was created using variables significant in the multivariable analysis. The index's ability to predict likelihood of transplantation within 1 year of listing was validated using ROC analysis on the training set. Validation of the index using ROC analysis was repeated on the testing set. RESULTS: A total of 10 variables were found to be significant. The five most significant variables include the following: blood group, B (OR 0.65); dialysis status (OR 3.67); kidney disease etiology, SLE (OR 0.38); and OPTN region, 5 (OR 0.54) and 6 (OR 0.46). ROC analysis of the index on the training set yielded a c-statistic of 0.71. ROC analysis of the index on the testing set yielded a c-statistic of 0.68. CONCLUSIONS: This index is a modest prognostic model to assess time to pediatric kidney transplantation. It is intended as a supplementary tool to guide patient management by providing clinicians with an individualized prospective timeline for each candidate. Early identification of candidates with potential for prolonged waiting times may help encourage more living donation including paired donation chains.

Etiology-Specific Effects of Impaired Functional Status on Liver Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pre-liver transplant (LT) functional status is an important determinant of prognosis post LT. There is insufficient data on how functional status affects outcomes of transplant recipients based on the specific etiology of liver disease. We stratified LT recipients by etiology of liver disease to evaluate the effects of functional status on post-LT prognosis in each subgroup. METHODS: 2005-2019 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Standard Transplant Analysis and Research (STAR) was used to select patients with liver transplant. A total of 14,290 patients were included in the analysis. These patients were stratified by functional status according to Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score: no assistance, some assistance, or total assistance. They were then further divided into six diagnosis categories: metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hereditary disorders, hepatitis C, hepatitis B, autoimmune disease (AID), and alcoholic liver disease (ALD). Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and graft failure, while secondary endpoints included organ-specific causes of death. Those under the age of 18 and those with non-whole liver or prior liver transplantation were excluded. RESULTS: Patients with MASLD requiring some assistance (aHR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.03-2.39, p = 0.04) and those requiring total assistance (aHR: 2.32, 95% CI 1.48-3.64, p < 0.001) had higher incidences of graft failure compared to those requiring no assistance. Those with MASLD requiring total assistance had a higher all-cause mortality rate than those needing no assistance (aHR: 1.62, 95% CI 1.38-1.89, p < 0.001). Patients with hereditary causes of liver disease showed a lower incidence of all-cause mortality in recipients needing some assistance compared with those needing no assistance (aHR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.34-0.80, p = 0.003). LT recipients with hepatitis C, AID, and ALD all showed higher incidences of all-cause mortality in the total assistance cohort when compared to the no assistance cohort. For the secondary endpoints of specific cause of death, transplant recipients with MASLD needing total assistance had higher rates of death due to general cardiac causes, graft rejection, general infectious causes, sepsis, general renal causes, and general respiratory causes. CONCLUSION: Patients with MASLD cirrhosis demonstrated the worst overall outcomes, suggesting that this population may be particularly vulnerable. Poor functional status in patients with end-stage liver disease from hepatitis B or hereditary disease was not associated with a significantly increased rate of adverse outcomes, suggesting that the KPS score may not be broadly applicable to all patients awaiting LT.

Comparison of waitlist and post-transplant outcomes in patients supported with total artificial heart versus continuous biventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND: Durable biventricular support may be necessary to bridge patients with end-stage biventricular failure to heart transplantation. This study compares waitlist and post-transplant outcomes between patients supported with continuous flow, durable biventricular assist devices (BiVAD), and total artificial heart (TAH). METHODS: Using the UNOS registry, we analyzed adult (≥18 years old), first-time transplant candidates with TAH or BiVAD at the time of listing or transplantation from 10/1/2010-10/31/2020, with follow-up through 3/31/2022. Multivariable proportional subdistribution hazards models and cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare death/deterioration or heart transplantation on the waitlist between cohorts. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards model were used to evaluate one-year post-transplant survival and evaluate difference in outcomes based on annual transplant center volume. RESULTS: The waitlist cohort included a total of 228 patients (25% BiVAD). Waitlist outcomes between device types were similar. The transplanted cohort included a total of 352 patients (25% BiVAD). There was a trend towards worse one-year post-transplant survival in patients bridged with TAH versus BiVAD (log-rank p-value = 0.072) that persisted after adjusting for age, gender, policy, and removing dual-organ recipients (HR 1.94 (0.94, 3.98) p-value = 0.07). There was a difference in one-year post-transplant survival amongst TAH-bridged patients when stratified by annual transplant center volume (log-rank p-value = 0.013). One-year post-transplant survival between TAH-supported patients from high annual transplant volume centers and BiVAD-supported patients was similar (p-value = 0.815). CONCLUSIONS: BiVAD and TAH are reasonable support strategies with TAH implantation at high-volume transplant centers (51+ transplants/year) having similar 1-year post-transplant survival to BiVAD-supported patients.