National Incidence, Outcomes, and Management Strategies for Pre- and Post-Transplant Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Transplant Recipients.

Background: Among heart transplant candidates, atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common comorbidity; however, little is known about the impact of pre-transplant AF on incidence of post-transplant AF or other transplant outcomes. Methods: Adult heart transplant recipients transplanted from 07/01/2012 to 07/01/2021 with data available in both the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and Symphony Health pharmacy databases were included. Recipients were categorized by presence of pre-transplant AF using prescription fill data. Perioperative outcomes and survival out to 5 years post-transplant were compared between those with and without pre-transplant AF. Results: Of the 11,789 heart transplant recipients, 2,477 (21.0%) had pre-transplant AF. Pre-transplant AF was associated with an increased likelihood of pre-discharge stroke (aOR 2.13 [95%CI: 1.07-4.26], p=0.03) and dialysis (aOR 1.45 [1.05-2.00], p=0.02), as well as of post-transplant AF at 6 months (aOR 2.42 [1.44-1.48], p=0.001) and 1 year (aOR 2.81 [1.72-4.56], p<0.001). Pre-transplant AF was associated with increased post-transplant mortality at 30 days (aHR 2.39 [1.29-4.44], p=0.006) and 1 year (aHR 1.46 [95% CI: 1.01-2.13], p=0.04), but similar mortality at 5 years (aHR 1.23 [0.96-1.58], p=0.11). Conclusion: Heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant AF had worse short-term outcomes and increased risk of developing post-transplant AF but comparable survival at 5 years post-transplant. Our findings emphasize the importance of increased monitoring for perioperative complications and highlight the long-term safety of heart transplantation in this population. What Is New?: Patients with atrial fibrillation who undergo heart transplantation have worse short term survival (30-days and 1-year) but similar long term survival (5-years) compared to recipients without pre-transplant atrial fibrillation.Pre-transplant atrial fibrillation increases the risk of clinically significant post-transplant atrial fibrillation and peri-operative stroke.Rate vs rhythm control pharmacotherapy for atrial fibrillation is not associated with differences in survival in heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant atrial fibrillation. What are the Clinical Implications?: Atrial fibrillation should not deter heart transplantation in appropriate candidates, though cardiovascular and stroke risk adjustment may be warranted.Use of amiodarone at doses ≤ 200 mg/day is not associated with reduced survival in heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant atrial fibrillation.

Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness in Using High-Kidney Donor Profile Index Organs.

A more granular donor kidney grading scale, the kidney donor profile index (KDPI), has recently emerged in contradistinction to the standard criteria donor/expanded criteria donor framework. In this paper, we built a Markov decision process model to evaluate the survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and cost advantages of using high-KDPI kidneys based on multiple KDPI strata over a 60-month time horizon as opposed to remaining on the waiting list waiting for a lower-KDPI kidney. Data for the model were gathered from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the United States Renal Data System Medicare parts A, B, and D databases. Of the 129,024 phenotypes delineated in this model, 65% of them would experience a survival benefit, 81% would experience an increase in QALYs, 87% would see cost-savings, and 76% would experience cost-savings per QALY from accepting a high-KDPI kidney rather than remaining on the waiting list waiting for a kidney of lower-KDPI. Classification and regression tree analysis (CART) revealed the main drivers of increased survival in accepting high-KDPI kidneys were wait time ≥30 months, panel reactive antibody (PRA) <90, age ≥45 to 65, diagnosis leading to renal failure, and prior transplantation. The CART analysis showed the main drivers of increased QALYs in accepting high-kidneys were wait time ≥30 months, PRA <90, and age ≥55 to 65.

Examination of Racial and Socioeconomic Disparity in Use of Nondirected Kidney Donation in the US.

BACKGROUND: Nondirected donor (NDD) kidney transplant (NDDKT) continues to improve organ access for waitlisted candidates. Although NDDs are becoming increasingly common, there has been no contemporary evaluation of NDD allograft use, and it is vital to understand sociodemographic, as well as center-level, use across the US. STUDY DESIGN: Using national data from the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients, this study characterized NDDs, NDDKT recipients, and center-level distribution of NDDKT. Directed donor and NDD characteristics were compared using Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify characteristics associated with receiving NDDKT, and center distribution of NDDKT was assessed using the Gini coefficient. RESULTS: NDDKT increased from 1.4% (n = 154) of all living donor kidney transplants in 2010 to 6.5% (n = 338) in 2020. Compared with directed living donors, NDDs were older (median [IQR], 44 [33 to 54] vs 43 [33 to 52], p < 0.01), more often male (40.2% vs 36.7%, p < 0.001), and White (91.4% vs 69.5%, p < 0.001). White adult candidates were more likely to receive NDDKT compared with Black (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.300.340.39, p < 0.001), Hispanic/Latino (aOR, 0.360.420.48, p < 0.001), and Other (aOR, 0.410.470.55, p < 0.001) candidates. Black pediatric candidates had lower odds of receiving NDDKT (aOR, 0.090.220.54, p = 0.02). The proportion of centers performing NDDKT has increased from 2010 to 2020 (Gini = 0.77 vs 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Although more centers are performing NDDKT, racial disparities persist among NDDs and NDDKT recipients. Continued effort is needed to recruit living kidney donors and improve access to living donation for minority groups in the US. (J Am Coll Surg 2022;234:000-00. © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons).

Better Understanding the Disparity Associated With Black Race in Heart Transplant Outcomes: A National Registry Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Black heart transplant recipients have higher risk of mortality than White recipients. Better understanding of this disparity, including subgroups most affected and timing of the highest risk, is necessary to improve care of Black recipients. We hypothesize that this disparity may be most pronounced among young recipients, as barriers to care like socioeconomic factors may be particularly salient in a younger population and lead to higher early risk of mortality. METHODS: We studied 22 997 adult heart transplant recipients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from January 2005 to 2017 using Cox regression models adjusted for recipient, donor, and transplant characteristics. RESULTS: Among recipients aged 18 to 30 years, Black recipients had 2.05-fold (95% CI, 1.67-2.51) higher risk of mortality compared with non-Black recipients (P<0.001, interaction P<0.001); however, the risk was significant only in the first year post-transplant (first year: adjusted hazard ratio, 2.30 [95% CI, 1.60-3.31], P<0.001; after first year: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.54-1.29]; P=0.4). This association was attenuated among recipients aged 31 to 40 and 41 to 60 years, in whom Black recipients had 1.53-fold ([95% CI, 1.25-1.89] P<0.001) and 1.20-fold ([95% CI, 1.09-1.33] P<0.001) higher risk of mortality. Among recipients aged 61 to 80 years, no significant association was seen with Black race (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.97-1.29]; P=0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Young Black recipients have a high risk of mortality in the first year after heart transplant, which has been masked in decades of research looking at disparities in aggregate. To reduce overall racial disparities, clinical research moving forward should focus on targeted interventions for young Black recipients during this period.

Center-level Variation in HLA-incompatible Living Donor Kidney Transplantation Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Desensitization protocols for HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) vary across centers. The impact of these, as well as other practice variations, on ILDKT outcomes remains unknown. METHODS: We sought to quantify center-level variation in mortality and graft loss following ILDKT using a 25-center cohort of 1358 ILDKT recipients with linkage to Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for accurate outcome ascertainment. We used multilevel Cox regression with shared frailty to determine the variation in post-ILDKT outcomes attributable to between-center differences and to identify any center-level characteristics associated with improved post-ILDKT outcomes. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient-level characteristics, only 6 centers (24%) had lower mortality and 1 (4%) had higher mortality than average. Similarly, only 5 centers (20%) had higher graft loss and 2 had lower graft loss than average. Only 4.7% of the differences in mortality (P < 0.01) and 4.4% of the differences in graft loss (P < 0.01) were attributable to between-center variation. These translated to a median hazard ratio of 1.36 for mortality and 1.34 of graft loss for similar candidates at different centers. Post-ILDKT outcomes were not associated with the following center-level characteristics: ILDKT volume and transplanting a higher proportion of highly sensitized, prior transplant, preemptive, or minority candidates. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike most aspects of transplantation in which center-level variation and volume impact outcomes, we did not find substantial evidence for this in ILDKT. Our findings support the continued practice of ILDKT across these diverse centers.

Characterizing the landscape and impact of infections following kidney transplantation.

Infections remain a major threat to successful kidney transplantation (KT). To characterize the landscape and impact of post-KT infections in the modern era, we used United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data linked to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) to study 141 661 Medicare-primary kidney transplant recipients from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2014. Infection diagnoses were ascertained by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes. The cumulative incidence of a post-KT infection was 36.9% at 3 months, 53.7% at 1 year, and 78.0% at 5 years. The most common infections were urinary tract infection (UTI; 46.8%) and pneumonia (28.2%). Five-year mortality for kidney transplant recipients who developed an infection was 24.9% vs 7.9% for those who did not, and 5-year death-censored graft failure (DCGF) was 20.6% vs 10.1% (P < .001). This translated to a 2.22-fold higher mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.15 2.222.29 , P < .001) and 1.92-fold higher DCGF risk (aHR: 1.84 1.911.98 , P < .001) for kidney transplant recipients who developed an infection, although the magnitude of this higher risk varied across infection types (for example, 3.11-fold higher mortality risk for sepsis vs 1.62-fold for a UTI). Post-KT infections are common and substantially impact mortality and DCGF, even in the modern era. Kidney transplant recipients at high risk for infections might benefit from enhanced surveillance or follow-up to mitigate these risks.

Financial incentives versus standard of care to improve patient compliance with live kidney donor follow-up: protocol for a multi-center, parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Live kidney donors (LKDs) account for nearly a third of kidney transplants in the United States. While donor nephrectomy poses minimal post-surgical risk, LKDs face an elevated adjusted risk of developing chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and end-stage renal disease. Routine screening presents an opportunity for the early detection and management of chronic conditions. Transplant hospital reporting requirements mandate the submission of laboratory and clinical data at 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years after kidney donation, but less than 50% of hospitals are able to comply. Strategies to increase patient engagement in follow-up efforts while minimizing administrative burden are needed. We seek to evaluate the effectiveness of using small financial incentives to promote patient compliance with LKD follow-up. METHODS/DESIGN: We are conducting a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients who undergo live donor nephrectomy at The Johns Hopkins Hospital Comprehensive Transplant Center (MDJH) and the University of Maryland Medical Center Transplant Center (MDUM). Eligible donors will be recruited in-person at their first post-surgical clinic visit or over the phone. We will use block randomization to assign LKDs to the intervention ($25 gift card at each follow-up visit) or control arm (current standard of care). Follow-up compliance will be tracked over time. The primary outcome will be complete (all components addressed) and timely (60 days before or after expected visit date), submission of LKD follow-up data at required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points. The secondary outcome will be transplant hospital-level compliance with federal reporting requirements at each visit. Rates will be compared between the two arms following the intention-to-treat principle. DISCUSSION: Small financial incentivization might increase patient compliance in the context of LKD follow-up, without placing undue administrative burden on transplant providers. The findings of this RCT will inform potential center- and national-level initiatives to provide all LKDs with small financial incentives to promote engagement with post-donation monitoring efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03090646 Date of registration: March 2, 2017 Sponsors: Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland Medical Center Funding: The Living Legacy Foundation of Maryland.

Evolving Impact of COVID-19 on Transplant Center Practices and Policies in the United States.

In our first survey of transplant centers in March 2020, >75% of kidney and liver programs were either suspended or operating under restrictions. To safely resume transplantation, we must understand the evolving impact of COVID-19 on transplant recipients and center-level practices. We therefore conducted a six-week follow-up survey May 7-15, 2020, and linked responses to the COVID-19 incidence map, with a response rate of 84%. Suspension of live donor transplantation decreased from 72% in March to 30% in May for kidneys and from 68% to 52% for livers. Restrictions/suspension of deceased donor transplantation decreased from 84% to 58% for kidneys and from 73% to 42% for livers. Resuming transplantation at normal capacity was envisioned by 83% of programs by August 2020. Exclusively using local recovery teams for deceased donor procurement was reported by 28%. Respondents reported caring for a total of 1166 COVID-19-positive transplant recipients; 25% were critically ill. Telemedicine challenges were reported by 81%. There was a lack of consensus regarding management of potential living donors or candidates with SARS-CoV-2. Our findings demonstrate persistent heterogeneity in center-level response to COVID-19 even as transplant activity resumes, making ongoing national data collection and real-time analysis critical to inform best practices.

Early impact of COVID-19 on transplant center practices and policies in the United States.

COVID-19 is a novel, rapidly changing pandemic: consequently, evidence-based recommendations in solid organ transplantation (SOT) remain challenging and unclear. To understand the impact on transplant activity across the United States, and center-level variation in testing, clinical practice, and policies, we conducted a national survey between March 24, 2020 and March 31, 2020 and linked responses to the COVID-19 incidence map. Response rate was a very high 79.3%, reflecting a strong national priority to better understand COVID-19. Complete suspension of live donor kidney transplantation was reported by 71.8% and live donor liver by 67.7%. While complete suspension of deceased donor transplantation was less frequent, some restrictions to deceased donor kidney transplantation were reported by 84.0% and deceased donor liver by 73.3%; more stringent restrictions were associated with higher regional incidence of COVID-19. Shortage of COVID-19 tests was reported by 42.5%. Respondents reported a total of 148 COVID-19 recipients from <1 to >10 years posttransplant: 69.6% were kidney recipients, and 25.0% were critically ill. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was used by 78.1% of respondents; azithromycin by 46.9%; tocilizumab by 31.3%, and remdesivir by 25.0%. There is wide heterogeneity in center-level response across the United States; ongoing national data collection, expert discussion, and clinical studies are critical to informing evidence-based practices.

Posttransplant Outcomes for cPRA-100% Recipients Under the New Kidney Allocation System.

BACKGROUND: There is concern in the transplant community that outcomes for the most highly sensitized recipients might be poor under Kidney Allocation System (KAS) high prioritization. METHODS: To study this, we compared posttransplant outcomes of 525 pre-KAS (December 4, 2009, to December 3, 2014) calculated panel-reactive antibodies (cPRA)-100% recipients to 3026 post-KAS (December 4, 2014, to December 3, 2017) cPRA-100% recipients using SRTR data. We compared mortality and death-censored graft survival using Cox regression, acute rejection, and delayed graft function (DGF) using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Compared with pre-KAS recipients, post-KAS recipients were allocated kidneys with lower Kidney Donor Profile Index (median 30% versus 35%, P < 0.001) but longer cold ischemic time (CIT) (median 21.0 h versus 18.6 h, P < 0.001). Compared with pre-KAS cPRA-100% recipients, those post-KAS had higher 3-year patient survival (93.6% versus 91.4%, P = 0.04) and 3-year death-censored graft survival (93.7% versus 90.6%, P = 0.005). The incidence of DGF (29.3% versus 29.2%, P = 0.9), acute rejection (11.2% versus 11.7%, P = 0.8), and median LOS (5 d versus 5d, P = 0.2) were similar between pre-KAS and post-KAS recipients. After accounting for secular trends and adjusting for recipient characteristics, post-KAS recipients had no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.861.623.06, P = 0.1), death-censored graft failure (aHR: 0.521.001.91, P > 0.9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.580.861.27, P = 0.4), acute rejection (aOR: 0.610.941.43, P = 0.8), and LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: 0.981.161.36, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any statistically significant worsening of outcomes for cPRA-100% recipients under KAS, although longer-term monitoring of posttransplant mortality is warranted.

Risk of ESKD in Older Live Kidney Donors with Hypertension.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hypertension in older kidney donor candidates is viewed as safe. However, hypertension guidelines have evolved and long-term outcomes have not been explored. We sought to quantify the 15-year risk of ESKD and mortality in older donors (≥50 years old) with versus those without hypertension. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A United States cohort of 24,533 older donors from 1999 to 2016, including 2265 with predonation hypertension, were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data and the Social Security Death Master File to ascertain ESKD development and mortality. The exposure of interest was predonation hypertension. From 2004 to 2016, hypertension was defined as documented predonation use of antihypertensive therapy, regardless of systolic BP or diastolic BP; from 1999 to 2003, when there was no documentation of antihypertensive therapy, hypertension was defined as predonation systolic BP ≥140 or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg. RESULTS: Older donors were 82% white, 6% black, 7% Hispanic, and 3% Asian. The median follow-up was 7.1 years (interquartile range, 3.4-11.1; maximum, 18). There were 24 ESKD and 252 death events during the study period. The 15-year risk of ESKD was 0.8% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.4 to 1.6) for donors with hypertension (mean systolic BP, 138 mm Hg) versus 0.2% (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.4) for donors without hypertension (mean systolic BP, 123 mm Hg; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.28 to 7.22; P=0.01). When predonation antihypertensive therapy was available, the risk of ESKD was 6.21-fold higher (95% CI, 1.20 to 32.17; P=0.03) for donors using antihypertensive therapy (mean systolic BP, 132 mm Hg) versus those not using antihypertensive therapy (mean systolic BP, 124 mm Hg). There was no significant association between donor hypertension and 15-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.66; P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with older donors without hypertension, older donors with hypertension had higher risk of ESKD, but not mortality, for 15 years postdonation. However, the absolute risk of ESKD was small.

Barriers to access in pediatric living-donor liver transplantation.

Children receiving a LDLT have superior post-transplant outcomes, but this procedure is only used for 10% of transplant recipients. Better understanding about barriers toward LDLT and the sociodemographic characteristics that influence these underlying mechanisms would help to inform strategies to increase its use. We conducted an online, anonymous survey of parents/caregivers for children awaiting, or have received, a liver transplant regarding their knowledge and attitudes about LDLT. The survey was completed by 217 respondents. While 97% of respondents understood an individual could donate a portion of their liver, only 72% knew the steps in evaluation, and 69% understood the donor surgery was covered by the recipient's insurance. Individuals with public insurance were less likely than those with private insurance to know the steps for LDLT evaluation (44% vs 82%; P < 0.001). Respondents with public insurance were less likely to know someone that had been a living donor (44% vs 56%; P = 0.005) as were individuals without a college degree (64% vs 85%; P = 0.007). Nearly all respondents generally trusted their healthcare team. Among respondents, 82% believed they were well-informed about LDLT but individuals with public insurance were significantly less likely to feel well-informed (67% vs 87%; P = 0.03) and to understand how donor surgery might impact donor work/time off (44% vs 81%; P = 0.001). Substantial gaps exist in parental understanding about LDLT, including its evaluation, potential benefits, and complications. Greater emphasis on addressing these barriers, especially to individuals with fewer resources, will be helpful to expand the use of LDLT.

Pediatric deceased donor kidney transplant outcomes under the Kidney Allocation System.

The Kidney Allocation System (KAS) has resulted in fewer pediatric kidneys being allocated to pediatric deceased donor kidney transplant (pDDKT) recipients. This had prompted concerns that post-pDDKT outcomes may worsen. To study this, we used SRTR data to compare the outcomes of 953 pre-KAS pDDKT (age <18 years) recipients (December 4, 2012-December 3, 2014) with the outcomes of 934 post-KAS pDDKT recipients (December 4, 2014-December 3, 2016). We analyzed mortality and graft loss by using Cox regression, delayed graft function (DGF) by using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) by using negative binomial regression. Post-KAS recipients had longer pretransplant dialysis times (median 1.26 vs 1.07 years, P = .02) and were more often cPRA 100% (2.0% vs 0.1%, P = .001). Post-KAS recipients had less graft loss than pre-KAS recipients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.35 0.540.83 , P = .005) but no statistically significant differences in mortality (HR: 0.29 0.721.83 , P = .5), DGF (odds ratio: 0.93 1.321.93 , P = .2), and LOS (LOS ratio: 0.96 1.061.19 , P = .4). After adjusting for donor-recipient characteristics, there were no statistically significant post-KAS differences in mortality (adjusted HR: 0.37 1.042.92 , P = .9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio: 0.94 1.412.13 , P = .1), or LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: 0.93 1.041.16 , P = .5). However, post-KAS pDDKT recipients still had less graft loss (adjusted HR: 0.38 0.590.91 , P = .02). KAS has had a mixed effect on short-term posttransplant outcomes for pDDKT recipients, although our results are limited by only 2 years of posttransplant follow-up.

Assessment of Trends in Transplantation of Liver Grafts From Older Donors and Outcomes in Recipients of Liver Grafts From Older Donors, 2003-2016.

Importance: In light of the growing population of older adults in the United States, older donors (aged ≥70 years) represent an expansion of the donor pool; however, their organs are underused. Liver grafts from older donors were historically associated with poor outcomes and higher discard rates, but clinical protocols, organ allocation, and the donor pool have changed in the past 15 years. Objective: To evaluate trends in demographics, discard rates, and outcomes among older liver donors and transplant recipients of livers from older donors in a large national cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 4127 liver grafts from older donors and 3350 liver-only recipients of older donor grafts and 78 990 liver grafts from younger donors (aged 18-69 years) and 64 907 liver-only recipients of younger donor grafts between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2016, in the United States. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, which includes data on all transplant recipients in the United States that are submitted by members of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, was used. Exposures: Year of liver transplant and age of liver donor. Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds of graft discard and posttransplant outcomes of all-cause graft loss and mortality. Results: In this study, 4127 liver grafts from older donors were recovered for liver transplant across the study period (2003-2016); 747 liver grafts from older donors were discarded, and 3350 liver grafts from older donors were used for liver-only recipients. After adjusting for donor characteristics other than age and accounting for Organ Procurement Organization-level variation, liver grafts from older donors were more likely to be discarded compared with liver grafts from younger donors in 2003-2006 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.31), 2007-2009 (aOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 2.17-3.01), 2010-2013 (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.68-2.46), and 2013-2016 (aOR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.96-2.86) (P < .001 for all). Transplants of liver grafts from older donors represented a progressively lower proportion of all adult liver transplants, from 6.0% (n = 258 recipients) in 2003 to 3.2% (n = 211 recipients) in 2016 (P = .001). However, outcomes in recipients of grafts from older donors improved over time, with 40% lower graft loss risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.68; P < .001) and 41% lower mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.68; P < .001) in 2010 through 2016 vs 2003 through 2009; these results were beyond the general temporal improvements in graft loss (interaction P = .03) and mortality risk (interaction P = .04) among recipients of liver grafts from younger donors. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings show that from 2003 to 2016, liver graft loss and mortality among recipients of liver grafts from older donors improved; however, liver graft discard from older donors remained increased and the number of transplants performed with liver grafts from older donors decreased. Expansion of the donor pool through broader use of liver grafts from older donors might be reasonable.

Temporal Changes in the Impact of HLA Mismatching Among Pediatric Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Allocation for pediatric deceased-donor kidney transplantation (pDDKT) in the United States now de-emphasizes HLA matching to improve equality in access to transplantation, but other national systems still consider HLA matching due to concerns about graft survival. We hypothesized that the impact of HLA mismatching has decreased over time due to advances including improved immunosuppression. METHODS: Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data, we analyzed whether the association between the number of HLA mismatches and outcomes of first-time pDDKTs changed between 2 eras: 1995 to 2004 (N = 2854) and 2005 to 2014 (N = 4643). RESULTS: Between eras, the median number of mismatches increased from 4 to 5 (P < 0.001). Overall graft failure risk was higher among HLA-mismatched versus HLA-matched transplants (adjusted hazard ratio 1.211.431.69 for 3-6 versus 0-2 mismatches; P < 0.001), and this association was similar pre-2005 and post-2005 (Pinteraction = 0.5). Median panel-reactive antibody change at relisting increased from 79 to 85 (P = 0.01), but the association between number of HLA mismatches and panel-reactive antibody change was similar between eras (Pinteraction = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Our finding that increased HLA mismatching continues to impact graft survival, with 43% higher risk of graft failure, highlights the tradeoff between transplant access equity and outcomes and calls into question the deemphasis on HLA matching in pDDKT allocation in the United States.

Liver transplantation and waitlist mortality for HCC and non-HCC candidates following the 2015 HCC exception policy change.

Historically, exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) led to higher transplant rates and lower waitlist mortality for HCC candidates compared to non-HCC candidates. As of October 2015, HCC candidates must wait 6 months after initial application to obtain exception points; the impact of this policy remains unstudied. Using 2013-2017 SRTR data, we identified 39  350 adult, first-time, active waitlist candidates and compared deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) rates and waitlist mortality/dropout for HCC versus non-HCC candidates before (October 8, 2013-October 7, 2015, prepolicy) and after (October 8, 2015-October 7, 2017, postpolicy) the policy change using Cox and competing risks regression, respectively. Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same calculated MELD, HCC candidates had a 3.6-fold higher rate of DDLT prepolicy (aHR = 3.49 3.69 3.89 ) and a 2.2-fold higher rate of DDLT postpolicy (aHR = 2.09 2.21 2.34 ). Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same allocation priority, HCC candidates had a 37% lower risk of waitlist mortality/dropout prepolicy (asHR = 0.54 0.63 0.73 ) and a comparable risk of mortality/dropout postpolicy (asHR = 0.81 0.95 1.11 ). Following the policy change, the DDLT advantage for HCC candidates remained, albeit dramatically attenuated, without any substantial increase in waitlist mortality/dropout. In the context of sickest-first liver allocation, the revised policy seems to have established allocation equity for HCC and non-HCC candidates.

Geographic disparity in kidney transplantation under KAS.

The Kidney Allocation System fundamentally altered kidney allocation, causing a substantial increase in regional and national sharing that we hypothesized might impact geographic disparities. We measured geographic disparity in deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rate under KAS (6/1/2015-12/1/2016), and compared that with pre-KAS (6/1/2013-12/3/2014). We modeled DSA-level DDKT rates with multilevel Poisson regression, adjusting for allocation factors under KAS. Using the model we calculated a novel, improved metric of geographic disparity: the median incidence rate ratio (MIRR) of transplant rate, a measure of DSA-level variation that accounts for patient casemix and is robust to outlier values. Under KAS, MIRR was 1.75 1.811.86 for adults, meaning that similar candidates across different DSAs have a median 1.81-fold difference in DDKT rate. The impact of geography was greater than the impact of factors emphasized by KAS: having an EPTS score ≤20% was associated with a 1.40-fold increase (IRR = 1.35 1.401.45 , P < .01) and a three-year dialysis vintage was associated with a 1.57-fold increase (IRR = 1.56 1.571.59 , P < .001) in transplant rate. For pediatric candidates, MIRR was even more pronounced, at 1.66 1.922.27 . There was no change in geographic disparities with KAS (P = .3). Despite extensive changes to kidney allocation under KAS, geography remains a primary determinant of access to DDKT.

Factors associated with perceived donation-related financial burden among living kidney donors.

The perception of living kidney donation-related financial burden affects willingness to donate and the experience of donation, yet no existing tools identify donors who are at higher risk of perceived financial burden. We sought to identify characteristics that predicted higher risk of perceived financial burden. We surveyed 51 living kidney donors (LKDs) who donated from 01/2015 to 3/2016 about socioeconomic characteristics, predonation cost concerns, and perceived financial burden. We tested associations between both self-reported and ZIP code-level characteristics and perceived burden using Fisher's exact test and bivariate modified Poisson regression. Donors who perceived donation-related financial burden were less likely to have an income above their ZIP code median (14% vs. 72%, P = .006); however, they were more likely than donors who did not perceive burden to rent their home (57% vs. 16%, P = .03), have an income <$60 000 (86% vs. 20%, P = .002), or have had predonation cost concerns (43% vs. 7%, P = .03). Perceived financial burden was 3.6-fold as likely among those with predonation cost concerns and 10.6-fold as likely for those with incomes <$60 000. Collecting socioeconomic characteristics and asking about donation-related cost concerns prior to donation might allow transplant centers to target financial support interventions toward potential donors at higher risk of perceiving donation-related financial burden.

Baseline and Center-Level Variation in Simultaneous Liver-Kidney Listing in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network has implemented medical criteria to determine which candidates are most appropriate for simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplantation in comparison to liver-alone transplantation. We investigated prepolicy center-level variation among SLK listing practice, in light of such criteria. METHODS: We identified 4736 SLK-eligible candidates after Share-35 in the United States. We calculated the proportion of candidates at each center who were listed for SLK transplantation within 6 months of eligibility. Multilevel logistic regression and parametric survival model was used to estimate the center-specific probability of SLK listing, adjusting for patient and center-level characteristics. RESULTS: Among 4736 SLK-eligible candidates, 64.8% were listed for SLK within 6 months of eligibility. However, the percentage of SLK listing ranged from 0% to 100% across centers. African American race, male sex, transplant history, diabetes, and hypertension were associated with a higher likelihood of SLK listing. Conversely, older age was associated with a lower likelihood of SLK listing. After adjusting for candidate characteristics, the percentage of SLK listing still ranged from 3.8% to 80.2% across centers; this wide variation persisted even after further adjusting for center-level characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: There was significant prepolicy center-level variation in SLK listing for SLK-eligible candidates. Implementation of standardized SLK listing practices may reduce center-level variation and equalize access for SLK candidates across the United States.