Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with worse patient and graft survival following adult liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) on adult liver transplant recipient outcomes is not clear at a national level. Further understanding of the impact of SDOH on patient outcomes can inform effective equitable healthcare delivery. METHODS: Unadjusted and multivariable models were used to analyze the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to evaluate the association between the Social Deprivation Index (SDI) based on liver transplant recipient's residential location and patient and graft survival. We included adult recipients between 1/1/2008-12/1/2021. RESULTS: Patient and graft survival were lower in adults living in areas with deprivation scores above the median. Five-year patient and graft survival were 78.7% and 76.5% respectively in the cohort above median SDI compared to 80.5% and 78.3% below median SDI. Compared to the recipients in low deprivation residential areas, recipients residing in highest deprivation (SDI quintile=5) cohort had 6% higher adjusted risk of mortality (Adjusted Hazard Ratio [AHR]=1.06,95%C.I. 1.01-1.13) and 6% higher risk of graft failure (AHR=1.06,95% C.I. 1.001-1.11). The increased risks for recipients residing in more vulnerable residential areas were higher (AHR=1.11,95% CI 1.03-1.20 for both death and graft loss) following the first-year post-transplantation. Importantly, overall risk for graft loss associated with SDI was not linear but instead accelerated above the median level of deprivation. DISCUSSION: In the United States, SDOH, as reflected by residential distress, significantly impact 5-year patient and graft survival. The overall effect of residential deprivation are modest, but importantly, results illustrate they are more strongly associated with longer-term follow up and accelerate at higher deprivation levels. Further research is needed to evaluate effective interventions and policies to attenuate disparities in outcomes among recipients in highly disadvantaged areas.

Differential in Kidney Graft Years on the Basis of Solitary Kidney, Simultaneous Liver-Kidney, and Kidney-after-Liver Transplants.

BACKGROUND: The number of simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplants has significantly increased in the United States. There has also been an increase in kidney-after-liver transplants associated with 2017 policy revisions aimed to fairly allocate kidneys after livers. SLK and kidney-after-liver candidates are prioritized in allocation policy for kidney offers ahead of kidney-alone candidates. METHODS: We compared kidney graft outcomes of kidney-alone transplant recipients with SLK and kidney-after-liver transplants using paired kidney models to mitigate differences among donor risk factors. We evaluated recipient characteristics between transplant types and calculated differential graft years using restricted mean survival estimates. RESULTS: We evaluated 3053 paired donors to kidney-alone and SLK recipients and 516 paired donors to kidney-alone and kidney-after-liver recipients from August 2017 to August 2022. Kidney-alone recipients were younger, more likely on dialysis, and Black race. One-year and 3-year post-transplant kidney graft survival for kidney-alone recipients was 94% and 86% versus SLK recipients 89% and 80%, respectively, P < 0.001. One-year and 3-year kidney graft survival for kidney-alone recipients was 94% and 84% versus kidney-after-liver recipients 93% and 87%, respectively, P = 0.53. The additional kidney graft years for kidney-alone versus SLK transplants was 21 graft years/100 transplants (SEM=5.0) within 4 years post-transplantation, with no significant difference between kidney-after-liver and kidney-alone transplants. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 5-year period in the United States, SLK transplantation was associated with significantly lower kidney graft survival compared with paired kidney-alone transplants. Most differences in graft survival between SLK and kidney-alone transplants occurred within the first year post-transplantation. By contrast, kidney-after-liver transplants had comparable graft survival with paired kidney-alone transplants.

Psychosocial evaluation of living liver donors-State of current practices in the United States.

We surveyed living donor liver transplant programs in the United States to describe practices in the psychosocial evaluation of living donors focused on (1) composition of psychosocial team; (2) domains, workflow, and tools of the psychosocial assessment; (3) absolute and relative mental health-related contraindications to donation; and (4) postdonation psychosocial follow-up. We received 52 unique responses, representing 33 of 50 (66%) of active living donor liver transplant programs. Thirty-one (93.9%) provider teams included social workers, 22 (66.7%) psychiatrists, and 14 (42.4%) psychologists. Validated tools were rarely used, but domains assessed were consistent. Respondents rated active alcohol (93.8%), cocaine (96.8%), and opioid (96.8%) use disorder, as absolute contraindications to donation. Active suicidality (97%), self-injurious behavior (90.9%), eating disorders (87.9%), psychosis (84.8%), nonadherence (71.9%), and inability to cooperate with the evaluation team (78.1%) were absolute contraindications to donation. There were no statistically significant differences in absolute psychosocial contraindications to liver donation between geographical areas or between large and small programs. Programs conduct postdonation psychosocial follow-up (57.6%) or screening (39.4%), but routine follow-up of declined donors is rarely conducted (15.8%). Psychosocial evaluation of donor candidates is a multidisciplinary process. The structure of the psychosocial evaluation of donors is not uniform among programs though the domains assessed are consistent. Psychosocial contraindications to living liver donation vary among the transplant programs. Mental health follow-up of donor candidates is not standardized.

Reassessing the survival benefit of deceased donor liver transplantation: retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Currently in the United States, deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) allocation priority is based on the model for end-stage liver disease including sodium (MELD-Na) score. The United Network for organ sharing's 'Share-15' policy states that candidates with MELD-Na scores of 15 or greater have priority to receive local organ offers compared to candidates with lower MELD-Na scores. Since the inception of this policy, major changes in the primary etiologies of end-stage liver disease have occurred and previous assumptions need to be recalibrated. METHODS: The authors retrospectively analyzed the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database between 2012 and 2021 to determine life years saved by DDLT at each interval of MELD-Na score and the time-to-equal risk and time-to-equal survival versus remaining on the waitlist. The authors stratified our analysis by MELD exception points, primary disease etiology, and MELD score. RESULTS: On aggregate, compared to remaining on the waitlist, a significant 1-year survival advantage of DDLT at MELD-Na scores as low as 12 was found. The median life years saved at this score after a liver transplant was estimated to be greater than 9 years. While the total life years saved were comparable across all MELD-Na scores, the time-to-equal risk and time-to-equal survival decreased exponentially as MELD-Na scores increased. CONCLUSION: Herein, the authors challenge the perception as to the timing of DDLT and when that benefit occurs. The national liver allocation policy is transitioning to a continuous distribution framework and these data will be instrumental to defining the attributes of the continuos allocation score.

Current approach to health care transition and integration into adult care for pediatric liver transplant recipients: A call for partnership.

Despite the increased risk of non-adherence, allograft rejection, and mortality following transfer from pediatric to adult care in liver transplantation (LT), there is no standardized approach to health care transition (HCT). Two electronic national surveys were developed and distributed to members of the Society for Pediatric Liver Transplantation and all adult LT programs in the United States to examine current HCT practices. Responses were received from 40 pediatric and 79 adult centers. Pediatric centers were more likely to focus on HCT noting the presence of a transition/transfer policy (60.2% vs. 39.2%), transition clinic (51.6% vs. 16.5%), and the routine use of transition readiness assessment tools (54.8% vs. 10.2%). Perceived barriers to HCT were similar among pediatric and adult respondents and included patient willingness to transfer and participate in care, failure to show for appointments, and lack of sufficient time and staffing. These results highlight the need for an increased awareness of HCT at both pediatric and adult LT centers. The path to improvement requires a partnership between pediatric and adult providers. Recognizing the importance of a comprehensive HCT program initiated in pediatrics and continued throughout young adulthood with ongoing support by the adult team is essential.

A model for calculating the long-term estimated post-transplant survival of deceased donor liver transplant patients.

BACKGROUND: The estimated long-term survival (EPTS) score is used for kidney allocation. A comparable prognostic tool to accurately quantify EPTS benefit in deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) candidates is nonexistent. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database, we developed, calibrated, and validated a nonlinear regression equation to calculate liver-EPTS (L-EPTS) for 5- and 10-year outcomes in adult DDLT recipients. The population was randomly split (70:30) into two discovery (N = 26,372 and N = 46,329) and validation cohorts (N = 11,288 and N = 19,859) for 5- and 10-year post-transplant outcomes, respectively. Discovery cohorts were used for variable selection, Cox proportional hazard regression modeling, and nonlinear curve fitting. Eight clinical variables were selected to construct the L-EPTS formula, and a five-tiered ranking system was created. FINDINGS: Tier thresholds were defined and the L-EPTS model was calibrated (R2 = 0.96 [5-year] and 0.99 [10-year]). Patients' median survival probabilities in the discovery cohorts for 5- and 10-year outcomes ranged from 27.94% to 89.22% and 16.27% to 87.97%, respectively. The L-EPTS model was validated via calculation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves using validation cohorts. Area under the ROC curve was 82.4% (5-year) and 86.5% (10-year). INTERPRETATION: L-EPTS has high applicability and clinical utility because it uses easily obtained pre-transplant patients characteristics to accurately discriminate between those who are likely to receive a prolonged survival benefit and those who are not. It is important to evaluate medical urgency alongside survival benefit and placement efficiency when considering the allocation of a scarce resource. FUNDING: There are no funding sources related to this project.

Living donor liver transplant candidate and donor selection and engagement: Meeting report from the living donor liver transplant consensus conference.

INTRODUCTION: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a promising option for mitigating the deceased donor organ shortage and reducing waitlist mortality. Despite excellent outcomes and data supporting expanding candidate indications for LDLT, broader uptake throughout the United States has yet to occur. METHODS: In response to this, the American Society of Transplantation hosted a virtual consensus conference (October 18-19, 2021), bringing together relevant experts with the aim of identifying barriers to broader implementation and making recommendations regarding strategies to address these barriers. In this report, we summarize the findings relevant to the selection and engagement of both the LDLT candidate and living donor. Utilizing a modified Delphi approach, barrier and strategy statements were developed, refined, and voted on for overall barrier importance and potential impact and feasibility of the strategy to address said barrier. RESULTS: Barriers identified fell into three general categories: 1) awareness, acceptance, and engagement across patients (potential candidates and donors), providers, and institutions, 2) data gaps and lack of standardization in candidate and donor selection, and 3) data gaps regarding post-living liver donation outcomes and resource needs. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to address barriers included efforts toward education and engagement across populations, rigorous and collaborative research, and institutional commitment and resources.

Practice patterns of the medical evaluation of living liver donors in the United States.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can help address the growing organ shortage in the United States, yet little is known about the current practice patterns in the medical evaluation of living liver donors. We conducted a 131-question survey of all 53 active LDLT transplant programs in the United States to assess current LDLT practices. The response rate was 100%. Donor acceptance rate was 0.33 with an interquartile range of 0.33-0.54 across all centers. Areas of high intercenter agreement included minimum age cutoff of 18 years (73.6%) and the exclusion of those with greater than Class 1 obesity (body mass index, 30.0-34.9 m/kg 2 ) (88.4%). Diabetes mellitus was not an absolute exclusion at most centers (61.5%). Selective liver biopsies were performed for steatosis or iron overload on imaging (67.9% and 62.3%, respectively) or for elevated liver enzymes (60.4%). Steatohepatitis is considered an exclusion at most centers (84.9%). The most common hypercoagulable tests performed were factor V Leiden (FVL) (88.5%), protein C (73.1%), protein S (71.2%), antithrombin III (71.2%) and prothrombin gene mutation (65.4%). At 41.5% of centers, donors were allowed to proceed with donation with FVL heterozygote status. Most programs discontinue oral contraceptive pills at least 28 days prior to surgery. At most centers, the need for cardiovascular ischemic risk testing is based on age (73.6%) and the presence of one or more cardiac risk factors (68.0%). Defining areas of practice consensus and variation underscores the need for data generation to develop evidence-based guidance for the evaluation and risk assessment of living liver donors.

Can non-directed living liver donation help improve access to grafts and correct socioeconomic disparities in pediatric liver transplantation?

BACKGROUND: Each year, children die awaiting LT as the demand for grafts exceeds the available supply. Candidates with public health insurance are significantly less likely to undergo both deceased donor LT and D-LLD LT. ND-LLD is another option to gain access to a graft. The aim of this study was to evaluate if recipient insurance type is associated with likelihood of D-LLD versus ND-LLD LT. METHODS: The SRTR/OPTN database was reviewed for pediatric LDLT performed between January 1, 2014 (Medicaid expansion era) and December 31, 2019 at centers that performed ≥1 ND-LLD LDLT during the study period. A multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess relationship between type of living donor (directed vs. non-directed) and recipient insurance. RESULTS: Of 299 pediatric LDLT, 46 (15%) were from ND-LLD performed at 18 transplant centers. Fifty-nine percent of ND-LLD recipients had public insurance in comparison to 40% of D-LLD recipients (p = .02). Public insurance was associated with greater odds of ND-LLD in comparison to D-LLD upon multivariable logistic regression (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.23-4.58, p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: ND-LLD allows additional children to receive LTs and may help address some of the socioeconomic disparity in pediatric LDLT, but currently account for only a minority of LDLT and are only performed at a few institutions. Initiatives to improve access to both D-LLD and ND-LLD transplants are needed.

Survival Benefit of Living-Donor Liver Transplant.

Importance: Despite the acceptance of living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) as a lifesaving procedure for end-stage liver disease, it remains underused in the United States. Quantification of lifetime survival benefit and the Model for End-stage Liver Disease incorporating sodium levels (MELD-Na) score range at which benefit outweighs risk in LDLT is necessary to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness. Objective: To assess the survival benefit, life-years saved, and the MELD-Na score at which that survival benefit was obtained for individuals who received an LDLT compared with that for individuals who remained on the wait list. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study was a retrospective, secondary analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database of 119 275 US liver transplant candidates and recipients from January 1, 2012, to September 2, 2021. Liver transplant candidates aged 18 years or older who were assigned to the wait list (N = 116 455) or received LDLT (N = 2820) were included. Patients listed for retransplant or multiorgan transplant and those with prior kidney or liver transplants were excluded. Exposures: Living-donor liver transplant vs remaining on the wait list. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this study was life-years saved from receiving an LDLT. Secondary outcomes included 1-year relative mortality and risk, time to equal risk, time to equal survival, and the MELD-Na score at which that survival benefit was obtained for individuals who received an LDLT compared with that for individuals who remained on the wait list. MELD-Na score ranges from 6 to 40 and is well correlated with short-term survival. Higher MELD-Na scores (>20) are associated with an increased risk of death. Results: The mean (SD) age of the 119 275 study participants was 55.1 (11.2) years, 63% were male, 0.9% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 4.3% were Asian, 8.2% were Black or African American, 15.8% were Hispanic or Latino, 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 70.2% were White. Mortality risk and survival models confirmed a significant survival benefit for patients receiving an LDLT who had a MELD-Na score of 11 or higher (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.47-0.88]; P = .006). Living-donor liver transplant recipients gained an additional 13 to 17 life-years compared with patients who never received an LDLT. Conclusions and Relevance: An LDLT is associated with a substantial survival benefit to patients with end-stage liver disease even at MELD-Na scores as low as 11. The findings of this study suggest that the life-years gained are comparable to or greater than those conferred by any other lifesaving procedure or by a deceased-donor liver transplant. This study's findings challenge current perceptions regarding when LDLT survival benefit occurs.

Living Donor Liver Transplant Center Volume Influences Waiting List Survival Among Children Listed for Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains infrequently performed in the United States and localized to a few centers. This study aimed to compare pediatric waiting list and posttransplant outcomes by LDLT center volume. METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database was retrospectively reviewed for all pediatric (age <18 y) liver transplant candidates listed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019. The average annual number of LDLT, deceased donor partial liver transplant (DDPLT), and overall (ie, LDLT + DDPLT + whole liver transplants) pediatric liver transplants performed by each transplant center during the study period was calculated. RESULTS: Of 88 transplant centers, only 44 (50%) performed at least 1 pediatric LDLT during the study period. LDLT, DDPLT, and overall transplant center volume were all positively correlated. LDLT center volume was protective against waiting list dropout after adjusting for confounding variables (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.97; P = 0.004), whereas DDPLT and overall center volume were not ( P > 0.05); however, DDPLT center volume was significantly protective against both recipient death and graft loss, whereas overall volume was only protective against graft loss and LDLT volume was not protective for either. CONCLUSIONS: High-volume pediatric LDLT center can improve waiting list survival, whereas DDPLT and overall volume are associated with posttransplant survival. Expertise in all types of pediatric liver transplant options is important to optimize outcomes.

Does pre-operative counselling of the donor improve immediate and short-term outcomes after living liver donation? - A review of the literature and expert panel recommendations.

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence in the literature to suggest that pre-operative counselling improves pain scores postoperatively. However, it is unclear whether pre-operative counselling of the donor improves immediate and short-term outcomes after living liver donation. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to investigate the available quality of evidence (QOE) of pre-operative counselling for living donors on short term outcomes, provide expert opinion, grade recommendations and identify relevant components for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. METHODS: Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. Endpoints were defined by the WHOQOL-BREF scale: physical health, psychological, social relationships, and environment. PROSPERO ID: CRD42021260677. RESULTS: Screening of 452 records and full texts led to 12 articles matching inclusion criteria, of which one was a randomized controlled trial (RCT), and 11 were observational retrospective cohort studies. A total of 933 individuals undergoing donor hepatectomy were included, of whom only 90 received dedicated perioperative ERAS protocols. Donors that received pre-operative counselling had fewer physical symptoms post donation, lower rates of fatigue, lower rates of pain, shorter recovery times and fewer unexpected medical problems, and less anxiety post donation. Female donors had higher affective and adverse effects scores, and 50% of donors reported adverse effects to analgesia that interfered with functional activity. Receiving information about analgesic options increased perception of care among donors. CONCLUSIONS: Providing comprehensive pre-operative counselling to living liver donors is associated with improved short-term outcomes after donation (QOE; moderate to low I Grade of Recommendation; Strong).

The use of nondirected donor organs in living donor liver transplantation: Perspectives and guidance.

Interest in anonymous nondirected living organ donation is increasing in the United States and a small number of transplantation centers are accumulating an experience regarding nondirected donation in living donor liver transplantation. Herein, we review current transplant policy, discuss emerging data, draw parallels from nondirected kidney donation, and examine relevant considerations in nondirected living liver donation. We aim to provide a consensus guidance to ensure safe evaluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondirected grafts.

Practices and Perceptions of Living Donor Liver Transplantation, Nondirected Donation, and Liver Paired Exchange: A National Survey.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) remains underutilized in the United States. Barriers to LDLT and acceptance of nondirected living liver donation (ND-LLD) and liver paired exchange (LPE) are unclear. The medical and surgical directors of 99 unique transplantation programs (56 LDLT programs and 43 non-LDLT programs) were surveyed to gain insight into perceptions and practices of LDLT and types of donors utilized. The response rate was 84%. Most LDLT programs (65%) reported performing ND-LLD, though opinions regarding allocation and the need for additional evaluation of these donors were mixed. Only a minority of LDLT programs reported performing LPE (12%), but most programs (78%) would be open to cross-institutional LPE barring logistical barriers. There were significant differences between LDLT and non-LDLT programs with regard to perceived barriers to LDLT, with LDLT programs reporting mainly donor and recipient factors and non-LDLT programs reporting institutional factors (P < 0.001). Understanding perceptions and practices of LDLT, ND-LLD, and LPE is important to aid in the growth of LDLT.

Impact of Donor and Recipient Clinical Characteristics and Hepatic Histology on Steatosis/Fibrosis Following Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Deceased donor and recipient predictors of posttransplant steatosis/steatohepatitis and fibrosis are not well known. Our aim was to evaluate the prevalence and assess donor and recipient predictors of steatosis, steatohepatitis, and fibrosis in liver transplantation recipients. METHODS: Using the immune tolerance network A-WISH multicenter study (NCT00135694), donor and recipient demographic and clinical features were collected. Liver biopsies were taken from the donor liver at transplant, and from recipients per protocol and for-cause (ie, abnormal transaminases and to rule out rejection) and were interpreted by a central pathologist. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-three paired donor/recipients liver biopsies at the time of transplant and posttransplant follow-up (median time 582 d; average time to last biopsies was 704 d [SD ± 402 d]) were analyzed. Donor steatosis did not influence recipient steatosis or fibrosis. Ten of 183 recipients had steatohepatitis on the last biopsy. Recipient body mass index at the time of liver biopsy was the most influential factor associated with posttransplant steatosis. Both donor and recipient metabolic syndrome features were not associated with graft steatosis. Untreated hepatitis C viral (HCV) infection was the most influential factor associated with the development of allograft fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: In a large experience evaluating paired donor and recipient characteristics, recipient body mass index at the time of liver biopsy was most significantly associated with posttransplant steatosis. Untreated HCV etiology influenced graft fibrosis. Thus relative to untreated HCV, hepatic fibrosis in those with steatosis/steatohepatitis is less common though long-term follow-up is needed to determine the course of posttransplant fibrosis. Emphasis on recipient weight control is essential.