Advances and innovations in living donor liver transplant techniques, matching and surgical training: Meeting report from the living donor liver transplant consensus conference.

The practice of LDLT currently delivers limited impact in western transplant centers. The American Society of Transplantation organized a virtual consensus conference in October 2021 to identify barriers and gaps to LDLT growth, and to provide evidence-based recommendations to foster safe expansion of LDLT in the United States. This article reports the findings and recommendations regarding innovations and advances in approaches to donor-recipient matching challenges, the technical aspects of the donor and recipient operations, and surgical training. Among these themes, the barriers deemed most influential/detrimental to LDLT expansion in the United States included: (1) prohibitive issues related to donor age, graft size, insufficient donor remnant, and ABO incompatibility; (2) lack of acknowledgment and awareness of the excellent outcomes and benefits of LDLT; (3) ambiguous messaging regarding LDLT to patients and hospital leadership; and (4) a limited number of proficient LDLT surgeons across the United States. Donor-recipient mismatching may be circumvented by way of liver paired exchange. The creation of a national registry to generate granular data on donor-recipient matching will guide the practice of liver paired exchange. The surgical challenges to LDLT are addressed herein and focuses on the development of robust training pathways resulting in proficiency in donor and recipient surgery. Utilizing strong mentorship/collaboration programs with novel training practices under the auspices of established training and certification bodies will add to the breadth and depth of training.

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.

Early Liver Transplantation in Acute Alcoholic Hepatitis.

Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) is currently the leading indication for liver transplantation in the United States. Among patients with ALD, those with acute alcoholic hepatitis who do not respond to medical treatment have a 6-month mortality of 70% without transplantation. Despite the high mortality, the majority of patients will not be eligible for transplant, given that most centers follow the 6-month abstinence rule. A handful of centers in Europe and the United States perform early liver transplantation (< 6 months abstinence) in these patients, as it provides a substantial survival benefit. Short-term outcomes for these recipients are favorable, and relapse rates parallel those seen in alcoholic cirrhosis transplant recipients who have completed the 6-month wait period. Moving forward, studies examining long-term outcomes and candidate selection are necessary for this growing subset of liver transplant candidates.

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.

Prevalence of frailty among kidney transplant candidates and recipients in the United States: Estimates from a National Registry and Multicenter Cohort Study.

Frailty, a measure of physiologic reserve, is associated with poor outcomes and mortality among kidney transplant (KT) candidates and recipients. There are no national estimates of frailty in this population, which may help patient counseling and resource allocation at transplant centers. We studied 4616 KT candidates and 1763 recipients in our multicenter prospective cohort of frailty from 2008-2018 with Fried frailty measurements. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data (KT candidates = 560 143 and recipients = 243 508), we projected the national prevalence of frailty (for KT candidates and recipients separately) using standardization through inverse probability weighting, accounting for candidate/recipient, donor, and transplant factors. In our multicenter cohort, 13.3% of KT candidates were frail at evaluation; 8.2% of LDKT recipients and 17.8% of DDKT recipients were frail at transplantation. Projected nationally, our modeling strategy estimated 91 738 KT candidates or 16.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4%-18.4%) of all KT candidates during the study period were frail, and that 34 822 KT recipients or 14.3% (95% CI 12.3%-16.3%) of all KT recipients were frail (LDKT = 8.2%; DDKT = 17.8%). Given the estimated national prevalence of frailty, transplant programs should consider assessing the condition during KT evaluation to improve patient counseling and resource allocation along with identification of recipients at risk for poor outcomes.

Changes in frailty are associated with waitlist mortality in patients with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To date, studies evaluating the association between frailty and mortality in patients with cirrhosis have been limited to assessments of frailty at a single time point. We aimed to evaluate changes in frailty over time and their association with death/delisting in patients too sick for liver transplantation. METHODS: Adults with cirrhosis, listed for liver transplantation at 8 US centers, underwent ambulatory longitudinal frailty testing using the liver frailty index (LFI). We used multilevel linear mixed-effects regression to model and predict changes in LFI (ΔLFI) per 3 months, based on age, gender, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)-Na, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy, categorizing patients by frailty trajectories. Competing risk regression evaluated the subhazard ratio (sHR) of baseline LFI and predicted ΔLFI on death/delisting, with transplantation as the competing risk. RESULTS: We analyzed 2,851 visits from 1,093 outpatients with cirrhosis. Patients with severe worsening of frailty had worse baseline LFI and were more likely to have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, diabetes, or dialysis-dependence. After a median follow-up of 11 months, 223 (20%) of the overall cohort died/were delisted because of sickness. The cumulative incidence of death/delisting increased by worsening ΔLFI group. In competing risk regression adjusted for baseline LFI, age, height, MELD-Na, and albumin, a 0.1 unit change in ΔLFI per 3 months was associated with a 2.04-fold increased risk of death/delisting (95% CI 1.35-3.09). CONCLUSION: Worsening frailty was significantly associated with death/delisting independent of baseline frailty and MELD-Na. Notably, patients who experienced improvements in frailty had a lower risk of death/delisting. Our data support the longitudinal measurement of frailty, using the LFI, in patients with cirrhosis and lay the foundation for interventional work aimed at reversing frailty. LAY SUMMARY: Frailty, as measured at a single time point, is predictive of death in patients with cirrhosis, but whether changes in frailty over time are associated with death is unknown. In a study of over 1,000 patients with cirrhosis who underwent frailty testing, we demonstrate that worsening frailty is strongly linked with mortality, regardless of baseline frailty and liver disease severity. Notably, patients who experienced improvements in frailty over time had a lower risk of death/delisting. Our data support the longitudinal measurement of frailty in patients with cirrhosis and lay the foundation for interventional work aimed at reversing frailty.

Multicenter Study of Age, Frailty, and Waitlist Mortality Among Liver Transplant Candidates.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the association of frailty and waitlist mortality varies by candidate age. BACKGROUND: Frailty, a construct developed in geriatrics, is a state of decreased physiologic reserve, and is associated with mortality while awaiting liver transplantation (LT). However, older candidates have high comorbidity burden and less physiologic reserve, so the relationship between frailty and waitlist mortality may vary by candidate age. METHODS: We studied adults listed for LT at 2 transplant centers. The liver frailty index (grip strength, chair stands, balance) was measured at evaluation, with frailty defined as liver frailty index  ≥ 4.5. We compared the prevalence of frailty in older (≥65 yr) and younger (18-64 yr) candidates. We studied the association between frailty, age, interaction between the 2, and waitlist mortality using competing risks regression adjusted for sex, BMI, and MELDNa. RESULTS: Among 882 LT candidates, 16.6% were ≥ 65 years. Older candidates were more likely to be frail (33.3% vs 21.7%, P = 0.002). Older age [adjusted subhazard ratio (aSHR): 2.16, 95% CI: 1.51-3.09, P < 0.001] and frailty (aSHR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.38-2.67, P < 0.001) were independently associated with higher risk of waitlist mortality. However, the association between waitlist mortality and frailty did not vary by candidate age (aSHR of frailty for younger patients: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.28-2.80, P = 0.001; aSHR of frailty for older patients: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.07-3.67, P = 0.03; P interaction = 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Older candidates experienced higher rates of frailty than younger candidates. However, regardless of age, frailty was associated with nearly 2-fold increased risk of waitlist mortality. Our data support the applicability of the frailty concept to the whole LT population and can guide the development of prehabilitation programs targeting frailty in LT patients of all ages.

Frailty Associated With Waitlist Mortality Independent of Ascites and Hepatic Encephalopathy in a Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Frailty is associated with mortality in patients with cirrhosis. We measured frailty using 3 simple tests and calculated Liver Frailty Index (LFI) scores for patients at multiple ambulatory centers. We investigated associations between LFI scores, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and mortality. METHODS: Adults without hepatocellular carcinoma who were on the liver transplantation waitlist at 9 centers in the United States (N = 1044) were evaluated using the LFI; LFI scores of at least 4.5 indicated that patients were frail. We performed logistic regression analyses to assess associations between frailty and ascites or HE and competing risk regression analyses (with liver transplantation as the competing risk) to estimate sub-hazard ratios (sHRs) of waitlist mortality (death or removal from the waitlist). RESULTS: Of study subjects, 36% had ascites, 41% had HE, and 25% were frail. The odds of frailty were higher for patients with ascites (adjusted odd ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-2.14) or HE (odd ratio 2.45, 95% CI 1.80-3.33) than for those without these features. Larger proportions of frail patients with ascites (29%) or HE (30%) died while on the waitlist compared with patients who were not frail (17% of patients with ascites and 20% with HE). In univariable analysis, ascites (sHR 1.52, 95% CI 1.14-2.05), HE (sHR 1.84, 95% CI 1.38-2.45), and frailty (sHR 2.38, 95% CI 1.77-3.20) were associated with waitlist mortality. In adjusted models, only frailty remained significantly associated with waitlist mortality (sHR 1.82, 95% CI 1.31-2.52); ascites and HE were not. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is a prevalent complication of cirrhosis that is observed more frequently in patients with ascites or HE and independently associated with waitlist mortality. LFI scores can be used to objectively quantify risk of death related to frailty-in excess of liver disease severity-in patients with cirrhosis.

Cognitive Function, Access to Kidney Transplantation, and Waitlist Mortality Among Kidney Transplant Candidates With or Without Diabetes.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Intact cognition is generally a prerequisite for navigating through and completing evaluation for kidney transplantation. Despite kidney transplantation being contraindicated for those with severe dementia, screening for more mild forms of cognitive impairment before referral is rare. Candidates may have unrecognized cognitive impairment, which may prolong evaluation, elevate mortality risk, and hinder access to kidney transplantation. We estimated the burden of cognitive impairment and its association with access to kidney transplantation and waitlist mortality. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 3,630 participants (January 2009 to June 2018) with cognitive function measured (by the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination [3MS]) at kidney transplantation evaluation at 1 of 2 transplantation centers. PREDICTORS: Cognitive impairment (3MS score<80). OUTCOMES: Listing, waitlist mortality, and kidney transplantation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We estimated the adjusted chance of listing (Cox regression), risk for waitlist mortality (competing-risks regression), and kidney transplantation rate (Poisson regression) by cognitive impairment. Given potential differences in cause of cognitive impairment among those with and without diabetes, we tested whether these associations differed by diabetes status using a Wald test. RESULTS: At evaluation, 6.4% of participants had cognitive impairment, which was independently associated with 25% lower chance of listing (adjusted HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.91); this association did not differ by diabetes status (Pinteraction=0.07). There was a nominal difference by diabetes status for the association between cognitive impairment and kidney transplantation rate (Pinteraction=0.05), while the association between cognitive impairment and waitlist mortality differed by diabetes status kidney transplantation rates (Pinteraction=0.02). Among candidates without diabetes, those with cognitive impairment were at 2.47 (95% CI, 1.31-4.66) times greater risk for waitlist mortality; cognitive impairment was not associated with this outcome among candidates with diabetes. LIMITATIONS: Single measure of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive impairment is associated with a lower chance of being placed on the waitlist, and among patients without diabetes, with increased mortality on the waitlist. Future studies should investigate whether implementation of screening for cognitive impairment improves these outcomes.

Kidney transplant outcomes in recipients with visual, hearing, physical and walking impairments: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Disability in general has been associated with poor outcomes in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. However, disability can be derived from various components, specifically visual, hearing, physical and walking impairments. Different impairments may compromise the patient through different mechanisms and might impact different aspects of KT outcomes. METHODS: In our prospective cohort study (June 2013-June 2017), 465 recipients reported hearing, visual, physical and walking impairments before KT. We used hybrid registry-augmented Cox regression, adjusting for confounders using the US KT population (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, N = 66 891), to assess the independent association between impairments and post-KT outcomes [death-censored graft failure (DCGF) and mortality]. RESULTS: In our cohort of 465 recipients, 31.6% reported one or more impairments (hearing 9.3%, visual 16.6%, physical 9.1%, walking 12.1%). Visual impairment was associated with a 3.36-fold [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-9.65] higher DCGF risk, however, hearing [2.77 (95% CI 0.78-9.82)], physical [0.67 (95% CI 0.08-3.35)] and walking [0.50 (95% CI 0.06-3.89)] impairments were not. Walking impairment was associated with a 3.13-fold (95% CI 1.32-7.48) higher mortality risk, however, visual [1.20 (95% CI 0.48-2.98)], hearing [1.01 (95% CI 0.29-3.47)] and physical [1.16 (95% CI 0.34-3.94)] impairments were not. CONCLUSIONS: Impairments are common among KT recipients, yet only visual impairment and walking impairment are associated with adverse post-KT outcomes. Referring nephrologists and KT centers should identify recipients with visual and walking impairments who might benefit from targeted interventions pre-KT, additional supportive care and close post-KT monitoring.

Functional independence, access to kidney transplantation and waitlist mortality.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of the patients who progress to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and undergo dialysis develop difficulties carrying out essential self-care activities, leading to institutionalization and mortality. It is unclear what percentage of kidney transplant (KT) candidates, a group of ESKD patients selected to be healthy enough to withstand transplantation, are functionally independent and whether independence is associated with better access to KT and reduced waitlist mortality. METHODS: We studied a prospective cohort of 3168 ESKD participants (January 2009 to June 2018) who self-reported functional independence in more basic self-care Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (needing help with eating, dressing, walking, grooming, toileting and bathing) and more complex instrumental ADL (IADL) (needing help using a phone, shopping, cooking, housework, washing, using transportation, managing medications and managing money). We estimated adjusted associations between functional independence (separately) and listing (Cox), waitlist mortality (competing risks) and transplant rates (Poisson). RESULTS: At KT evaluation, 92.4% were independent in ADLs, but only 68.5% were independent in IADLs. Functionally independent participants had a higher chance of listing for KT [ADL: adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-1.87; IADL: aHR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.26-1.52]. Among KT candidates, ADL independence was associated with lower waitlist mortality risk [adjusted subdistribution HR (aSHR) = 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-0.98] and higher rate of KT [adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) = 1.58, 95% CI 1.12-2.22]; the same was not observed for IADL independence (aSHR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.12; aIRR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.97-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: Functional independence in more basic self-care ADL was associated with better KT access and lower waitlist mortality. Nephrologists, geriatricians and transplant surgeons should screen KT candidates for ADLs, and identify interventions to promote independence and improve waitlist outcomes.

Frailty and Changes in Cognitive Function after Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Restoration of kidney function after kidney transplant generally improves cognitive function. It is unclear whether frail recipients, with higher susceptibility to surgical stressors, achieve such post-transplant cognitive improvements or whether they experience subsequent cognitive decline as they age with a functioning graft. METHODS: In this two-center cohort study, we assessed pretransplant frailty (Fried physical frailty phenotype) and cognitive function (Modified Mini-Mental State Examination) in adult kidney transplant recipients. To investigate potential short- and medium-term effects of frailty on post-transplant cognitive trajectories, we measured cognitive function up to 4 years post-transplant. Using an adjusted mixed effects model with a random slope (time) and intercept (person), we characterized post-transplant cognitive trajectories by pretransplant frailty, accounting for nonlinear trajectories. RESULTS: Of 665 recipients (mean age 52.0 years) followed for a median of 1.5 years, 15.0% were frail. After adjustment, pretransplant cognitive scores were significantly lower among frail patients compared with nonfrail patients (89.0 versus 90.8 points). By 3 months post-transplant, cognitive performance improved for both frail (slope =0.22 points per week) and nonfrail (slope =0.14 points per week) recipients. Between 1 and 4 years post-transplant, improvements plateaued among nonfrail recipients (slope =0.005 points per week), whereas cognitive function declined among frail recipients (slope =-0.04 points per week). At 4 years post-transplant, cognitive scores were 5.8 points lower for frail recipients compared with nonfrail recipients. CONCLUSIONS: On average, both frail and nonfrail recipients experience short-term cognitive improvement post-transplant. However, frailty is associated with medium-term cognitive decline post-transplant. Interventions to prevent cognitive decline among frail recipients should be identified.

Geographic disparities in liver supply/demand ratio within fixed-distance and fixed-population circles.

Recent OPTN proposals to address geographic disparity in liver allocation have involved circular boundaries: the policy selected 12/17 allocated to 150-mile circles in addition to DSAs/regions, and the policy selected 12/18 allocated to 150-mile circles eliminating DSA/region boundaries. However, methods to reduce geographic disparity remain controversial, within the OPTN and the transplant community. To inform ongoing discussions, we studied center-level supply/demand ratios using SRTR data (07/2013-06/2017) for 27 334 transplanted deceased donor livers and 44 652 incident waitlist candidates. Supply was the number of donors from an allocation unit (DSA or circle), allocated proportionally (by waitlist size) to the centers drawing on these donors. We measured geographic disparity as variance in log-transformed supply/demand ratio, comparing allocation based on DSAs, fixed-distance circles (150- or 400-mile radius), and fixed-population (12- or 50-million) circles. The recently proposed 150-mile radius circles (variance = 0.11, P = .9) or 12-million-population circles (variance = 0.08, P = .1) did not reduce the geographic disparity compared to DSA-based allocation (variance = 0.11). However, geographic disparity decreased substantially to 0.02 in both larger fixed-distance (400-mile, P < .001) and larger fixed-population (50-million, P < .001) circles (P = .9 comparing fixed distance and fixed population). For allocation circles to reduce geographic disparities, they must be larger than a 150-mile radius; additionally, fixed-population circles are not superior to fixed-distance circles.

Survival benefit of accepting livers from deceased donors over 70 years old.

Livers from older donors (OLDs; age ≥70) are risky and often declined; however, it is likely that some candidates will benefit from OLDs versus waiting for younger ones. To characterize the survival benefit of accepting OLD grafts, we used 2009-2017 SRTR data to identify 24 431 adult liver transplant (LT) candidates who were offered OLD grafts eventually accepted by someone. Outcomes from the time-of-offer were compared between candidates who accepted an OLD graft and matched controls within MELD ± 2 who declined the same offer. Candidates who accepted OLD grafts (n = 1311) were older (60.5 vs. 57.8 years, P < .001), had a higher median MELD score (25 vs. 22, P < .001), and were less likely to have hepatitis C cirrhosis (14.9% vs. 31.2%, P < .001). Five-year cumulative mortality among those who accepted versus declined the same OLD offer was 23.4% versus 41.2% (P < .001). Candidates who accepted OLDs experienced an almost twofold reduction in mortality (aHR:0.45 0.520.59 , P < .001) compared to those who declined the same offer, especially among the highest MELD (35-40) candidates (aHR:0.10 0.240.55 , P = .001). Accepting an OLD offer provided substantial long-term survival benefit compared to waiting for a better organ offer, notably among candidates with MELD 35-40. Providers should consider these benefits as they evaluate OLD graft offers.

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

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

Limited health literacy and adverse outcomes among kidney transplant candidates.

More than one-third of US adults have limited health literacy, putting them at risk of adverse clinical outcomes. We evaluated the prevalence of limited health literacy among 1578 adult kidney transplant (KT) candidates (May 2014-November 2017) and examined its association with listing for transplant and waitlist mortality in this pilot study. Limited health literacy was assessed at KT evaluation by using a standard cutoff score ≤5 on the Brief Health Literacy Screen (score range 0-12, lower scores indicate worse health literacy). We used logistic regression and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models to identify risk factors for limited health literacy and to quantify its association with listing and waitlist mortality. We found that 8.9% of candidates had limited health literacy; risk factors included less than college education (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.86-4.43), frailty (aOR = 1.85, 95% CI:1.22-2.80), comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity index [1-point increase] aOR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04-1.20), and cognitive impairment (aOR = 3.45, 95% CI: 2.20-5.41) after adjusting for age, sex, race, and income. Candidates with limited health literacy had a 30% (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.54-0.91) decreased likelihood of listing and a 2.42-fold (95% CI: 1.16- to 5.05-fold) increased risk of waitlist mortality. Limited health literacy may be a salient mechanism in access to KT; programs to aid candidates with limited health literacy may improve outcomes and reduce disparities.

Comorbidity, Frailty, and Waitlist Mortality among Kidney Transplant Candidates of All Ages.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation (KT) candidates often present with multiple comorbidities. These patients also have a substantial burden of frailty, which is also associated with increased mortality. However, it is unknown if frailty is merely a surrogate for comorbidity, itself an independent domain of risk, or if frailty and comorbidity have differential effects. Better understanding the interplay between these 2 constructs will improve clinical decision making in KT candidates. OBJECTIVE: To test whether comorbidity is equally associated with waitlist mortality among frail and nonfrail KT candidates and to test whether measuring both comorbidity burden and frailty improves mortality risk prediction. METHODS: We studied 2,086 candidates on the KT waitlist (November 2009 - October 2017) in a multicenter cohort study, in whom frailty and comorbidity were measured at evaluation. We quantified the association between Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) adapted for end-stage renal disease and waitlist mortality using an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model and tested whether this association differed between frail and nonfrail candidates. RESULTS: At evaluation, 18.1% of KT candidates were frail and 51% had a high comorbidity burden (CCI score ≥2). Candidates with a high comorbidity burden were at 1.38-fold (95% CI 1.01-1.89) increased risk of waitlist mortality. However, this association differed by frailty status (p for interaction = 0.01): among nonfrail candidates, a high comorbidity burden was associated with a 1.66-fold (95% CI 1.17-2.35) increased mortality risk; among frail candidates, here was no statistically significant association (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.44-1.29). Adding this interaction between comorbidity and frailty to a mortality risk estimation model significantly improved prediction, increasing the c-statistic from 0.640 to 0.656 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nonfrail candidates with a high comorbidity burden at KT evaluation have an increased risk of waitlist mortality. Importantly, comorbidity is less of a concern in already high-risk patients who are frail.

Acute Care Surgery for Transplant Recipients: A National Survey of Surgeon Perspectives and Practices.

BACKGROUND: Transplant recipients are living longer than ever before, and occasionally require acute care surgery for nontransplant-related issues. We hypothesized that while both acute care surgeons (ACS) and transplant surgeons would feel comfortable operating on this unique patient population, both would believe transplant centers provide superior care. METHODS: To characterize surgeon perspectives, we conducted a national survey of ACS and transplant surgeons. Surgeon- and center-specific demographics were collected; surgeon preferences were compared using χ2, Fisher's exact, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: We obtained 230 responses from ACS and 204 from transplant surgeons. ACS and transplant surgeons believed care is better at transplant centers (78% and 100%), and transplant recipients requiring acute care surgery should be transferred to a transplant center (80.2% and 87.2%). ACS felt comfortable operating (97.5%) and performing laparoscopy (94.0%) on transplant recipients. ACS cited transplant medication use as the most important underlying cause of increased surgical complications for transplant recipients. Transplant surgeons felt it was their responsibility to perform acute care surgery on transplant recipients (67.3%), but less so if patient underwent transplant at a different institution (26.5%). Transplant surgeons cited poor transplanted organ resiliency as the most important underlying cause of increased surgical complications for transplant recipients. CONCLUSIONS: ACS and transplant surgeons feel comfortable performing laparoscopic and open acute care surgery on transplant recipients, and recommend treating transplant recipients at transplant centers, despite the lack of supportive evidence. Elucidating common goals allows surgeons to provide optimal care for this unique patient population.

Prehabilitation prior to kidney transplantation: Results from a pilot study.

Prehabilitation is the process of enhancing preoperative functional capacity to improve tolerance for the upcoming stressor; it was associated with improved postoperative outcomes in a handful of studies, but never evaluated in transplantation. Kidney transplant (KT) candidates may be uniquely suited for prehabilitation because they experience a profound loss of functional capacity while waiting years on dialysis. To better understand the feasibility and effectiveness of prehabilitation in KT, we conducted a pilot study of center-based prehabilitation for candidates; this intervention consisted of weekly physical therapy sessions at an outpatient center with at-home exercises. We enrolled 24 participants; 18 participated in prehabilitation (75% of enrolled; 17% of eligible). 61% were male, 72% were African American, and mean age = 52 (SD = 12.9); 71% of participants had lower-extremity impairment, and 31% were frail. By 2 months of prehabilitation, participants improved their physical activity by 64% (P = 0.004) based on accelerometry. Participants reported high satisfaction. Among 5 prehabilitation participants who received KT during the study, length of stay was shorter than for age-, sex-, and race-matched control (5 vs 10 days; RR = 0.69; 95% CI:0.50-0.94; P = 0.02). These pilot study findings suggest that prehabilitation is feasible in pretransplant patients and may potentially be a strategy to improve post-KT outcomes.

Sex matching does not impact the outcome after simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Several studies in solid organ transplantation have shown a correlation between donor and recipient sex mismatch and risk of graft loss. In this study, we aimed to analyze the impact of donor and recipient sex matching on patient and pancreas graft survival in a large single-center cohort. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all first simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants performed between 1979 and 2017 at the Medical University of Innsbruck. RESULTS: Of 452 patients, 54.6% (247) received a sex-matched transplant. Patient survival (P = .86), death-censored pancreas graft survival (dcPGS, P = .26), and death-censored kidney graft survival (dcKGS, P = .24) were similar between the sex-matched and sex-mismatched groups. Patient survival and dcPGS at 1, 5, and 15 years were 95.9%, 90.0%, and 62.1% and 86.1%, 77.1%, and 56.7% in the sex-matched group and 93.6%, 86.2%, and 62.4% and 83.1%, 73.3%, and 54.3% in the sex-mismatched group. Sex matching led to a lower odds of severe postoperative complications (41.2% vs 49.0%; OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.33-0.97; P = .038); however, no increased odds of other adverse postoperative outcomes was detected. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that sex matching reduced the odds of postoperative complications but did not impact other early and late outcome parameters in our cohort.