Subclinical Pancreas Rejection on Protocol Biopsy Within the First Year of Simultaneous Pancreas Kidney Transplant.

This single-center retrospective study investigated subclinical rejection prevalence and significance in simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant (SPKT) recipients. We analyzed 352 SPKT recipients from July 2003 to April 2022. Our protocol included pancreas allograft surveillance biopsies at 1, 4, and 12months post-transplant. After excluding 153 patients unable to undergo pancreas biopsy, our study cohort comprised 199 recipients. Among the 199 patients with protocol pancreas biopsies, 107 had multiple protocol pancreas biopsies in the first year, totaling 323. Subclinical rejection was identified in 132 episodes (41%). Of these, 72% were Grade 1, 20% were indeterminate, and 8% were Banff Grade 2 or higher. All episodes of subclinical rejection were treated. Rates of pancreas graft loss (10% vs. 7%) and clinical rejection (21% vs. 20%) at 3 years were similar between those with and without subclinical rejection. Subclinical rejection Banff Grade 2 or more was associated with poor pancreas graft survival HR of 5.5 (95% CI: 1.24-24.37, p = 0.025). Of 236 simultaneous protocol kidney and pancreas biopsies, 102 (43%) showed pancreas subclinical rejection, while only 17% had concurrent kidney subclinical rejection. Our findings suggest limited predictive value of pancreatic enzymes and euglycemia in detecting pancreas rejection. Furthermore, poor concordance existed between pancreas and kidney subclinical rejection.

Ex-situ machine perfusion in clinical liver transplantation: Current practices and future directions.

Ex-situ machine perfusion of the liver has surmounted traditional limitations associated with static cold storage in the context of organ preservation. This innovative technology has changed the landscape of liver transplantation by mitigating ischemia perfusion injury, offering a platform for continuous assessment of organ quality, and providing an avenue for optimizing use of traditionally marginal allografts. This review summarizes the contemporary clinical applications of machine perfusion devices, and discusses potential future strategies for real-time viability assessment, therapeutic interventions, and modulation of organ function after recovery.

Understanding Delayed Graft Function to Improve Organ Utilization and Patient Outcomes: Report of a Scientific Workshop Sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation.

Delayed graft function (DGF) is a common complication after kidney transplant. Despite extensive literature on the topic, the extant definition of DGF has not been conducive to advancing the scientific understanding of the influences and mechanisms contributing to its onset, duration, resolution, or long-term prognostic implications. In 2022, the National Kidney Foundation sponsored a multidisciplinary scientific workshop to comprehensively review the current state of knowledge about the diagnosis, therapy, and management of DGF and conducted a survey of relevant stakeholders on topics of clinical and regulatory interest. In this Special Report, we propose and defend a novel taxonomy for the clinical and research definitions of DGF, address key regulatory and clinical practice issues surrounding DGF, review the current state of therapies to reduce and/or attenuate DGF, offer considerations for clinical practice related to the outpatient management of DGF, and outline a prospective research and policy agenda.

Duration of Dialysis in Acute Kidney Injury Donors and Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) kidneys, including those from donors on dialysis, are often underutilized, although there is increasing data available demonstrating good transplant outcomes. To date, data on the duration of donor dialysis and transplant outcomes are limited. STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-center study of deceased donor kidney transplants from 2010 to 2022. The study cohort consisted of recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants from donors with AKI and on dialysis. Three groups were identified based on the predetermined interquartile range of donor dialysis duration: 1 to 2 dialysis days, 3 to 4 dialysis days, and 5 or more dialysis days. RESULTS: During this period, 765 AKI deceased donor transplants were performed, of which 230 were from donors on dialysis. The median dialysis duration was 2 days with a maximum of 13 days. Across the 3 groups, there were no differences in recipient age (p = 0.23) or dialysis vintage (p = 0.70). Donor age (p = 0.86) and kidney donor profile index (p = 0.57) were comparable between the groups. Recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants from donors on dialysis 5 or more days had lower terminal creatinine levels (p = 0.003) and longer cold ischemia times (p = 0.04). Posttransplant, the median length of hospital stay was 3 days for all groups (p = 0.75). There were no differences in delayed graft function occurrence (94.4% vs 86.8% vs 92.1%, p = 0.19), duration of delayed graft function (p = 0.56), or readmissions (p = 0.99). At 1 year posttransplant, the estimated glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.76), patient survival (p = 0.82), or death-censored graft survival (p = 0.28) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes have been observed in AKI deceased donor kidney transplants, including those coming from donors on dialysis. In this small cohort, the duration of donor dialysis did not adversely affect outcomes. Cautious expansion of the donor pool, including donors on dialysis, should be considered given the ongoing organ shortage.

Utilizing kidneys from a donor with bile-cast nephropathy.

Here we discuss the successful utilization of a pair of deceased donor kidneys with bile-cast nephropathy. The donor had a kidney donor profile index of 48% and an acute kidney injury requiring continuous renal replacement therapy. Peak donor bilirubin was 40.5 mg/dL, and renal wedge biopsies showed bile-cast nephropathy. Both recipients had delayed graft function lasting up to 4 weeks. The 4-month biopsies showed mild interstitial fibrosis, tubular atrophy, and a resolution of bile casts. These kidney allografts showed the reversible course of cholemic nephropathy and the potential for increasing the utilization of previously discarded kidneys.

Outcomes with transplanting kidneys offered through expedited allocation.

INTRODUCTION: Expedited out-of-sequence deceased donor kidney allocation is a strategy to avoid discards after early placement attempts have been unsuccessful. Our study aimed to assess outcomes and characteristics of these transplanted kidneys. METHODS: KDPI matching was performed between expedited allocation (EA) and standard allocation (SA) deceased donor kidney transplants performed at our center. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2021, there were 225 EA offers, and 189 (84%) were transplanted. EA recipients were older (p = .007) and had shorter dialysis vintage (p < .0001). EA kidneys were likely to be nationally allocated (p < .001), have AKI (p < .0001) and longer CIT (p < .0001). There were no differences in EA and SA time-zero kidney biopsies (ci, p = .07; ct, p = .89; cv, p = .95; ah, p = .79). EA kidneys had more DGF (p = .0006), but there were no differences in DGF duration (p = .83), hospital length of stay (p = .43), 1- and 2-year eGFR (p = .16, p = .99), patient (p = .34), or death-censored graft (p = .66) survival. CONCLUSION: During this study period, our center transplanted 189 kidneys through EA following local-regional declines. These kidneys often came from AKI donors and had more DGF but had similar outcomes to KDPI-matched SA kidneys. Although it has been suggested that EA has the potential to worsen transplant disparities, transplant center level decisions on organ acceptance contribute to these variations.

Past, Current, and Future Perspectives on Transplanting Acute Kidney Injury Kidneys.

(1) Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) kidneys have high non-utilization rates due to concerns regarding unfavorable outcomes. In this paper, we aimed to review the past, present, and future opinions on AKI kidneys. (2) Methods: A PubMed search was conducted for topics relevant to AKI kidney transplantation. (3) Results: Current short- and long-term data on AKI kidneys have demonstrated good outcomes including favorable graft function and survival. The role of procurement biopsies is controversial, but they have been shown to be beneficial in AKI kidneys by allowing clinicians to differentiate between reversible tubular injury and irreversible cortical necrosis. Machine perfusion has also been applied to AKI kidneys and has been shown to reduce delayed graft function (DGF). The incidence of DGF increases with AKI severity and its management can be challenging. Strategies employed to counteract this have included early initiation of dialysis after kidney transplantation, early targeting of adequate immunosuppression levels to minimize rejection risk, and establishment of outpatient dialysis. (4) Conclusions: Despite good outcomes, there continue to be barriers that impact AKI kidney utilization. Successful strategies have included use of procurement biopsies or machine perfusion and expectant management of DGF. With increasing experience, better use of AKI kidneys can result in additional opportunities to expand the donor pool.

Liver transplant outcomes using late allocation grafts.

Post-cross clamp late allocation (LA) liver allografts are at increased risk for discard for many reasons including logistical complexity. Nearest neighbor propensity score matching was used to match 2 standard allocation (SA) offers to every 1 LA liver offer performed at our center between 2015 and 2021. Propensity scores were based on a logistic regression model including recipient age, recipient sex, graft type (donation after circulatory death vs. donation after brain death), Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD), and DRI score. During this time, 101 liver transplants (LT) were performed at our center using LA offers. In comparing LA and SA offers, there were no differences in recipient characteristics including indication for transplant ( p = 0.29), presence of PVT ( p = 0.19), TIPS ( p = 0.83), and HCC status ( p = 0.24). LA grafts came from younger donors (mean age 43.6 vs. 48.9 y, p = 0.009) and were more likely to come from regional or national Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) ( p < 0.001). Cold ischemia time was longer for LA grafts (median 8.5 vs 6.3 h, p < 0.001). Following LT, there were no differences between the 2 groups in intensive care unit ( p = 0.22) and hospital ( p = 0.49) lengths of stay, need for endoscopic interventions ( p = 0.55), or biliary strictures ( p = 0.21). Patient (HR 1.0, 95% CI, 0.47-2.15, p = 0.99) and graft (HR 1.23, 95% CI, 0.43-3.50, p = 0.70) survival did not vary between the LA and SA cohorts. One-year LA and SA patient survival was 95.1% and 95.0%; 1-year graft survival was 93.1% and 92.1%, respectively. Despite the additional logistical complexity and longer cold ischemia time, LT outcomes utilizing LA grafts are similar to those allocated by means of SA. Improving allocation policies specific to LA offers, as well as the sharing of best practices between transplant centers and OPOs, are opportunities to further help minimize unnecessary discards.

Favorable outcomes in Hispanic recipients receiving simultaneous pancreas kidney transplantation.

The objective of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of Hispanic versus white recipients who underwent simultaneous pancreas kidney transplantation (SPKT). This single-center study, conducted from 2003 to 2022, had a median follow-up of 7.5 years. The study included 91 Hispanic and 202 white SPKT recipients. The mean age (44 vs. 46 years), percentage of males (67% vs. 58%), and body mass index (BMI) (25.6 vs. 25.3 kg/m2 ) were similar between the Hispanic and white groups. The Hispanic group had more recipients with type 2 diabetes (38%) compared to the white group (5%, p < .001). The duration of dialysis was longer in Hispanics (640 vs. 473 days, p = .02), and fewer patients received preemptive transplants (10% vs. 29%, p < .01) compared to whites. Hospital length of stay, rates of BK Viremia, and acute rejection episodes within 1 year were similar between the groups. The estimated 5-year kidney, pancreas, and patient survival rates were also similar between the groups, 94%, 81%, and 95% in Hispanics, compared to 90%, 79%, and 90% in whites. Increasing age and longer duration of dialysis were risk factors for death. Although Hispanic recipients had a longer duration on dialysis and fewer preemptive transplants, the survival rates were similar to those of white recipients. However, referring providers and many transplant centers continue to overlook pancreas transplants for appropriately selected patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly among minority populations. As a transplant community, it is crucial that we make efforts to comprehend and tackle these obstacles to transplantation.

Impact of Perioperative Prophylaxis With Enterococcus Activity on Risk of Surgical-Site Infection After Pancreas Transplantation.

Surgical-site infection (SSI) is the most common early infectious complication after pancreas transplantation (PT). Although SSI has been shown to worsen outcomes, little data exist to guide optimal choices in perioperative prophylaxis. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of PT recipients from 2010-2020 to examine the effect of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis with Enterococcus coverage. Enterococcus coverage included antibiotics that would be active for penicillin-susceptible Enterococcus isolates. The primary outcome was SSI within 30 d of transplantation, and secondary outcomes were Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) and a composite of pancreas allograft failure or death. Outcomes were analyzed by multivariable Cox regression. Results: Of 477 PT recipients, 217 (45.5%) received perioperative prophylaxis with Enterococcus coverage. Eighty-seven recipients (18.2%) developed an SSI after a median of 15 d from transplantation. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, perioperative Enterococcus prophylaxis was associated with reduced risk of SSI (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.96; P = 0.034). Anastomotic leak was also significantly associated with elevated risk of SSI (HR 13.95; 95% CI, 8.72-22.32; P < 0.001). Overall, 90-d CDI was 7.4%, with no difference between prophylaxis groups (P = 0.680). SSI was associated with pancreas allograft failure or death, even after adjusting for clinical factors (HR 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.23; P = 0.011). Conclusions: Perioperative prophylaxis with Enterococcus coverage was associated with reduced risk of 30-d SSI but did not seem to influence risk of 90-d CDI after PT. This difference may be because of the use of beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations, which provide better activity against enteric organisms such as Enterococcus and anaerobes compared with cephalosporin. Risk of SSI was also related to anastomotic leak from surgery, and SSI itself was associated with subsequent risk of a poor outcome. Measures to mitigate or prevent early complications are warranted.

Reassessing Geographic, Logistical, and Cold Ischemia Cutoffs in Liver Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Liver acceptance patterns vary significantly between transplant centers. Data pertaining to outcomes of livers declined by local and regional centers and allocated nationally remains limited. PROJECT AIM: The objective was to compare post-liver transplant outcomes between liver allografts transplanted as a result of national and local-regional allocation. DESIGN: This was a retrospective evaluation of 109 nationally allocated liver allografts used for transplant by a single center. Outcomes of nationally allocated grafts were compared to standard allocation grafts (N = 505) during the same period. RESULTS: Recipients of nationally allocated grafts had lower model for end stage liver disease scores (17 vs 22, P = .001). Nationally allocated grafts were more likely to be post-cross clamp offers (29.4% vs 13.4%, P = .001) and have longer cold ischemia times (median hours 7.8 vs 5.5, P = .001). Early allograft dysfunction was common (54.1% vs 52.5%, P = .75) and did not impact hospital length of stay (median 5 vs 6 days, P = .89). There were no differences in biliary complications (P = .11). There were no differences in patient (P = .88) or graft survival (P = .35). In a multivariate model, after accounting for differences in cold ischemia time and posttransplant biliary complications, nationally allocated grafts were not associated with increased risk for graft loss (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.4-1.8). Abnormal liver biopsy findings (33.0%) followed by donor donation after circulatory death status (22.9%) were the most common reasons for decline by local-regional centers. CONCLUSION: Despite longer cold ischemia times, patient and graft survival outcomes remain excellent and comparable to those seen from standard allocation grafts.

Expanding Liver Transplant Opportunities in Older Patients With Nonconventional Grafts.

INTRODUCTION: Broader use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and nonconventional grafts for liver transplant helps reduce disparities in organ availability. Limited data, however, exists on outcomes specific to nonconventional graft utilization in older patients. As such, this study aimed to investigate outcomes specific to conventional and nonconventional graft utilization in recipients > 70 y of age. METHODS: 1-to-3 matching based on recipient sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and donor type was performed on patients ≥70 and <70 y of age who underwent liver transplant alone at Mayo Clinic Arizona between 2015 and 2020. Primary outcomes were posttransplant patient and liver allograft survival for recipients greater than or less than 70 y of age. Secondary outcomes included grafts utilization patterns, hospital length of stay, need for reoperation, biliary complications and disposition at time of hospital discharge. RESULTS: In this cohort, 36.1% of grafts came from DCD donors, 17.4% were postcross clamp offers, and 20.8% were nationally allocated. Median recipient ages were 59 and 71 y (P < 0.01). Recipients had similar Intensive care unit (P = 0.82) and hospital (P = 0.14) lengths of stay, and there were no differences in patient (P = 0.68) or graft (P = 0.38) survival. When comparing donation after brain death and DCD grafts in those >70 y, there were no differences in patient (P = 0.89) or graft (P = 0.71) survival. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes can be achieved in older recipients, even with use of nonconventional grafts. Expanded use of nonconventional grafts can help facilitate transplant opportunities in older patients.

Declining Medicare reimbursement in abdominal transplantation from 2000 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is a major payer for abdominal transplant services. Reimbursement reductions could have a major impact on the transplant surgical workforce and hospitals. Yet government reimbursement trends in abdominal transplantation have not been fully characterized. METHODS: We performed an economic analysis to characterize changes in inflation-adjusted trends in Medicare surgical reimbursement for abdominal transplant procedures. Using the Medicare Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool, we performed a procedure code-based surgical reimbursement rate analysis. Reimbursement rates were adjusted for inflation to calculate overall changes in reimbursement, overall year-over-year, 5-year year-over-year, and compound annual growth rate from 2000 to 2021. RESULTS: We observed declines in adjusted reimbursement of common abdominal transplant procedures, including liver (-32.4%), kidney with and without nephrectomy (-24.2% and -24.1%, respectively), and pancreas transplant (-15.2%) (all, P < .05). Overall, the yearly average change for liver, kidney with and without nephrectomy, and pancreas transplant were -1.54%, -1.15%, -1.15%, and -0.72%. Five-year annual change averaged -2.69%, -2.35%, -2.64%, and -2.43%, respectively. The overall average compound annual growth rate was -1.27%. CONCLUSION: This analysis depicts a worrisome reimbursement pattern for abdominal transplant procedures. Transplant surgeons, centers, and professional organizations should note these trends to advocate sustainable reimbursement policy and to preserve continued access to transplant services.

Current opinions on DGF management practices: A survey of the United States and Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Significant center-to-center variation in attitudes and management of delayed graft function (DGF) remains common. METHODS: A survey to describe current DGF practices was developed by workgroup members sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and was distributed to both the NKF DGF workgroup members, kidney transplant program directors and the transplant community within the United States and Canada. Seventy-one percent of NKF workgroup members completed the survey along with 70 unique the United States and three Canadian kidney transplant programs. All Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) regions were represented. RESULTS: DGF was reported to occur at rate of 20%-40% for most centers with 3.9% indicating their incidence to be >60%. Most centers reported longer hospital lengths of stay and more frequent outpatient visits. Despite the commonality of DGF, only half of centers reported having an established protocol to manage DGF. Kidney allograft biopsies were the only consistent DGF management strategy observed, although use of machine perfusion was also heavily favored. Other DGF management strategies voiced by a minority included having established outpatient practices to care for DGF patients and administering outpatient community-based hemodialysis. CONCLUSION: Although approximately a third of survey responders indicated that risk of DGF played a role in their willingness to accept organs, most did not feel that increased cost or clinical impact on outcomes was a deterrent. Future strategies, including broader sharing of best practices, redefining terminology specific to DGF, the establishment of DGF dialysis guidelines and improving access to machine perfusion across OPOs may help reduce discard and improve utilization of kidneys at risk for DGF.

Favorable Outcomes in Older Recipients Receiving Simultaneous Pancreas Kidney Transplantation.

The objective of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of older (50-65 y) type 1 diabetics with body mass index <35 kg/m2 and type 2 diabetics with body mass index <30 kg/m2 who received simultaneous pancreas kidney transplantation (SPKT) versus living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs). All subjects had insulin-dependent diabetes. Methods: This is a retrospective single-center study from July 2003 to March 2021 with a median follow-up of 7.5 y. Results: There were 104 recipients in the SPKT and 80 in the LDKT group. The mean age was 56 y in SPKT and 58 y in LDKT. There were 55% male recipients in the SPKT group versus 75% in LDKT. The duration of diabetes was 32 y in SPKT versus 25 y in LDKT. The number of preemptive transplants and length of dialysis were similar. However, the wait time was shorter for LDKT (269 versus 460 d). Forty-nine percent of the LDKT recipients received the organ within 6 mo of being waitlisted compared with 28% of SPKT recipients (P = 0.001). Donor age was lower in the SPKT group (27 versus 41 y). The estimated 5-y death censored kidney survival was 92% versus 98%, and 5-y patient survival was 86% versus 89% for SPKT versus LDKT. Death censored kidney and patient survival, acute kidney rejection by 1 y, and BK viremia were similar between the 2 groups. There were 17 pancreas graft losses within 1 y of transplant, the majority related to surgical complications, and it was not associated with increased mortality. Conclusions: SPKT in selected recipients aged 50 and above can have excellent outcomes similar to LDKT recipients.

Decreasing Significance of Early Allograft Dysfunction with Rising Use of Nonconventional Donors.

Background and Objectives: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is considered a surrogate marker for adverse post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes. With the increasing use of nonconventional donors, EAD has become a more frequent occurrence. Given this background, we aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of EAD in an updated cohort inclusive of both conventional and nonconventional liver allografts. Materials and Methods: Perioperative and one-year outcomes were assessed for a total of 611 LT recipients with and without EAD from Mayo Clinic Arizona. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: bilirubin > 10 mg/dL on day 7, INR > 1.6 on day 7, or ALT and/or AST > 2000 IU/L within the first 7 days of LT. Results: Within this cohort, 31.8% of grafts (n = 194) came from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, 17.7% (n = 108) were nationally shared, 16.4% (n = 100) were allocated as post-cross clamp, and 8.7% contained moderate steatosis. EAD was observed in 52.2% (n = 321) of grafts in the study cohort (79% in DCD grafts and 40% in DBD grafts). EAD grafts had higher donor risk index (DRI) scores (1.9 vs. 1.6, p < 0.0001), were more likely to come from DCD donors (48% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.0001), were regionally allocated (p = 0.003), and had higher cold ischemia times (median 6.0 vs. 5.5 h, p = 0.001). Primary nonfunction events were rare in both groups (1.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.22). Post-LT acute kidney injury occurred at a similar frequency in recipients with and without EAD (43.6% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.41), and there were no differences in ICU (median 2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.60) or hospital (6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.24) length of stay. For DCD grafts, the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was similar in the two groups (14.9% EAD vs. 17.5% no EAD, p = 0.69). One-year patient survival for grafts with and without EAD was 96.0% and 94.1% (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7−1.8; p = 0.54); one-year graft survival was 92.5% and 92.1% (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7−1.5; p = 0.88). Conclusions: In this cohort, EAD occurred in 52% of grafts. The occurrence of EAD, however, did not portend inferior outcomes. Compared to those without EAD, recipients with EAD had similar post-operative outcomes, as well as one-year patient and graft survival. EAD should be managed supportively and should not be viewed as a deterrent to utilization of non-ideal grafts.

Duration of delayed graft function and its impact on graft outcomes in deceased donor kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding the impact of delayed graft function (DGF) on kidney transplant outcomes. We hypothesize that the duration of DGF, rather than DGF itself, is associated with long-term kidney graft function. METHODS: We analyzed all deceased donor kidney transplants (DDKT) done at our center between 2008 to 2020. We determined factors associated with DGF duration. DGF duration was assessed at three 14-day intervals: < 14 DGF days, 14-27 DGF days, > 28 DGF days. We studied the impact of DGF duration on survival and graft function and resource utilization, including hospital length of stay and readmissions. RESULTS: 1714 DDKT recipients were included, 59.4% (n = 1018) had DGF. The median DGF duration was 10 days IQR (6,15). The majority of recipients (95%) had resolution of DGF within 28 days. Donor factors associated with DGF days were longer cold ischemia time, donor on inotropes, older age, donation after circulatory death, higher terminal creatinine, and hypertension. Recipient factors associated with increased DGF duration included male sex, length on dialysis before transplant, and higher body mass index. There were no differences in acute rejection events or interstitial fibrosis progression by 4 months when comparing DGF days. The median length of stay was 3 days. However, readmissions increased with increasing DGF duration. Death-censored graft survival was not associated with the length of DGF except when DGF lasted > 28 days. CONCLUSIONS: Inferior graft survival was observed only in recipients of DDKT with DGF lasting beyond 28 days. DGF lasting < 28 days had no impact on graft survival. Duration of DGF, rather than DGF itself, is associated with graft survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospective study approved by Mayo Clinic IRB number ID: 20-011561.

Donation after circulatory death transplant outcomes using livers recovered by local surgeons.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) outcomes have been attributed to multiple variables, including procurement surgeon recovery techniques. Outcomes of 196 DCD LTs at Mayo Clinic Arizona were analyzed based on graft recovery by a surgeon from our center (transplant procurement team [TPT]) versus a local procurement surgeon (non-TPT [NTPT]). A standard recovery technique was used for all TPT livers. The recovery technique used by the NTPT was left to the discretion of that surgeon. A total of 129 (65.8%) grafts were recovered by our TPT, 67 (34.2%) by the NTPT. Recipient age (p = 0.43), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (median 17 vs. 18; p = 0.22), and donor warm ischemia time (median 21.0 vs. 21.5; p = 0.86) were similar between the TPT and NTPT groups. NTPT livers had longer cold ischemia times (6.5 vs. 5.0 median hours; p < 0.001). Early allograft dysfunction (80.6% vs. 76.1%; p = 0.42) and primary nonfunction (0.8% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.47) were similar. Ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) treated with endoscopy occurred in 18.6% and 11.9% of TPT and NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). At last follow-up, approximately half of those requiring endoscopy were undergoing a stent-free trial (58.3% TPT; 50.0% NTPT; p = 0.68). IC requiring re-LT in the first year occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of TPT and 3.0% (n = 2) of NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). There were no differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-5.03; p = 0.23) or graft (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 0.98-4.09; p = 0.10) survival rates. Graft survival at 1 year was 91.5% for TPT grafts and 95.5% for NTPT grafts. Excellent outcomes can be achieved using NTPT for the recovery of DCD livers. There may be an opportunity to expand the use of DCD livers in the United States by increasing the use of NTPT.