Liver Transplant Costs and Activity After United Network for Organ Sharing Allocation Policy Changes.

Importance: A new liver allocation policy was implemented by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) in February 2020 with the stated intent of improving access to liver transplant (LT). There are growing concerns nationally regarding the implications this new system may have on LT costs, as well as access to a chance for LT, which have not been captured at a multicenter level. Objective: To characterize LT volume and cost changes across the US and within specific center groups and demographics after the policy implementation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study collected and reviewed LT volume from multiple centers across the US and cost data with attention to 8 specific center demographics. Two separate 12-month eras were compared, before and after the new UNOS allocation policy: March 4, 2019, to March 4, 2020, and March 5, 2020, to March 5, 2021. Data analysis was performed from May to December 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Center volume, changes in cost. Results: A total of 22 of 68 centers responded comparing 1948 LTs before the policy change and 1837 LTs postpolicy, resulting in a 6% volume decrease. Transplants using local donations after brain death decreased 54% (P < .001) while imported donations after brain death increased 133% (P = .003). Imported fly-outs and dry runs increased 163% (median, 19; range, 1-75, vs 50, range, 2-91; P = .009) and 33% (median, 3; range, 0-16, vs 7, range, 0-24; P = .02). Overall hospital costs increased 10.9% to a total of $46 360 176 (P = .94) for participating centers. There was a 77% fly-out cost increase postpolicy ($10 600 234; P = .03). On subanalysis, centers with decreased LT volume postpolicy observed higher overall hospital costs ($41 720 365; P = .048), and specifically, a 122% cost increase for liver imports ($6 508 480; P = .002). Transplant centers from low-income states showed a significant increase in hospital (12%) and import (94%) costs. Centers serving populations with larger proportions of racial and ethnic minority candidates and specifically Black candidates significantly increased costs by more than 90% for imported livers, fly-outs, and dry runs despite lower LT volume. Similarly, costs increased significantly (>100%) for fly-outs and dry runs in centers from worse-performing health systems. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on this large multicenter effort and contrary to current assumptions, the new liver distribution system appears to place a disproportionate burden on populations of the current LT community who already experience disparities in health care. The continuous allocation policies being promoted by UNOS could make the situation even worse.

Prevalence, presentation, and endovascular management of hemodynamically or clinically significant arterio-portal fistulae in living and cadaveric donor liver transplant recipients.

PURPOSE: To compare the prevalence (cadaveric vs. living donor transplants), clinical features, and the effectiveness of endovascular management of significant arterio-portal fistulae (APF) in liver transplant recipients. METHODS: A retrospective audit of liver transplant recipients in two institutions was performed (1996-2009). Significant APF were included and were defined as symptomatic and/or hemodynamically significant (causing graft dysfunction and/or having abnormal Doppler findings in the portal vein). Patients with significant APF were evaluated for presenting symptoms, imaging features, size/branch order portal vein involvement, and effectiveness of the endovascular management (coil embolization). RESULTS: Four significant APF were found in 1992 (0.2%) liver transplants. Two were symptomatic and two were asymptomatic but were hemodynamically significant with liver function test abnormalities. All four APF were found in cadaveric donor graft recipients (0.23%, N = 4/1753) and none in 239 living donor graft recipients. However, there was no statistical difference between cadaveric and living donor graft recipients (p = 1.0, odds ratio = 1.23). Coil embolization was technically and clinically successful in all 4 without complications and causing normalization of the abnormal Doppler findings. CONCLUSION: Significant APF are a rare diagnosis (0.2% of transplants). Coil embolization is a safe and effective treatment option for APF in transplants.