A2/A2B to B deceased donor kidney transplantation in the Kidney Allocation System era.

Kidney transplantation from blood type A2/A2B donors to type B recipients (A2→B) has increased dramatically under the current Kidney Allocation System (KAS). Among living donor transplant recipients, A2-incompatible transplants are associated with an increased risk of all-cause and death-censored graft failure. In light of this, we used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from December 2014 until June 2022 to evaluate the association between A2→B listing and time to deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) and post-DDKT outcomes for A2→B recipients. Among 53 409 type B waitlist registrants, only 12.6% were listed as eligible to accept A2→B offers ("A2-eligible"). The rates of DDKT at 1-, 3-, and 5-years were 32.1%, 61.4%, and 72.1% among A2-eligible candidates and 14.1%, 29.9%, and 44.1% among A2-ineligible candidates, with the former experiencing a 133% higher rate of DDKT (Cox weighted hazard ratio (wHR) = 2.192.332.47; P < .001). The 7-year adjusted mortality was comparable between A2→B and B-ABOc (type B/O donors to B recipients) recipients (wHR 0.780.941.13, P = .5). Moreover, there was no difference between A2→B vs B-ABOc DDKT recipients with regards to death-censored graft failure (wHR 0.771.001.29, P > .9) or all-cause graft loss (wHR 0.820.961.12, P = .6). Following its broader adoption since the implementation of the kidney allocation system, A2→B DDKT appears to be a safe and effective transplant modality for eligible candidates. As such, A2→B listing for eligible type B candidates should be expanded.

Characterizing the risk of human leukocyte antigen-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation in older recipients.

Older compatible living donor kidney transplant (CLDKT) recipients have higher mortality and death-censored graft failure (DCGF) compared to younger recipients. These risks may be amplified in older incompatible living donor kidney transplant (ILDKT) recipients who undergo desensitization and intense immunosuppression. In a 25-center cohort of ILDKT recipients transplanted between September 24, 1997, and December 15, 2016, we compared mortality, DCGF, delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR), and length of stay (LOS) between 234 older (age ≥60 years) and 1172 younger (age 18-59 years) recipients. To investigate whether the impact of age was different for ILDKT recipients compared to 17 542 CLDKT recipients, we used an interaction term to determine whether the relationship between posttransplant outcomes and transplant type (ILDKT vs CLDKT) was modified by age. Overall, older recipients had higher mortality (hazard ratio: 1.632.072.65, P < .001), lower DCGF (hazard ratio: 0.360.530.77, P = .001), and AR (odds ratio: 0.390.540.74, P < .001), and similar DGF (odds ratio: 0.461.032.33, P = .9) and LOS (incidence rate ratio: 0.880.981.10, P = 0.8) compared to younger recipients. The impact of age on mortality (interaction P = .052), DCGF (interaction P = .7), AR interaction P = .2), DGF (interaction P = .9), and LOS (interaction P = .5) were similar in ILDKT and CLDKT recipients. Age alone should not preclude eligibility for ILDKT.

Association between Abdominal CT Measurements of Body Composition before Deceased Donor Liver Transplant with Posttransplant Outcomes.

Background Pre-liver transplant (LT) sarcopenia is associated with poor survival. Methods exist for measuring body composition with use of CT scans; however, it is unclear which components best predict post-LT outcomes. Purpose To quantify the association between abdominal CT-based body composition measurements and post-LT mortality in a large North American cohort. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective cohort of adult first-time deceased-donor LT recipients from 2009 to 2018 who underwent pre-LT abdominal CT scans, including at the L3 vertebral level, at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Measurements included sarcopenia (skeletal muscle index [SMI] <50 in men and <39 in women), sarcopenic obesity, myosteatosis (skeletal muscle CT attenuation <41 mean HU for body mass index [BMI] <25 and <33 mean HU for BMI ≥25), visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and VAT/SAT ratio. Covariates in the adjusted models were selected with use of least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression with lambda chosen by means of 10-fold cross-validation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to quantify associations with post-LT mortality. Model discrimination was quantified using the Harrell C-statistic. Results A total of 454 recipients (median age, 57 years [IQR, 50-62 years]; 294 men) were evaluated. In the adjusted model, pre-LT sarcopenia was associated with a higher hazard ratio (HR) of post-LT mortality (HR, 1.6 [95% CI: 1.1, 2.4]; C-statistic, 0.64; P = .02). SMI was significantly negatively associated with survival after adjustment for covariates. There was no evidence that myosteatosis was associated with mortality (HR, 1.3 [95% CI: 0.86, 2.1]; C-statistic, 0.64; P = .21). There was no evidence that BMI (HR, 1.2 [95% CI: 0.95, 1.4]), VAT (HR, 1.0 [95% CI: 0.98, 1.1]), SAT (HR, 1.0 [95% CI: 0.97, 1.0]), and VAT/SAT ratio (HR, 1.1 [95% CI: 0.90, 1.4]) were associated with mortality (P = .15-.77). Conclusions Sarcopenia, as assessed on routine pre-liver transplant (LT) abdominal CT scans, was the only factor significantly associated with post-LT mortality. © RSNA, 2022 See also the editorial by Ruehm in this issue.

Digital imaging software versus the "eyeball" method in quantifying steatosis in a liver biopsy.

Steatotic livers represent a potentially underutilized resource to increase the donor graft pool; however, 1 barrier to the increased utilization of such grafts is the heterogeneity in the definition and the measurement of macrovesicular steatosis (MaS). Digital imaging software (DIS) may better standardize definitions to study posttransplant outcomes. Using HALO, a DIS, we analyzed 63 liver biopsies, from 3 transplant centers, transplanted between 2016 and 2018, and compared macrovesicular steatosis percentage (%MaS) as estimated by transplant center, donor hospital, and DIS. We also quantified the relationship between DIS characteristics and posttransplant outcomes using log-linear regression for peak aspartate aminotransferase, peak alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin on postoperative day 7, as well as logistic regression for early allograft dysfunction. Transplant centers and donor hospitals overestimated %MaS compared with DIS, with better agreement at lower %MaS and less agreement for higher %MaS. No DIS analyzed liver biopsies were calculated to be >20% %MaS; however, 40% of liver biopsies read by transplant center pathologists were read to be >30%. Percent MaS read by HALO was positively associated with peak aspartate aminotransferase (regression coefficient= 1.04 1.08 1.12 , p <0.001), peak alanine aminotransferase (regression coefficient = 1.04 1.08 1.12 , p <0.001), and early allograft dysfunction (OR= 1.10 1.40 1.78 , p =0.006). There was no association between HALO %MaS and total bilirubin on postoperative day 7 (regression coefficient = 0.99 1.01 1.04 , p =0.3). DIS provides reproducible quantification of steatosis that could standardize MaS definitions and identify phenotypes associated with good clinical outcomes to increase the utilization of steatite livers.

Rethinking incompatibility in kidney transplantation.

Donor/recipient incompatibility in kidney transplantation classically refers to ABO/HLA-incompatibility. Kidney paired donation (KPD) was historically established to circumvent ABO/HLA-incompatibility, with the goal of identifying ABO/HLA-compatible matches. However, there is a broad range of donor factors known to impact recipient outcomes beyond ABO/HLA-incompatibility, such as age and weight, and quantitative tools are now available to empirically compare potential living donors across many of these factors, such as the living donor kidney donor profile index (LKDPI). Moreover, the detrimental impact of mismatch at other HLA antigens (such as DQ) and epitope mismatching on posttransplant outcomes has become increasingly recognized. Thus, it is time for a new paradigm of incompatibility that considers all of these risks factors together in assessing donor/recipient compatibility and the potential utility for KPD. Under this new paradigm of incompatibility, we show how the LKDPI and other tools can be used to identify donor/recipient incompatibilities that could be improved through KPD, even for those with a traditionally "compatible" living donor.

Offer Acceptance Patterns for Liver Donors Aged 70 and Older.

Despite a documented survival benefit, older liver donor (OLD, age ≥70) graft offers are frequently declined, with utilization worsening over the last decade. To understand how offer acceptance varies by center, we studied 1113 eventually transplanted OLD grafts from 2009 to 2017 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data and random-intercept multilevel logistic regression. To understand how center-level acceptance of OLD graft offers might be associated with waitlist and posttransplant outcomes, we studied all adult, actively listed, liver-only candidates and recipients during the study period using Poisson regression (transplant rate), competing risks regression (waitlist mortality), and Cox regression (posttransplant mortality). Among 117 centers, OLD offer acceptance ranged from 0 (23 centers) to 95 acceptances, with a median odds ratio of 2.88. Thus, a candidate may be three times as likely to receive an OLD graft simply by listing at a different center. Centers in the highest quartile (Q4) of OLD acceptance (accepted 39% of OLD offers) accepted more nationally shared organs (Q4 versus Q1: 14.1% versus 0.0%, P < 0.001) and had higher annual liver transplant volume (Q4 versus Q1: 80 versus 21, P < 0.001). After adjustment, nationally shared OLD offers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.20) and offers to centers with higher median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) at transplant (aOR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.87) were less likely to be accepted. OLD offers to centers with higher annual transplant volume were more likely to be accepted (aOR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.14-1.30). Additionally, candidates listed at centers within the highest quartile of OLD graft offer acceptance had higher deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) rates (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.41-1.50), lower waitlist mortality (adjusted subhazard ratio: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.72-0.76), and similar posttransplant survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.86-1.01) when compared with those listed at centers in the lowest quartile of OLD graft offer acceptance. The wide variation in OLD offer acceptance supports the need for optimizing the organ offer process and efficiently directing OLD offers to centers more likely to use them.

MELD is MELD is MELD? Transplant center-level variation in waitlist mortality for candidates with the same biological MELD.

Recently, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)-based liver allocation in the United States has been questioned based on concerns that waitlist mortality for a given biologic MELD (bMELD), calculated using laboratory values alone, might be higher at certain centers in certain locations across the country. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the center-level variation in bMELD-predicted mortality risk. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data from January 2015 to December 2019, we modeled mortality risk in 33 260 adult, first-time waitlisted candidates from 120 centers using multilevel Poisson regression, adjusting for sex, and time-varying age and bMELD. We calculated a "MELD correction factor" using each center's random intercept and bMELD coefficient. A MELD correction factor of +1 means that center's candidates have a higher-than-average bMELD-predicted mortality risk equivalent to 1 bMELD point. We found that the "MELD correction factor" median (IQR) was 0.03 (-0.47, 0.52), indicating almost no center-level variation. The number of centers with "MELD correction factors" within ±0.5 points, and between ±0.5-± 1, ±1.0-±1.5, and ±1.5-±2.0 points was 62, 41, 13, and 4, respectively. No centers had waitlisted candidates with a higher-than-average bMELD-predicted mortality risk beyond ±2 bMELD points. Given that bMELD similarly predicts waitlist mortality at centers across the country, our results support continued MELD-based prioritization of waitlisted candidates irrespective of center.

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.

Liver transplantation in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic: National and center-level responses.

COVID-19 has profoundly affected the American health care system; its effect on the liver transplant (LT) waitlist based on COVID-19 incidence has not been characterized. Using SRTR data, we compared observed LT waitlist registrations, waitlist mortality, deceased donor LTs (DDLT), and living donor LTs (LDLT) 3/15/2020-8/31/2020 to expected values based on historical trends 1/2016-1/2020, stratified by statewide COVID-19 incidence. Overall, from 3/15 to 4/30, new listings were 11% fewer than expected (IRR = 0.84 0.890.93 ), LDLTs were 49% fewer (IRR = 0.37 0.510.72 ), and DDLTs were 9% fewer (IRR = 0.85 0.910.97 ). In May, new listings were 21% fewer (IRR = 0.74 0.790.84 ), LDLTs were 42% fewer (IRR = 0.39 0.580.85 ) and DDLTs were 13% more (IRR = 1.07 1.151.23 ). Centers in states with the highest incidence 3/15-4/30 had 59% more waitlist deaths (IRR = 1.09 1.592.32 ) and 34% fewer DDLTs (IRR = 0.50 0.660.86 ). By August, waitlist outcomes were occurring at expected rates, except for DDLT (13% more across all incidences). While the early COVID-affected states endured major transplant practice changes, later in the pandemic the newly COVID-affected areas were not impacted to the same extent. These results speak to the adaptability of the transplant community in addressing the pandemic and applying new knowledge to patient care.

Quantifying infection risks in incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients.

Desensitization has enabled incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) across HLA/ABO barriers, but added immunomodulation might put patients at increased risk of infections. We studied 475 recipients from our center from 2010 to 2015, categorized by desensitization intensity: none/compatible (n = 260), low (0-4 plasmaphereses, n = 47), moderate (5-9, n = 74), and high (≥10, n = 94). The 1-year cumulative incidence of infection was 50.1%, 49.8%, 66.0%, and 73.5% for recipients who received none, low, moderate, and high-intensity desensitization (P < .001). The most common infections were UTI (33.5% of ILDKT vs. 21.5% compatible), opportunistic (21.9% vs. 10.8%), and bloodstream (19.1% vs. 5.4%) (P < .001). In weighted models, a trend toward increased risk was seen in low (wIRR = 0.77 1.402.56 ,P = .3) and moderately (wIRR = 0.88 1.352.06 ,P = .2) desensitized recipients, with a statistically significant 2.22-fold (wIRR = 1.33 2.223.72 ,P = .002) increased risk in highly desensitized recipients. Recipients with ≥4 infections were at higher risk of prolonged hospitalization (wIRR = 2.62 3.574.88 , P < .001) and death-censored graft loss (wHR = 1.15 4.0113.95 ,P = .03). Post-KT infections are more common in desensitized ILDKT recipients. A subset of highly desensitized patients is at ultra-high risk for infections. Strategies should be designed to protect patients from the morbidity of recurrent infections, and to extend the survival benefit of ILDKT across the spectrum of recipients.

Delayed graft function and acute rejection following HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation.

Incompatible living donor kidney transplant recipients (ILDKTr) have pre-existing donor-specific antibody (DSA) that, despite desensitization, may persist or reappear with resulting consequences, including delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR). To quantify the risk of DGF and AR in ILDKT and downstream effects, we compared 1406 ILDKTr to 17 542 compatible LDKT recipients (CLDKTr) using a 25-center cohort with novel SRTR linkage. We characterized DSA strength as positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch (PLNF); positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch (PFNC); or positive cytotoxic crossmatch (PCC). DGF occurred in 3.1% of CLDKT, 3.5% of PLNF, 5.7% of PFNC, and 7.6% of PCC recipients, which translated to higher DGF for PCC recipients (aOR = 1.03 1.682.72 ). However, the impact of DGF on mortality and DCGF risk was no higher for ILDKT than CLDKT (p interaction > .1). AR developed in 8.4% of CLDKT, 18.2% of PLNF, 21.3% of PFNC, and 21.7% of PCC recipients, which translated to higher AR (aOR PLNF = 1.45 2.093.02 ; PFNC = 1.67 2.403.46 ; PCC = 1.48 2.243.37 ). Although the impact of AR on mortality was no higher for ILDKT than CLDKT (p interaction = .1), its impact on DCGF risk was less consequential for ILDKT (aHR = 1.34 1.621.95 ) than CLDKT (aHR = 1.96 2.292.67 ) (p interaction = .004). Providers should consider these risks during preoperative counseling, and strategies to mitigate them should be considered.

Early Steroid Withdrawal in Deceased-Donor Kidney Transplant Recipients with Delayed Graft Function.

BACKGROUND: Early steroid withdrawal (ESW) is associated with acceptable outcomes in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. Recipients with delayed graft function (DGF), however, often have a suboptimal allograft milieu, which may alter the risk/benefit equation for ESW. This may contribute to varying practices across transplant centers. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we studied 110,019 adult deceased-donor KT recipients between 2005 and 2017. We characterized the association of DGF with the use of ESW versus continued steroid maintenance across KT centers, and quantified the association of ESW with acute rejection, graft failure, and mortality using multivariable logistic and Cox regression with DGF-ESW interaction terms. RESULTS: Overall 29.2% of KT recipients underwent ESW. Recipients with DGF had lower odds of ESW (aOR=0.600.670.75). The strength of this association varied across 261 KT centers, with center-specific aOR of <0.5 at 31 (11.9%) and >1.0 at 22 (8.4%) centers. ESW was associated with benefits and harms among recipients with immediate graft function (IGF), but only with harms among recipients with DGF. ESW was associated with increased acute rejection (aOR=1.091.161.23), slightly increased graft failure (aHR=1.011.061.12), but decreased mortality (aHR=0.860.890.93) among recipients with IGF. Among recipients with DGF, ESW was associated with a similar increase in rejection (aOR=1.12; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.23), a more pronounced increase in graft failure (aHR=1.16; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.26), and no improvement in mortality (aHR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.07). DGF-ESW interaction was statistically significant for graft failure (P=0.04) and mortality (P=0.003), but not for rejection (P=0.6). CONCLUSIONS: KT centers in the United States use ESW inconsistently in recipients with DGF. Our findings suggest ESW may lead to worse KT outcomes in recipients with DGF.

Outcomes of cPRA 100% deceased donor kidney transplant recipients under the new Kidney Allocation System: A single-center cohort study.

In light of changes in donor/recipient case-mix and increased cold ischemia times under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS), there is some concern that cPRA 100% recipients might be doing poorly under KAS. We used granular, single-center data on 109 cPRA 100% deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) recipients to study post-KAS posttransplant outcomes not readily available in national registry data. We found that 3-year patient (96.4%) and death-censored graft survival (96.8%) was excellent. We also found that cPRA 100% recipients had a relatively low incidence of T cell-mediated rejection (9.2%) and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) (13.8%). T cell-mediated rejection episodes tended to be relatively mild-50% (5 episodes) were grade 1, 50% (5 episodes) were grade 2, and none were grade 3. Only 1 episode was associated with graft loss, but this was in the context of a mixed rejection. Although only 15 recipients (13.8%) developed an AMR episode, 2 of these were associated with a graft loss. Despite the rejection episodes, the vast majority of recipients had excellent graft function 3 years posttransplant (median serum creatinine 1.5 mg/dL). In conclusion, cPRA 100% DDKT recipients are doing well under KAS, although every effort should be made to prevent AMR to ensure long-term outcomes remain excellent.

Estimating the potential pool of uncontrolled DCD donors in the United States.

Organs from uncontrolled DCD donors (uDCDs) have expanded donation in Europe since the 1980s, but are seldom used in the United States. Cited barriers include lack of knowledge about the potential donor pool, lack of robust outcomes data, lack of standard donor eligibility criteria and preservation methods, and logistical and ethical challenges. To determine whether it would be appropriate to invest in addressing these barriers and building this practice, we sought to enumerate the potential pool of uDCD donors. Using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, the largest all-payer emergency department (ED) database, between 2013 and 2016, we identified patients who had refractory cardiac arrest in the ED. We excluded patients with contraindications to both deceased donation (including infection, malignancy, cardiopulmonary disease) and uDCD (including hemorrhage, major polytrauma, burns, and poisoning). We identified 9828 (range: 9454-10 202) potential uDCDs/y; average age was 32 years, and all were free of major comorbidity. Of these, 91.1% had traumatic deaths, with major causes including nonhead blunt injuries (43.2%) and head injuries (40.1%). In the current era, uDCD donors represent a significant potential source of unused organs. Efforts to address barriers to uDCD in the United States should be encouraged.

Outcomes of simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation based on donor resuscitation.

It has been hypothesized that transplanting simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK) grafts from donors with a history of cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CACPR) leads to inferior posttransplant outcomes due to organ hypoperfusion during cardiac arrest and mechanical trauma during resuscitation. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we identified 13 095 SPK transplants from 2000-2018, of which 810 (6.2%) were from donors with a history of CACPR. After inverse probability of treatment weighting on donor and recipient characteristics, we found that 1-, 5-, and 10-year patient (CACPR: 96.4%, 89.9%, and 78.9%; non-CACPR: 96.3%, 88.9%, and 76.0%; P = .3), death-censored pancreas graft survival (CACPR: 89.3%, 82.7%, 75.0%; non-CACPR: 89.9%, 82.7%, 76.3%; P = .7), and death-censored kidney graft survival (CACPR: 97.0%, 89.5%, 78.2%; non-CACPR: 96.9.9%, 88.7%, 80.0%; P = .4) were comparable between the two groups. There were no differences in the risk of pancreatitis (CACPR: 2.9%, non-CACPR: 2.4%; weighted OR = 0.74 1.22 2.02 ; P = .4), anastomotic leak (CACPR: 1.6%, non-CACPR: 2.0%; weighted OR = 0.54 1.02 1.93 ; P > .9), or median length of hospital stay (CACPR: 8 days, non-CACPR: 9 days; P = .6) for recipients of CACPR vs non-CACPR donors. Our findings suggest that CACPR donors could be used to expand the SPK donor pool without compromising short- or long-term outcomes.

Temporal trends in utilization and outcomes of steatotic donor livers in the United States.

Steatotic donor livers (SDLs) (macrosteatosis ≥30%) represent a possible donor pool expansion, but are frequently discarded due to a historical association with mortality and graft loss. However, changes in recipient/donor demographics, allocation policy, and clinical protocols might have altered utilization and outcomes of SDLs. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017 and adjusted multilevel regression to quantify temporal trends in discard rates (logistic) and posttransplant outcomes (Cox) of SDLs, accounting for Organ Procurement Organization-level variation. Of 4346 recovered SDLs, 58.0% were discarded in 2005, versus only 43.1% in 2017 (P < .001). SDLs were always substantially more likely discarded versus non-SDLs, although this difference decreased over time (adjusted odds ratio in 2005-2007:13.15 15.2817.74 ; 2008-2011:11.77 13.4115.29 ; 2012-2014:9.87 11.3713.10 ; 2015-2017:7.79 8.8910.15 , P < .001 for all). Conversely, posttransplant outcomes of recipients of SDLs improved over time: recipients of SDLs from 2012 to 2017 had 46% lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.43 0.540.68 , P < .001) and 47% lower risk of graft loss (aHR: 0.42 0.530.67 , P < .001) compared to 2005 to 2011. In fact, in 2012 to 2017, recipients of SDLs had equivalent mortality (aHR: 0.90 1.041.21 , P = .6) and graft loss (aHR: 0.90 1.041.20 , P = .6) to recipients of non-SDLs. Increasing utilization of SDLs might be a reasonable strategy to expand the donor pool.

Changes in offer and acceptance patterns for pediatric kidney transplant candidates under the new Kidney Allocation System.

Stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding decreased deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rates for pediatric candidates under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS). To better understand what might be driving this, we studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients kidney offer data for 3642 pediatric (age <18 years) kidney-only transplant candidates between December 31, 2012 to December 3, 2014 (pre-KAS) and December 4, 2014 to January 6, 2017 (post-KAS). We used negative binomial regression and multilevel logistic regression to compare offer and acceptance rates pre- and post-KAS. We stratified by donor age (<18, 18-34, and 35+ years) and KDPI (<35% and ≥35%) to reflect differing allocation prioritization pre-KAS and post-KAS. As might be expected from prioritization changes, post-KAS candidates were less likely to receive offers for donors 18-34 years old with KDPI ≥ 35% (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: 0.18 0.210.25 , P < .001), and more likely to receive offers for donors 18-34 years old and KDPI < 35% (aIRR: 1.12 1.201.29 , P < .001). However, offer acceptance practices also changed post-KAS: kidneys from donors 18-34 years old and KDPI < 35% were 23% less likely to be accepted post-KAS (adjusted odds ratio: 0.61 0.770.98 , P = .03). Using kidneys from donors 18-34 years old with KDPI < 35% post-KAS to the same extent they were used pre-KAS might be an effective strategy to mitigate any decrease in DDKT rates for pediatric candidates.

How do highly sensitized patients get kidney transplants in the United States? Trends over the last decade.

Prioritization of highly sensitized (HS) candidates under the kidney allocation system (KAS) and growth of large, multicenter kidney-paired donation (KPD) clearinghouses have broadened the transplant modalities available to HS candidates. To quantify temporal trends in utilization of these modalities, we used SRTR data from 2009 to 2017 to study 39 907 adult HS (cPRA ≥ 80%) waitlisted candidates and 19 003 recipients. We used competing risks regression to quantify temporal trends in likelihood of DDKT, KPD, and non-KPD LDKT for HS candidates (Era 1: January 1, 2009-December 31, 2011; Era 2: January 1, 2012-December 3, 2014; Era 3: December 4, 2014-December 31, 2017). Although the likelihood of DDKT and KPD increased over time for all HS candidates (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] Era 3 vs 1 for DDKT: 1.74 1.851.97 , P < .001 and for KPD: 1.70 2.202.84 , P < .001), the likelihood of non-KPD LDKT decreased (aSHR: 0.69 0.820.97 , P = .02). However, these changes affected HS recipients differently based on cPRA. Among recipients, more cPRA 98%-99.9% and 99.9%+ recipients underwent DDKT (96.2% in Era 3% vs 59.1% in Era 1 for cPRA 99.9%+), whereas fewer underwent non-KPD LDKT (1.9% vs 30.9%) or KPD (2.0% vs 10.0%). Although KAS increased DDKT likelihood for the most HS candidates, it also decreased the use of non-KPD LDKT to transplant cPRA 98%+ candidates.

Early national and center-level changes to kidney transplantation in the United States during the COVID-19 epidemic.

In March 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread rapidly nationally, causing widespread emergent changes to the health system. Our goal was to understand the impact of the epidemic on kidney transplantation (KT), at both the national and center levels, accounting statistically for waitlist composition. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we compared data on observed waitlist registrations, waitlist mortality, and living-donor and deceased-donor kidney transplants (LDKT/DDKT) March 15-April 30, 2020 to expected events calculated from preepidemic data January 2016-February 2020. There were few changes before March 15, at which point the number of new listings/DDKT/LDKT dropped to 18%/24%/87% below the expected value (all P < .001). Only 12 centers performed LDKT March 15-31; by April 30, 40 centers had resumed LDKT. The decline in new listings and DDKT was greater among states with higher per capita confirmed COVID-19 cases. The number of waitlist deaths was 2.2-fold higher than expected in the 5 states with highest COVID-19 burden (P < .001). DCD DDKT and regional/national imports declined nationwide but most steeply in states with the highest COVID-19 burden. The COVID-19 epidemic has resulted in substantial changes to KT; we must adapt and learn rapidly to continue to provide safe access to transplantation and limit the growing indirect toll of an already deadly disease.

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.