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.

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.

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.

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.

Outcomes and Health Care Utilization After Early Hospital Dismissal in Kidney Transplantation: An Analysis of 1001 Consecutive Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To understand whether reduced lengths of stay after kidney transplantation were associated with excess health care utilization in the first 90 days or long-term graft and patient survival outcomes. BACKGROUND: Reducing length of stay after kidney transplant has an unknown effect on post-transplant health care utilization. We studied this association in a cohort of 1001 consecutive kidney transplants. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 2011-2015 data from a prospectively-maintained kidney transplant database from a single center. RESULTS: A total of 1001 patients underwent kidney transplant, and were dismissed from the hospital in 3 groups: Early [≤2 days] (19.8%), Normal [3-7 days] (79.4%) and Late [>7 days] (3.8%). 34.8% of patients had living donor transplants (Early 51%, Normal 31.4%, Late 18.4%, P < 0.001). Early patients had lower delayed graft function rates (Early 19.2%, Normal 32%, Late73.7%, P = 0.001). By the hospital dismissal group, there were no differences in readmissions or emergency room visits at 30 or 90 days. Glomerular filtration rate at 12 months and rates of biopsy-proven acute rejection were also similar between groups. The timing of hospital dismissal was not associated with the risk-adjusted likelihood of readmission. Early and Normal patients had similar graft and patient survival. Late dismissal patients, who had higher rates of cardiovascular complications, had significantly higher late mortality versus Normal dismissal patients in unadjusted and risk-adjusted models. CONCLUSION: Dismissing patients from the hospital 2 days after kidney transplant is safe, feasible, and improves value. It is not associated with excess health care utilization or worse short or long-term transplant outcomes.

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.

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.

Discovery and Validation of a Biomarker Model (PRESERVE) Predictive of Renal Outcomes After Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A high proportion of patients develop chronic kidney disease (CKD) after liver transplantation (LT). We aimed to develop clinical/protein models to predict future glomerular filtration rate (GFR) deterioration in this population. APPROACH AND RESULTS: In independent multicenter discovery (CTOT14) and single-center validation (BUMC) cohorts, we analyzed kidney injury proteins in serum/plasma samples at month 3 after LT in recipients with preserved GFR who demonstrated subsequent GFR deterioration versus preservation by year 1 and year 5 in the BUMC cohort. In CTOT14, we also examined correlations between serial protein levels and GFR over the first year. A month 3 predictive model was constructed from clinical and protein level variables using the CTOT14 cohort (n = 60). Levels of ß-2 microglobulin and CD40 antigen and presence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection predicted early (year 1) GFR deterioration (area under the curve [AUC], 0.814). We observed excellent validation of this model (AUC, 0.801) in the BUMC cohort (n = 50) who had both early and late (year 5) GFR deterioration. At an optimal threshold, the model had the following performance characteristics in CTOT14 and BUMC, respectively: accuracy (0.75, 0.8), sensitivity (0.71, 0.67), specificity (0.78, 0.88), positive predictive value (0.74, 0.75), and negative predictive value (0.76, 0.82). In the serial CTOT14 analysis, several proteins, including ß-2 microglobulin and CD40, correlated with GFR changes over the first year. CONCLUSIONS: We have validated a clinical/protein model (PRESERVE) that early after LT can predict future renal deterioration versus preservation with high accuracy. This model may help select recipients at higher risk for subsequent CKD for early, proactive renal sparing strategies.

Variation in opioid prescribing patterns after abdominal transplant surgery.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are associated with negative transplant outcomes. We sought to identify patient and center effects on over-prescribing of opioids (> 200 OME (oral morphine equivalents)). STUDY DESIGN: Clinical and opioid prescription data (2014-2017) were collected from three academic transplant centers for kidney (KT), liver (LT), and simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (SLK) patients. Multivariable models were used to identify predictors of opioid over-prescribing at discharge and the occurrence of refill prescriptions at 90 days. RESULTS: Three-thousand seven-hundred and two patients underwent transplant in the cohort (KT: n = 2358, LT: n = 1221, SLK: n = 123). More than 80% of recipients were over-prescribed opioids at discharge (Median OME (mOME) = 300 (IQR 225-375). LT and SLK had the largest prescription size (LT mOME 338 (IQR 300-450); SLK mOME 338 (IQR 225-450) and refill rate (LT: 64%, SLK 59%) (all, P < .001). Multivariable analysis indicated that transplant center was a significant predictor of opioid over-prescription after KT and LT (all, P < .001); older age (in KT) and length of stay (LOS) (in LT) were protective factors (both, P < .05). Refill occurrence was associated with initial prescription size and was reduced by older age and initial LOS (all, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation in opioid prescribing patterns has implications for transplant practice innovation, guideline development, and further study.

Successful outcomes with transplanting kidneys from deceased donors with acute kidney injuryon temporary renal replacement therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine outcomes with transplanting kidneys from deceased donors with severe acute kidney injury requiring acute renal replacement therapy (RRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 172 recipients received a kidney from donors with acute kidney injury stage 3 (AKIN3) requiring RRT. We compared the study group to 528 recipients who received a kidney from donors with AKIN stage 3 not on RRT and 463 recipients who received < 85% Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) AKIN stage 0 kidney. RESULTS: The study group donors were younger compared to the 2 control groups. Despite higher DGF in the study group, the length of hospital stay and acute rejection were similar. Death censored graft survival (96% AKIN3-RRT vs. 97%AKIN3 no RRT vs. 96% KDPI < 85% AKIN0, P = 0.26) and patient survival with functioning graft at 1 year (95% across all groups, P = 0.402) were similar. The estimated glomerular filtration rate were similar across the 3 groups after first month. Interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy score ≥ 2 on protocol biopsy at time 0, 4 and 12 months were similar. Primary nonfunction was rare and associated with high KDPI. CONCLUSIONS: Transplanting selected kidneys from deceased donors with AKIN3 requiring RRT is safe and has good outcomes.

Transplant outcomes using kidneys from high KDPI acute kidney injury donors.

Kidney transplant (KT) outcomes from high kidney donor profile index (KDPI ≥85%) donors with acute kidney injury (AKI) remain underreported. KT from 172 high KDPI Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) stage 0-1 donors and 76 high KDPI AKIN stage 2-3 donors from a single center were retrospectively assessed. The AKIN 2-3 cohort had more delayed graft function (71% vs. 37%, p < .001). At one year, there were no differences in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (44 ± 17 vs. 46 ± 18, p = .42) or fibrosis on protocol biopsy (ci, p = .85). Donor terminal creatinine (p = .59) and length of delayed graft function (p = .39) did not impact one-year eGFR. There were more primary nonfunction (PNF) events in the high KDPI AKIN 2-3 group (5.3% vs. 0.6%, p = .02). With a median follow-up of 3.8 years, one-year death-censored graft failure was 3.5% for AKIN 0-1 and 14.5% for AKIN 2-3 (HR 2.40, 95% CI 1.24-4.63, p = .01). Although AKIN stage 2-3 high KDPI kidneys had comparable one-year eGFR to AKIN stage 0-1 high KDPI kidneys, there were more PNF occurrences and one-year death-censored graft survival was reduced. Given these findings, additional precautions should be undertaken when assessing and utilizing kidneys from severe AKI high KDPI donors.

Renal transplantation in the setting of aortic atresia: Utilizing hepatic artery inflow with donor vessel jump graft.

Both congenital and acquired recipient anatomy can present a significant challenge to renal transplantation. A patient with congenital aortic atresia and limited dialysis access options presented to our institution for consideration of transplant. Through multidisciplinary planning, a strategy to accommodate the patient's variant anatomy was devised and successfully performed. A deceased donor vessel graft was used as conduit in combination with the recipient hepatic artery for renal graft inflow.

Simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: an updated perspective.

Outcomes of both donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver and kidney transplants are improving. Experience in simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (SLK) using DCD donors, however, remains limited. In an updated cohort (2010-2018), outcomes of 30 DCD SLK and 131 donation after brain death (DBD) SLK from Mayo Clinic Arizona and Mayo Clinic Minnesota were reviewed. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was lower in the DCD SLK group (23 vs 29, P = .01). Kidney delayed graft function (DGF) rates were similar between the 2 groups (P = .11), although the duration of DGF was longer for DCD SLK recipients (20 vs 4 days, P = .01). Liver allograft (93.3% vs 93.1%, P = .29), kidney allograft (93.3% vs 93.1%, P = .91), and patient (96.7% vs 95.4%, P = .70) 1-year survival rates were similar. At 1 year, there were no differences in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (57.7 ± 18.2 vs 56.3 ± 17.7, P = .75) or progression of fibrosis (ci) on protocol kidney biopsy (P = .67). A higher incidence of biliary complications was observed in the DCD SLK group, with ischemic cholangiopathy being the most common (10.0% vs 0.0%, P = .03). The majority of biliary complications resolved with endoscopic management. With appropriate selection, DCD SLK recipients can have results equivalent to those of DBD SLK recipients.

Discovery and validation of a novel blood-based molecular biomarker of rejection following liver transplantation.

Noninvasive biomarker profiles of acute rejection (AR) could affect the management of liver transplant (LT) recipients. Peripheral blood was collected following LT for discovery (Northwestern University [NU]) and validation (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Clinical Trials in Organ Transplantation [CTOT]-14 study). Blood gene profiling was paired with biopsies showing AR or ADNR (acute dysfunction no rejection) as well as stable graft function samples (Transplant eXcellent-TX). CTOT-14 subjects had serial collections prior to AR, ADNR, TX, and after AR treatment. NU cohort gene expression (46 AR, 45 TX) was analyzed using random forest models to generate a classifier training set (36 gene probe) distinguishing AR vs TX (area under the curve 0.92). The algorithm and threshold were locked and tested on the CTOT-14 validation cohort (14 AR, 50 TX), yielding an accuracy of 0.77, sensitivity 0.57, specificity 0.82, positive predictive value (PPV) 0.47, and negative predictive value (NPV) 0.87 for AR vs TX. The probability score line slopes were positive preceding AR, and negative preceding TX and non-AR (TX + ADNR) (P ≤ .001) and following AR treatment. In conclusion, we have developed a blood biomarker diagnostic for AR that can be detected prior to AR-associated graft injury as well a normal graft function (non-AR). Further studies are needed to evaluate its utility in precision-guided immunosuppression optimization following LT.

Perioperative and long-term outcomes of utilizing donation after circulatory death liver grafts with macrosteatosis: A multicenter analysis.

BACKGROUND: Given the potentially additive risk from using donor livers that are both steatotic and from a donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor, there is a paucity of data on the outcome of DCD liver transplantation (LT) utilizing livers with macrosteatosis. METHODS: All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic-Florida, Mayo Clinic-Arizona, and Mayo Clinic-Rochester from 1999 to 2019 were included (N = 714). Recipients of DCD LT were divided into 3 groups: those with moderate macrosteatosis (30%-60%), mild macrosteatosis (5%-30%), and no steatosis (<5%). RESULTS: Patients with moderate macrosteatosis had a higher rate of postreperfusion syndrome (PRS; 53.9% vs 26.2%; P = .002), postreperfusion cardiac arrest (7.7% vs 0.3%; P < .001), primary nonfunction (PNF; 7.7% vs 1.0%; P = .003), early allograft dysfunction (EAD; 70.8% vs 45.6% and 8.3%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (AKI; 39.1% vs 19.4%; P = .02) than patients with no steatosis. No difference in any of the perioperative complications was seen between the mild macrosteatosis and the no steatosis groups except for the rate of EAD (56.8% vs 45.6%; P = .04). No difference in ischemic cholangiopathy (IC), vascular thrombosis/stenosis or graft, and patient survival was seen between the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: DCD donors with mild macrosteatosis < 30% can be utilized with no increase in perioperative complications and similar patient and graft survival compared to DCD donors with no steatosis. When utilizing DCD donors with moderate macrosteatosis higher rates of PRS, PNF, postreperfusion cardiac arrest, EAD, and AKI should be anticipated.

Transplanting kidneys from donation after cardiac death donors with acute kidney injury.

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) and acute kidney injury (AKI) donors have historically been considered independent risk factors for delayed graft function (DGF), allograft failure, and inferior outcomes. With growing experience, updated analyses have shown good outcomes. There continues to be limited data, however, on outcomes specific to DCD donors who have AKI. Primary outcomes for this study were post-kidney transplant patient and allograft survival comparing two donor groups: DCD AKIN stage 2-3 and DBD AKIN stage 2-3. In comparing these groups, there were no short- or long-term differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.93, P = .83) or allograft survival (HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.64-2.97, P = .32). In multivariate models, the DCD/DBD status had no significant impact on the estimated GFR (eGFR) at 1 (P = .38), 2 (P = .60), and 3 years (P = .52). DGF (57.9% vs 67.9%, P = .09), rejection (12.1% vs 13.9%, P = .12), and progression of interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IFTA) on protocol biopsy (P = .16) were similar between the two groups. With careful selection, good outcomes can be achieved utilizing severe AKI DCD kidneys. Historic concerns regarding primary nonfunction, DGF resulting in interstitial fibrosis and rejection, and inferior outcomes were not observed. Given the ongoing organ shortage, increased effort should be undertaken to further utilize these donors.

Outcomes of endoscopic therapy in donation after cardiac death liver transplant biliary strictures.

BACKGROUND: Biliary strictures after donation-after-cardiac-death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) require multiple endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCP). The outcomes of endoscopic dilation and maximal stenting are not well-characterized in this high-risk population. METHODS: DCD LT recipients who underwent LT and ERCP from 2012-2018 were selected. Anastomotic and non-anastomotic strictures were treated with balloon dilation and maximal stenting. A successful stent-free trial was defined as absence of biochemical, clinical or imaging evidence of strictures on follow-up exceeding 6 months. Adverse events were defined as unplanned admission or inpatient evaluation within 7 days of ERCP. RESULTS: Forty-nine DCD LT recipients underwent ERCP and 34 patients were diagnosed with strictures (20 anastomotic). Stent-free trial was successful in 27 patients. Adverse events occurred after 20 ERCPs. Patients with anastomotic strictures required fewer stents (1.43 ± 1.37 vs 2.63 ± 1.66; P < 0.001), shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times (34.15 ± 20.9 vs 59.6 ± 30.7 minutes, P < 0.001; 5.99 ± 7.4 vs 14.73 ± 10.74 minutes, P < 0.001), fewer relapses (10% vs 57%, P = 0.003), shorter intervals between initial ERCP and stent-free success (136.9 ± 118.3 vs 399.56 ± 234.7; P = 0.003), and between LT and stent-free success (227.8 ± 171.9 vs 464.1 ± 224.6 days; P = 0.005) compared to non-anastomotic strictures. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic dilation and maximal stenting resolves biliary strictures in DCD LT recipients with sustained success and relatively few adverse events.

Predictors of Biliary Strictures After Liver Transplantation Among Recipients of DCD (Donation After Cardiac Death) Grafts.

INTRODUCTION: Biliary strictures are a common complication among donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) recipients and may require multiple endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures. We evaluated the risk factors associated with development of biliary strictures in DCD LT recipients. METHODS: DCD LT recipients who underwent transplantation from 2012 to 2017 were divided into 2 groups: (a) those with anastomotic or non-anastomotic biliary strictures who required ERCP ("stricture group") and (b) those who did not require ERCP or had cholangiograms without evidence of biliary strictures ("non-stricture group"). Clinical data, cholangiograms and laboratory values at day 0 and day 7 after LT were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Forty-nine of the 100 DCD LT recipients underwent ERCP. Thirty-four of these 49 LT recipients had evidence of anastomotic or non-anastomotic biliary strictures (stricture group), while the remaining 66 LT recipients comprised the non-stricture group. Donor age was significantly higher in stricture group compared to non-stricture group (49.2 ± 1.8 vs 42.8 ± 1.57 years, respectively; p = 0.01). The stricture group had a significantly higher total bilirubin at day 0 (3.5 ± 0.37 vs 2.6 ± 0.21 mg/dL; p = 0.02) and INR at day 7 (1.24 ± 0.06 vs 1.13 ± 0.01; p = 0.048) compared to the non-stricture group. Multi-variate analysis demonstrated significant association between biliary strictures and total bilirubin at day 0 of LT and age of donor. CONCLUSION: Biliary strictures occur frequently in DCD LT recipients and may be associated with older age of donor. Hyperbilirubinemia immediately after transplant and higher INR in the first 7 days after transplant may predict subsequent development of biliary strictures.

Factors associated with adverse outcomes from cardiovascular events in the kidney transplant population: an analysis of national discharge data, hospital characteristics, and process measures.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant (KT) patients presenting with cardiovascular (CVD) events are being managed increasingly in non-transplant facilities. We aimed to identify drivers of mortality and costs, including transplant hospital status. METHODS: Data from the 2009-2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the American Hospital Association, and Hospital Compare were used to evaluate post-KT patients hospitalized for MI, CHF, stroke, cardiac arrest, dysrhythmia, and malignant hypertension. We used generalized estimating equations to identify clinical, structural, and process factors associated with risk-adjusted mortality and high cost hospitalization (HCH). RESULTS: Data on 7803 admissions were abstracted from 275 hospitals. Transplant hospitals had lower crude mortality (3.0% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.06), and higher un-adjusted total episodic costs (Median $33,271 vs. $28,022, p < 0.0001). After risk-adjusting for clinical, structural, and process factors, mortality predictors included: age, CVD burden, CV destination hospital, diagnostic cardiac catheterization without intervention (all, p < 0.001). Female sex, race, documented co-morbidities, and hospital teaching status were protective (all, p < 0.05). Transplant and non-transplant hospitals had similar risk-adjusted mortality. HCH was associated with: age, CVD burden, CV procedures, and staffing patterns. Hospitalizations at transplant facilities had 37% lower risk-adjusted odds of HCH. Cardiovascular process measures were not associated with adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: KT patients presenting with CVD events had similar risk-adjusted mortality at transplant and non-transplant hospitals, but high cost care was less likely in transplant hospitals. Transplant hospitals may provide better value in cardiovascular care for transplant patients. These data have significant implications for patients, transplant and non-transplant providers, and payers.

Hospitalizations for Cardiovascular Disease After Liver Transplantation in the United States.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of post-liver transplant death, and variable care patterns may affect outcomes. We aimed to describe epidemiology and outcomes of inpatient CVD care across US hospitals. Using a merged data set from the 2002-2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, we evaluated liver transplant patients admitted primarily with myocardial infarction (MI), stroke (cerebrovascular accident [CVA]), congestive heart failure (CHF), dysrhythmias, cardiac arrest (CA), or malignant hypertension. Patient-level data include demographics, Charlson comorbidity index, and CVD diagnoses. Facility-level variables included ownership status, payer-mix, hospital resources, teaching status, and physician/nursing-to-bed ratios. We used generalized estimating equations to evaluate patient- and hospital-level factors associated with mortality. There were 4763 hospitalizations that occurred in 153 facilities (transplant hospitals, n = 80). CVD hospitalizations increased overall by 115% over the decade (P < 0.01). CVA and MI declined over time (both P < 0.05), but CHF and dysrhythmia grew significantly (both P < 0.03); a total of 19% of hospitalizations were for multiple CVD diagnoses. Transplant hospitals had lower comorbidity patients (P < 0.001) and greater resource intensity including presence of cardiac intensive care unit, interventional radiology, operating rooms, teaching status, and nursing density (all P < 0.01). Transplant and nontransplant hospitals had similar unadjusted mortality (overall, 3.9%, P = 0.55; by diagnosis, all P > 0.07). Transplant hospitals had significantly longer overall length of stay, higher total costs, and more high-cost hospitalizations (all P < 0.05). After risk adjustment, transplant hospitals were associated with higher mortality and high-cost hospitalizations. In conclusion, CVD after liver transplant is evolving and responsible for growing rates of inpatient care. Transplant hospitals are associated with poor outcomes, even after risk adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, which may be attributable to selective referral of certain patient phenotypes but could also be related to differences in quality of care. Further study is warranted.