Effect of the opioid crisis on the liver transplantation donor pool: A national analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade there has been a surge in overdose deaths due to the opioid crisis. We sought to characterize the temporal change in overdose donor (OD) use in liver transplantation (LT), as well as associated post-LT outcomes, relative to the COVID-19 era. METHODS: LT candidates and donors listed between January 2016 and September 2022 were identified from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database. Trends in LT donors and changes related to OD were assessed pre- versus post-COVID-19 (February 2020). RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2022, most counties in the United States experienced an increase in overdose-related deaths (n = 1284, 92.3%) with many counties (n = 458, 32.9%) having more than a doubling in drug overdose deaths. Concurrently, there was an 11.2% increase in overall donors, including a 41.7% increase in the number of donors who died from drug overdose. In pre-COVID-19 overdose was the 4th top mechanism of donor death, while in the post-COVID-19 era, overdose was the 2nd most common cause of donor death. OD was younger (OD: 35 yrs, IQR 29-43 vs. non-OD: 43 yrs, IQR 31-56), had lower body mass index (≥35 kg/cm2, OD: 31.2% vs. non-OD: 33.5%), and was more likely to be HCV+ (OD: 28.9% vs. non-OD: 5.4%) with lower total bilirubin (≥1.1 mg/dL, OD: 12.9% vs. non-OD: 20.1%) (all p < .001). Receipt of an OD was not associated with worse graft survival (HR .94, 95% CI .88-1.01, p = .09). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid deaths markedly increased following the COVID-19 pandemic, substantially altering the LT donor pool in the United States.

New Insights in the Setting of Transplant Oncology.

Background and Objectives: Liver transplantation (LT) is the best strategy for curing several primary and secondary hepatic malignancies. In recent years, growing interest has been observed in the enlargement of the transplant oncology indications. This paper aims to review the most recent developments in the setting of LT oncology, with particular attention to LT for unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCA). Materials and Methods: A review of the recently published literature was conducted. Results: Growing evidence exists on the efficacy of LT in curing CRLM and peri-hilar and intrahepatic CCA in well-selected patients when integrating this strategy with (neo)-adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or locoregional treatments. Conclusion: For unresectable CCA and CRLM management, several prospective protocols are forthcoming to elucidate LT's impact relative to alternative therapies. Advances in diagnosis, treatment protocols, and donor-to-recipient matching are needed to better define the oncological indications for transplantation. Prospective, multicenter trials studying these advances and their impact on outcomes are still required.

Liver Transplantation as a New Standard of Care in Patients With Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma? Results From an International Benchmark Study.

OBJECTIVE: To define benchmark values for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) enabling unbiased comparisons. BACKGROUND: Transplantation for PHC is used with reluctance in many centers and even contraindicated in several countries. Although benchmark values for LT are available, there is a lack of specific data on LT performed for PHC. METHODS: PHC patients considered for LT after Mayo-like protocol were analyzed in 17 reference centers in 2 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014-2018). The minimum follow-up was 1 year. Benchmark patients were defined as operated at high-volume centers (≥50 overall LT/year) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, with a tumor diameter <3 cm, negative lymph nodes, and with the absence of relevant comorbidities. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th to 25th percentiles of the median values of all benchmark centers. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four consecutive patients underwent LT after completion of the neoadjuvant treatment. Of those, 89.6% qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs were 90-day mortality ≤5.2%; comprehensive complication index at 1 year of ≤33.7; grade ≥3 complication rates ≤66.7%. These values were better than benchmark values for other indications of LT. Five-year disease-free survival was largely superior compared with a matched group of nodal negative patients undergoing curative liver resection (n=106) (62% vs 32%, P <0.001). CONCLUSION: This multicenter benchmark study demonstrates that LT offers excellent outcomes with superior oncological results in early stage PHC patients, even in candidates for surgery. This provocative observation should lead to a change in available therapeutic algorithms for PHC.

How far can we go with hepatocellular carcinoma in living donor liver transplantation?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the setting of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been adopted worldwide over the past decade. Many centers have implemented LDLT because of the limited supply of deceased organs, which has also provided an opportunity for centers to expand the indication for transplantation for patients with HCC. RECENT FINDINGS: Center-specific expanded HCC criteria have proven to be well tolerated in terms of overall and disease-free survival when compared with the standard, Milan criteria. There is a need to overcome size and number as the sole limiters. New technologies to better predict outcomes after liver transplantation for HCC, response to treatments and/or bridging therapies while waiting for a liver transplantation, along with determining tumour behaviour are being incorporated into criteria. Improved outcomes of LDLT for all causes has increased utilization of the procedure for HCC patients worldwide. SUMMARY: LDLT has become a great treatment option for HCC patients. Progressively better understanding of tumour behaviour and different surrogates of tumour biology assessments will allow better patient selection for LDLT.

Low-Volume Resuscitation for Hemorrhagic Shock: Understanding the Mechanism of PEG-20k.

Hemorrhagic shock leads to cell and tissue swelling and no reflow from compressed capillaries. Cell impermeants, including polyethylene glycol-20,000 (PEG-20k), reverse ischemia-induced cell swelling, extend low-volume resuscitation (LVR) time after shock, and increase tolerance to the low-volume state. The purpose of this study was to explore the mechanisms of action of PEG-20k containing LVR solutions. We hypothesized that PEG-20k acts as both an oncotic agent and an impermeant in the microcirculation, which moves water out of the space and into the capillaries to affect peripheral capillary filling and enhanced perfusion during the low-volume state. Rats were hemorrhaged until arterial lactate reached 9-10 mM/liter. Then, saline-based LVR solutions containing various impermeant materials were administered (10% blood volume). The LVR times for these solutions were determined by measuring the amount of time required for plasma lactate to climb back to 9 to 10 mM after LVR administration (low-volume tolerance). Capillary blood flow was measured by colored microspheres, and blood volume was measured by fluorescein isothiocyanate-labeled albumin dilution. Gluconate (impermeant), albumin (colloid), and PEG-20k (hybrid) increased LVR time over saline by 4-, 3-, and 8-fold, respectively. The combination of impermeant + albumin produced a biologic effect that was similar to PEG-20k alone. Capillary blood flow and plasma volume were decreased after shock with saline LVR but increased with PEG-20k, relative to saline. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that PEG-20k may act by establishing multiple osmotic gradients in the microcirculation to drive cell-to-capillary water transfer during hypovolemic shock.

Long-term outcomes and transmission rates in hepatitis C virus-positive donor to hepatitis C virus-negative kidney transplant recipients: Analysis of United States national data.

The use of kidneys from hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive (D+) deceased donors for HCV-negative recipients (R-) might increase the donor pool. We analyzed the national Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) registry from 1994 to 2014 to compare the outcomes of HCV D+/R- (n = 421) to propensity-matched HCV-negative donor (D-)/R- kidney transplants, as well as with waitlisted patients who never received a transplant, in a 1:5 ratio (n = 2105, per matched group). Both 5-year graft survival (44% vs 66%; P < .001) and patient survival (57% vs 79%; P < .001) were inferior for D+/R- group compared to D-/R-. Nevertheless, 5-year patient survival from the time of wait listing was superior for D+/R- when compared to waitlisted controls (68% vs 43%; P < .001). Of the 126 D+/R- with available post-transplant HCV testing, HCV seroconversion was confirmed in 62 (49%), likely donor-derived. Five-year outcomes were similar between D+/R- that seroconverted vs D+/R- that did not (n = 64). Our analysis shows inferior outcomes for D+/R- patients although detailed data on pretransplant risk factors was not available. Limited data suggest that HCV transmission occurred in half of HCV D+/R- patients, although this might not have been the primary factor contributing to the poor observed outcomes.

Outcomes of kidney transplants and risk of infection transmission from increased infectious risk donors.

Concern over transmission of viral infections has been reported to result in higher discard rates of high infectious risk kidneys (HIR) although data on actual viral transmission rates are lacking. At our center, we performed 89 HIR and 533 non-HIR kidney transplants (KTs) between 2004 and 2011. Follow-up screening labs in recipients of HIR kidneys tested for human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis C virus, and hepatitis B virus did not reveal any cases of viral transmission over median follow-up of 4.3 years. Patient and graft outcomes were similar at 5 years between HIR and non-HIR KTs. An updated analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) registry of deceased-donor kidney transplants between 2008 and 2012 included 57 526 transplants was performed. Retrospective calculation of KDRI (kidney donor risk index) differed (P<.001) between all groups with median KDRI of 0.99 for HIR kidneys, 1.07 for non-HIR standard criteria donor kidneys, and 1.81 for non-HIR expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys. This was reflected in the significantly improved 5-year graft survival for HIR KTs when compared with non-HIR ECD KTs (84% vs 78%; P<.001). Our data can guide counseling of KT candidates about the safety and benefits of HIR kidneys.

Missing the Match: A National Survey Investigating Education in Renal Donor-Recipient Matching.

PURPOSE: Clinical judgment in renal donor organ and recipient selection is gained through fellowship and mentorship in early career. We aim to understand the past and current state of organ acceptance education. METHODS: We developed and distributed an anonymous, national survey to American Society of Transplant Surgeons faculty members and transplant surgery fellows in 2022. Survey questions explored in detail the evaluation of organ offers, the extent of formal education in organ evaluation, and attitudes regarding training adequacy. FINDINGS: Ninety-eight attending surgeons (65 men, 25 women, and 3 nonbinary) and 38 fellows (25 men, 6 women, and 2 nonbinary) responded. Seventy-eight percent of attending surgeons and 6% of fellows take primary organ offers. Forty-four percent of fellows report no didactic education in donor evaluation and recipient selection. Fellows report that discussion with attending surgeons (37.2%) and independent study of the literature (35.4%) are their primary modes of learning. Fellows call for additional clinical decision-making experience (47.3%), further didactic sessions (44.7%), and additional discussions with faculty (44.7%). Sixty-four percent of fellows and 55% of attendings felt their training provided adequate education about donor selection. CONCLUSION: Our responses suggest gaps in education regarding donor and recipient selection. Increased clinical experience and standardized education at the national level represent opportunities for improvement.

Liver Transplant as a Treatment of Primary and Secondary Liver Neoplasms.

Importance: Liver malignancies are an increasing global health concern with a high mortality. We review outcomes following liver transplant for primary and secondary hepatic malignancies. Observations: Transplant may be a suitable treatment option for primary and secondary hepatic malignancies in well-selected patient populations. Conclusions and Relevance: Many patients with primary or secondary liver tumors are not eligible for liver resection because of advanced underlying liver disease or high tumor burden, precluding complete tumor clearance. Although liver transplant has been a long-standing treatment modality for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, recently transplant has been considered for patients with other malignant diagnoses. In particular, while well-established for hepatocellular carcinoma and select patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, transplant has been increasingly used to treat patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, as well as metastatic disease from colorectal liver and neuroendocrine primary tumors. Because of the limited availability of grafts and the number of patients on the waiting list, optimal selection criteria must be further defined. The ethics of organ allocation to individuals who may benefit from prolonged survival after transplant yet have a high incidence of recurrence, as well as the role of living donation, need to be further discerned in the setting of transplant oncology.

Association of Neighborhood Deprivation and Transplant Center Quality with Liver Transplantation Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health can impact the quality of liver transplantation (LT) care. We sought to assess whether the association between neighborhood deprivation and transplant outcomes can be mitigated by receiving care at high-quality transplant centers. STUDY DESIGN: In this population-based cohort study, patients who underwent LT between 2004 and 2019 were identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. LT-recipient neighborhoods were identified at the county level and stratified into quintiles relative to Area Deprivation Index (ADI). Transplant center quality was based on the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients 5-tier ranking using standardized transplant rate ratios. Multivariable Cox regression was used to assess the relationship between ADI, hospital quality, and posttransplant survival. RESULTS: A total of 41,333 recipients (median age, 57.0 [50.0 to 63.0] years; 27,112 [65.4%] male) met inclusion criteria. Patients residing in the most deprived areas were more likely to have nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, be Black, and travel further distances to reach a transplant center. On multivariable analysis, post-LT long-term mortality was associated with low- vs high-quality transplant centers (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32), as well as among patients residing in high- vs low-ADI neighborhoods (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.34; both p ≤ 0.001). Of note, individuals residing in high- vs low-ADI neighborhoods had a higher risk of long-term mortality after treatment at a low-quality (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.62, p = 0.011) vs high-quality (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.52, p = 0.471) LT center. CONCLUSIONS: LT at high-quality centers may be able to mitigate the association between posttransplant survival and neighborhood deprivation. Investments and initiatives that increase access to referrals to high-quality centers for patients residing in higher deprivation may lead to better outcomes and help mitigate disparities in LT.

Variation in DCD Liver Transplant Protocols Among Transplant Centers in the United States.

Background: Variation in donation after circulatory death (DCD) organ recovery and liver transplant practices exist among transplant centers. This study aimed to evaluate these practices among centers in the United States. Methods: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data were accessed to identify centers that performed liver transplantation in 2021 and 2022. Surveys were sent to transplant centers that consistently performed ≥5 DCD liver transplants per year. Results: DCD liver transplants were performed by 95 centers (65.1%) of the 146 liver transplant centers in the United States. Survey results were recorded from 42 centers that consistently performed ≥5 DCD liver transplants per year, with a 59.5% response rate. Withdrawal-to-asystole and agonal time were used to define donor warm ischemia time (WIT) in 16% and 84% centers, respectively. Fifty-six percent of the centers did not use oxygen saturation to define donor WIT. Systolic blood pressure cutoffs used to define agonal time varied between 50 and 80 mm Hg, donor age cutoffs ranged between 55 and 75 y, and cold ischemia times varied between 4 and 10 h. Seventy-six percent of centers used normothermic machine perfusion for DCD liver transplantation. Conclusions: This study highlights the wide variation in use, recovery, and definition of donor WIT. Using national data to rigorously define best practices will encourage greater utilization of this important donor resource.

Waitlist Time, Age, and Social Vulnerability: Impact on the Survival Benefit of Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation Versus Long-term Dialysis Among Patients With End-stage Renal Disease.

BACKGROUND: We sought to define the survival benefit of kidney transplantation versus long-term dialysis relative to waitlist time on dialysis, social vulnerability, and age among end-stage renal transplant candidates. METHODS: End-stage renal disease patients who were candidates for their first deceased donor kidney transplantation between 2008 and 2020 were identified using the US Renal Data System. Survival probabilities for patient survival were compared using the restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) across different age and social vulnerability index (SVI) ranges. RESULTS: Among 149 923 patients, 68 795 (45.9%) patients underwent a kidney transplant and 81 128 (54.1%) remained on dialysis. After propensity-score matching (n = 58 035 in each cohort), the 5-y RMST difference between kidney transplant and dialysis demonstrated an increasing trend in mean life-years gained within 5 y of follow-up relative to advancing age (<30 y: 0.40 y, 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.44 y versus >70 y: 0.75 y, 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.80 y). Conversely, disparities in 5-y RMSTs remained consistent relative to social vulnerability (median 5-y RMST difference: 0.62 y comparing low versus high SVI). When considering waitlist duration, stratified analyses demonstrated increasing trends across different age groups with the largest RMST differences observed among older patients aged ≥70 y. Notably, longer waitlist durations (>3 y) yielded more pronounced RMST differences compared with shorter durations (<1 y). CONCLUSIONS: These data underscore the survival benefit associated with kidney transplantation over long-term dialysis across various age and SVI ranges. Transplantation demonstrated a greater advantage among older patients who had a longer waitlist duration.

The impact of county-level food access on the mortality and post-transplant survival among patients with steatotic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: The impact of county-level food access on mortality associated with steatotic liver disease, as well as post-liver transplant outcomes among individuals with steatotic liver disease, have not been characterized. METHODS: Data on steatotic liver disease-related mortality and outcomes of liver transplant recipients with steatotic liver disease between 2010 and 2020 were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control Prevention mortality as well as the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases. These data were linked to the food desert score, defined as the proportion of the total population in each county characterized as having both low income and limited access to grocery stores. RESULTS: Among 2,710 counties included in the analytic cohort, median steatotic liver disease-related mortality was 27.3 per 100,000 population (interquartile range 24.9-32.1). Of note, patients residing in counties with high steatotic liver disease death rates were more likely to have higher food desert scores (low: 5.0, interquartile range 3.1-7.8 vs moderate: 6.1, interquartile range, 3.8-9.3 vs high: 7.6, interquartile range 4.1-11.7). Among 28,710 patients who did undergo liver transplantation, 5,310 (18.4%) individuals lived in counties with a high food desert score. Liver transplant recipients who resided in counties with the worst food access were more likely to have a higher body mass index (>35 kg/m2: low food desert score, 17.3% vs highest food desert score, 20.1%). After transplantation, there was no difference in 2-year graft survival relative to county-level food access (food desert score: low: 88.4% vs high: 88.6%; P = .77). CONCLUSION: Poor food access was associated with a higher incidence rate of steatotic liver disease-related death, as well as lower utilization of liver transplants. On the other hand, among patients who did receive a liver transplant, there was no difference in 2-year graft survival regardless of food access strata. Policy initiatives should target the expansion of transplantation services to vulnerable communities in which there is a high mortality of steatotic liver disease.

Outcomes of Liver Transplantation From Hepatitis C Virus-positive DCD Donors and Its Utilization Among Centers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) or hepatitis C virus (HCV+) liver grafts are underused among transplant centers in the United States. The study aimed to evaluate organ utilization and outcomes of liver grafts from DCD donors with HCV infection. METHODS: National registry and local center data of all deceased donor liver transplants performed between November 2016 and December 2021 were analyzed. All transplants were divided into 4 groups: HCV- DCD, HCV- donation after brain death [DBD], HCV+ DCD, and HCV+ DBD. The outcome of interest was 1-y graft survival. RESULTS: Out of 146 liver transplant centers in the United States, liver transplants were not performed from DCD donors, HCV+ donors, and a combination of DCD and HCV+ donors by 28.7%, 27%, and 70%-72% of centers, respectively. In multivariate analysis, increasing center acceptance ratio was associated with increased utilization of liver grafts from DCD HCV- and DCD HCV antibody-positive nucleic acid test negative donors. Nationally, 1-y graft survival of HCV- DCD liver grafts was lower compared with other groups (89% versus 92% HCV+ DCD versus 93% HCV+ DBD versus 92% HCV- DBD, log rank P < 0.0001). There was no difference in 1-y graft survival among groups locally. CONCLUSIONS: Liver grafts from HCV+ DCD donors have 1-y patient and graft survival comparable with DBD liver grafts from donors with or without HCV infection. These results encourage the widespread use of liver grafts from DCD and HCV+ donors and standardization of practice in DCD donation to expand the donor pool without compromising short-term outcomes.

Outcomes After Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation Using Kidney Allografts With Marginal Perfusion Parameters.

BACKGROUND: This study examines outcomes of deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) in recipients of kidney allografts with marginal perfusion parameters. METHODS: Allografts with marginal perfusion parameters (resistance index [RI] >0.4 and pump flow rate [F] <70 mL/min; MP group) were compared with those with good parameters (RI <0.4 and F >70 mL/min; GP group) for DDKT recipients between January 1996 and November 2017 after hypothermic pulsatile perfusion. Demographics, creatinine, cold ischemia times (CIT), delayed graft function (DGF), and recipient glomerular filtration rate at pre- and post-transplant were noted. The primary outcome was graft survival post-transplant. RESULTS: In the MP (n = 31) versus GP (n = 1281) group, the median recipient was aged 57 years versus 51 years; the median donor was aged 47 versus 37 years; terminal creatinine was 0.9 versus 0.9 mg/dL; CIT was 10.2 versus 13 hours, and the RI and flow were 0.46 and 60 mL/min versus 0.21 and 120 mL/min. The DGF rate was 19% (MP) versus 8% (GP). The graft survival in the MP versus GP group was 81% versus 90% (1 year), 65% versus 79% (3 years), 65% versus 73% (4 years), and 45% versus 68% (5 years). CONCLUSION: Carefully selected kidney allografts after comprehensive donor and recipient evaluation may allow for the use of these routinely discarded kidneys with marginal perfusion parameters.

Long-term outcomes of retransplantation after live donor liver transplantation: A Western experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite most liver transplants in North America being from deceased donors, the number of living donor liver transplants has increased over the last decade. Although outcomes of liver retransplantation after deceased donor liver transplantation have been widely published, outcomes of retransplant after living donor liver transplant need to be further elucidated. METHOD: We aimed to compare waitlist outcomes and survival post-retransplant in recipients of initial living or deceased donor grafts. Adult liver recipients relisted at University Health Network between April 2000 and October 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped according to their initial graft: living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplant. A competing risk multivariable model evaluated the association between graft type at first transplant and outcomes after relisting. Survival after retransplant waitlisting (intention-to-treat) and after retransplant (per protocol) were also assessed. Multivariable Cox regression evaluated the effect of initial graft type on survival after retransplant. RESULTS: A total of 201 recipients were relisted (living donor liver transplants, n = 67; donor liver transplants, n = 134) and 114 underwent retransplant (living donor liver transplants, n = 48; deceased donor liver transplants, n = 66). The waitlist mortality with an initial living donor liver transplant was not significantly different (hazard ratio = 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.10; P = .08). Both unadjusted and adjusted graft loss risks were similar post-retransplant. The risk-adjusted overall intention-to-treat survival after relisting (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.32; P = .30) and per protocol survival after retransplant (hazard ratio:1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-4.19; P = .40) were equivalent in those who initially received a living donor liver transplant. CONCLUSION: Patients requiring relisting and retransplant after either living donor liver transplants or deceased donor liver transplantation experience similar waitlist and survival outcomes.

Postoperative and Recurrent Hematuria after Pretransplant Core Needle Biopsy in Living Donor Kidney Transplant.

Background: Core needle and wedge biopsies are the two main pathologic ways to determine the suitability of a kidney allograft and to have a baseline allograft biopsy in case of future rejection. Case Presentation. A 57-year-old patient developed a renal arteriovenous fistula causing postoperative and recurrent hematuria after allograft pretransplant renal core needle biopsy and treated with selective Interventional radiology coil embolization. Conclusion: Delayed profound hematuria can be seen after pretransplant core needle renal biopsies and can recur again even after complete resolution, due to arteriovenous fistula formation in the renal calyceal system.

Safely Expanding the Liver Donor Pool by Utilization of Organs from Donation after Circulatory Death with Comparable Results to Donation After Brain Death, a Large Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Use of livers donated after circulatory death (DCD) is one way to expand the donor pool. Our center has aggressively incorporated use of DCD liver grafts into practice. We examined our center and national outcomes as well as national DCD liver utilization. METHODS: Liver transplants performed at our center and nationally from 11/2016 through 9/2020 were compared. Primary outcomes were patient and graft survival, and national DCD liver utilization. RESULTS: For our center, DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) donors were similar except DCD donors were younger (37 vs 40 years; p < 0.05). Recipient Na-MELD (20 vs 24; p < 0.0001) and cold ischemia time (4.63 vs 5.18 h; p < 0.05) were lower in DCD recipients. There were no significant differences in 1-year patient and graft survival between DCD and DBD liver recipients locally. Nationally, there was a difference in 1-year graft survival year (89.4% vs 92.4%, p < 0.0001) but patient survival was similar between groups. The proportion of DCD livers recovered and transplanted widely varied among organ procurement organizations (OPOs) and transplant centers. CONCLUSIONS: Similar outcomes for DCD and DBD liver recipients should encourage centers and OPOs nationwide to expand utilization of DCD livers.

Spinal Stroke following Kidney Transplant.

Complications are a part of surgery. Spinal infarctions are a dreaded complication of aortic surgery. We present a patient who developed a spinal infarct after a kidney transplant. We were unable to find a causative factor in our search for etiology. In our review of the literature, we were unable to find a similar report. We present this case report to highlight a rare complication of kidney transplantation and to reinforce that patients requiring kidney transplant are complex patients with multiple comorbidities that can cause a multitude of complications in the periop period.