The future of Liver Transplantation.

Over the last 50 years, liver transplantation has evolved into a procedure routinely performed in many countries worldwide. Those able to access this therapy frequently experience a miraculous risk-benefit ratio since, particularly if they face imminently life threatening disease. Over the decades, the success of liver transplantation, with dramatic improvements in early post-transplant survival, has aggressively driven demand. However, in spite of the emergence of living donors to augment deceased donors as a source of organs, supply has lagged far behind demand. As a result, rationing has been an unfortunate focus in recent decades. Recent shifts in the epidemiology of liver disease combined with transformative innovations in liver preservation suggest that the underlying premise of organ shortage may erode in the foreseeable future. Focus will sharpen on improving equitable access while mitigating constraints related to workforce training, infrastructure for organ recovery and rehabilitation, and their associated costs. Research efforts in liver preservation will undoubtedly blossom with the aim of optimizing both the timing and conditions of transplantation. Coupled with advances in genetic engineering, regenerative biology, and cellular therapies, the portfolio of innovation, both broad and deep, offers promise that, in the future, liver transplantation will not only be broadly available to those in need but also represent a highly durable life-saving therapy.

Expanding Access to Organ Transplant for People Living With HIV: Can Policy Catch Up to Outcomes Data?

Advances in antiretroviral and immunosuppressive regimens have improved outcomes following solid organ transplantation in people living with HIV (PLWH). The HIV Organ Policy and Equity Act was conceived to reduce the discard of HIV-positive organs and improve access to transplant for PLWH. Nevertheless, PLWH continue to experience disproportionately low rates of transplant. This overview examines the hurdles to transplantation in PLWH with end-organ disease, the potential and realized impact of the HIV Organ Policy and Equity Act, and changes that could permit expanded access to organ transplant in this population.

Angiotensin II in liver transplantation (AngLT-1): protocol of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Catecholamine vasopressors such as norepinephrine are the standard drugs used to maintain mean arterial pressure during liver transplantation. At high doses, catecholamines may impair organ perfusion. Angiotensin II is a peptide vasoconstrictor that may improve renal perfusion pressure and glomerular filtration rate, a haemodynamic profile that could reduce acute kidney injury. Angiotensin II is approved for vasodilatory shock but has not been rigorously evaluated for treatment of hypotension during liver transplantation. The objective is to assess the efficacy of angiotensin II as a second-line vasopressor infusion during liver transplantation. This trial will establish the efficacy of angiotensin II in decreasing the dose of norepinephrine to maintain adequate blood pressure. Completion of this study will allow design of a follow-up, multicentre trial powered to detect a reduction of organ injury in liver transplantation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a double-blind, randomised clinical trial. Eligible subjects are adults with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium Score ≥25 undergoing deceased donor liver transplantation. Subjects are randomised 1:1 to receive angiotensin II or saline placebo as the second-line vasopressor infusion. The study drug infusion is initiated on reaching a norepinephrine dose of 0.05 µg kg-1 min-1 and titrated per protocol. The primary outcome is the dose of norepinephrine required to maintain a mean arterial pressure ≥65 mm Hg. Secondary outcomes include vasopressin or epinephrine requirement and duration of hypotension. Safety outcomes include incidence of thromboembolism within 48 hours of the end of surgery and severe hypertension. An intention-to-treat analysis will be performed for all randomised subjects receiving the study drug. The total dose of norepinephrine will be compared between the two arms by a one-tailed Mann-Whitney U test. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (#20-30948). Results will be posted on ClinicalTrials.gov and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04901169.

Preserved 2-y Liver Transplant Outcomes Following Simultaneous Thoracoabdominal DCD Organ Procurement Despite Effects on Liver Utilization Rate.

Background: Current techniques for donation after circulatory determination of death (DCD) heart procurement, through either direct procurement and machine perfusion or thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), have demonstrated excellent heart transplant outcomes. However, the impact of thoracoabdominal DCD (TA-DCD) heart procurement on liver allograft outcomes and utilization is poorly understood. Methods: One hundred sixty simultaneous heart and liver DCD donors were identified using the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database between December 2019 and July 2021. Liver outcomes from TA-DCD donors were stratified by heart procurement technique and evaluated for organ utilization, graft survival, and patient survival. Results were compared with abdominal-only DCD (A-DCD; n = 1332) and donation after brain death (DBD; n = 12 891) liver transplants during the study interval. Kaplan-Meier methods with log-rank testing were used to evaluate patient and graft survival. Results: One hundred thirty-three of 160 livers procured from TA-DCD donors proceeded to transplant. TA-DCD donors were younger (mean 28.26 y; P < 0.0001) with lower body mass index (mean 26.61; P < 0.0001) than A-DCD and DBD donors. TA-DCD livers had equivalent patient survival ( P = 0.893) and superior graft survival (P = 0.009) compared with A-DCD. TA-DCD livers had higher rates of organ discard for long warm ischemia time (37.0%) than A-DCD (20.5%) and DBD (0.5%; P < 0.0001), with direct procurement and machine perfusion procurements leading to a higher discard rate (18.5%) than NRP procurements (7.4%). Conclusions: Liver transplants after TA-DCD donation demonstrated equivalent patient outcomes and excellent graft outcomes. NRP procurements resulted in the lowest rate of organ discard after DCD donation and may represent an optimal strategy to maximize organ utilization.

DCD liver transplant in patients with a MELD over 35.

Introduction: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) makes up well less than 1% of all LTs with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)≥35 in the United States. We hypothesized DCD-LT yields acceptable ischemia-reperfusion and reasonable outcomes for recipients with MELD≥35. Methods: We analyzed recipients with lab-MELD≥35 at transplant within the UCSF (n=41) and the UNOS (n=375) cohorts using multivariate Cox regression and propensity score matching. Results: In the UCSF cohort, five-year patient survival was 85% for DCD-LTs and 86% for matched-Donation after Brain Death donors-(DBD) LTs (p=0.843). Multivariate analyses showed that younger donor/recipient age and more recent transplants (2011-2021 versus 1999-2010) were associated with better survival. DCD vs. DBD graft use did not significantly impact survival (HR: 1.2, 95%CI 0.6-2.7). The transaminase peak was approximately doubled, indicating suggesting an increased ischemia-reperfusion hit. DCD-LTs had a median post-LT length of stay of 11 days, and 34% (14/41) were on dialysis at discharge versus 12 days and 22% (9/41) for DBD-LTs. 27% (11/41) DCD-LTs versus 12% (5/41) DBD-LTs developed a biliary complication (p=0.095). UNOS cohort analysis confirmed patient survival predictors, but DCD graft emerged as a risk factor (HR: 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.9) with five-year patient survival of 65% versus 75% for DBD-LTs (p=0.016). This difference became non-significant in a sub-analysis focusing on MELD 35-36 recipients. Analysis of MELD≥35 DCD recipients showed that donor age of <30yo independently reduced the risk of graft loss by 30% (HR, 95%CI: 0.7 (0.9-0.5), p=0.019). Retransplant status was associated with a doubled risk of adverse event (HR, 95%CI: 2.1 (1.4-3.3), p=0.001). The rejection rates at 1y were similar between DCD- and DBD-LTs, (9.3% (35/375) versus 1,541 (8.7% (1,541/17,677), respectively). Discussion: In highly selected recipient/donor pair, DCD transplantation is feasible and can achieve comparable survival to DBD transplantation. Biliary complications occurred at the expected rates. In the absence of selection, DCD-LTs outcomes remain worse than those of DBD-LTs.

Normothermic Machine Perfusion of Donor Livers for Transplantation in the United States: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare conventional low-temperature storage of transplant donor livers [static cold storage (SCS)] with storage of the organs at physiological body temperature [normothermic machine perfusion (NMP)]. BACKGROUND: The high success rate of liver transplantation is constrained by the shortage of transplantable organs (eg, waiting list mortality >20% in many centers). NMP maintains the liver in a functioning state to improve preservation quality and enable testing of the organ before transplantation. This is of greatest potential value with organs from brain-dead donor organs (DBD) with risk factors (age and comorbidities), and those from donors declared dead by cardiovascular criteria (donation after circulatory death). METHODS: Three hundred eighty-three donor organs were randomized by 15 US liver transplant centers to undergo NMP (n = 192) or SCS (n = 191). Two hundred sixty-six donor livers proceeded to transplantation (NMP: n = 136; SCS: n = 130). The primary endpoint of the study was "early allograft dysfunction" (EAD), a marker of early posttransplant liver injury and function. RESULTS: The difference in the incidence of EAD did not achieve significance, with 20.6% (NMP) versus 23.7% (SCS). Using exploratory, "as-treated" rather than "intent-to-treat," subgroup analyses, there was a greater effect size in donation after circulatory death donor livers (22.8% NMP vs 44.6% SCS) and in organs in the highest risk quartile by donor risk (19.2% NMP vs 33.3% SCS). The incidence of acute cardiovascular decompensation at organ reperfusion, "postreperfusion syndrome," as a secondary outcome was reduced in the NMP arm (5.9% vs 14.6%). CONCLUSIONS: NMP did not lower EAD, perhaps related to the inclusion of lower-risk liver donors, as higher-risk donor livers seemed to benefit more. The technology is safe in standard organ recovery and seems to have the greatest benefit for marginal donors.

Pulmonary Injury Causing a Massive Air Leak During Liver Transplantation: A Case Report and Discussion of Decision-Making.

Pulmonary injury can occur during liver transplantation in patients with prior liver surgery, infection, or hepatocellular carcinoma treatments. Compromise of gas exchange during liver transplantation mandates rapid, multidisciplinary decision-making. We present a case of lung parenchymal injury causing a massive air leak during the dissection phase of a liver transplant. An endobronchial blocker was used for emergency lung isolation. Since oxygenation and pH were stable, we proceeded with liver transplantation to minimize graft ischemic time, followed by thoracic repair. The postoperative course was notable for adequate early liver function and discharge after prolonged postoperative ventilation and tube thoracostomy drainage.

Real-world implementation of normothermic machine perfusion: A detailed analysis of intraoperative and early postoperative impact.

BACKGROUND: Outcome data for the great majority of liver normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) cases derive from the strict confines of clinical trials. Detailed specifics regarding the intraoperative and early postoperative impact of NMP on reperfusion injury and its sequelae during real-world use of this emerging technology remain largely unavailable. METHODS: We analyzed transplants performed in a 3-month pilot period during which surgeons invoked commercial NMP at their discretion. Living donor, multi-organ, and hypothermic machine perfusion transplants were excluded. RESULTS: Intraoperatively, NMP (n = 24) compared to static cold storage (n = 25) recipients required less peri-reperfusion bolus epinephrine (0 vs. 60 µg; p < .001) and post-reperfusion fresh frozen plasma (2.5 vs. 7.0 units; p = .0069), platelets (.0 vs. 2.0 units; p = .042), and hemostatic agents (0% vs. 24%; p = .010). Time from incision to venous reperfusion did not differ (3.6 vs. 3.1; p = .095) but time from venous reperfusion to surgery end was shorter for NMP recipients (2.3 vs. 2.8 h; p = .0045). Postoperatively, NMP recipients required fewer red blood cell (1.0 vs. 4.0 units; p = .0083) and fresh frozen plasma (4.0 vs. 7.0 units; p = .046) transfusions, had shorter intensive care unit stays (33.5 vs. 58.4 h; p = .012), and experienced less early allograft dysfunction according to both the Model for Early Allograft Function Score (3.4 vs. 5.0; p = .0047) and peak AST within 10 days of transplant (619 vs. 1,181 U/L; p = .036). Liver acceptance for the corresponding recipient was conditional on NMP use for 63% (15/24) of cases. CONCLUSION: Real-world NMP use was associated with significantly lower intensity of reperfusion injury and intraoperative and postoperative care that may translate into patient benefit.

A Multi-Modal Approach to Islet and Pancreas Transplantation With Calcineurin-Sparing Immunosuppression Maintains Long-Term Insulin Independence in Patients With Type I Diabetes.

Long-term success in beta-cell replacement remains limited by the toxic effects of calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) on beta-cells and renal function. We report a multi-modal approach including islet and pancreas-after-islet (PAI) transplant utilizing calcineurin-sparing immunosuppression. Ten consecutive non-uremic patients with Type 1 diabetes underwent islet transplant with immunosuppression based on belatacept (BELA; n = 5) or efalizumab (EFA; n = 5). Following islet failure, patients were considered for repeat islet infusion and/or PAI transplant. 70% of patients (four EFA, three BELA) maintained insulin independence at 10 years post-islet transplant, including four patients receiving a single islet infusion and three patients undergoing PAI transplant. 60% remain insulin independent at mean follow-up of 13.3 ± 1.1 years, including one patient 9 years after discontinuing all immunosuppression for adverse events, suggesting operational tolerance. All patients who underwent repeat islet transplant experienced graft failure. Overall, patients demonstrated preserved renal function, with a mild decrease in GFR from 76.5 ± 23.1 mL/min to 50.2 ± 27.1 mL/min (p = 0.192). Patients undergoing PAI showed the greatest degree of renal impairment following initiation of CNI (56% ± 18.7% decrease in GFR). In our series, repeat islet transplant is ineffective at maintaining long-term insulin independence. PAI results in durable insulin independence but is associated with impaired renal function secondary to CNI dependence.

Steroid Avoidance After Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant: A Cohort Analysis.

Although steroid avoidance (SA) has been studied in deceased donor liver transplant, little is known about SA in living donor liver transplant (LDLT). We report the characteristics and outcomes, including the incidence of early acute rejection (AR) and complications of steroid use, in 2 cohorts of LDLT recipients. Methods: Routine steroid maintenance (SM) after LDLT was stopped in December 2017. Our single-center retrospective cohort study spans 2 eras. Two hundred forty-two adult recipients underwent LDLT with SM (January 2000-December 2017), and 83 adult recipients (December 2017-August 2021) underwent LDLT with SA. Early AR was defined as a biopsy showing pathologic characteristics within 6 mo after LDLT. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to evaluate the effects of relevant recipient and donor characteristics on the incidence of early AR in our cohort. Results: Neither the difference in early AR rate between cohorts (SA 19/83 [22.9%] versus SM 41/242 [17%]; P = 0.46) nor a subset analysis of patients with autoimmune disease (SA 5/17 [29.4%] versus SM 19/58 [22.4%]; P = 0.71) reached statistical significance. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions for early AR identified recipient age to be a statistically significant risk factor (P < 0.001). Of the patients without diabetes before LDLT, 3 of 56 (5.4%) on SA versus 26 of 200 (13%) on SM needed medications prescribed for glucose control at the time of discharge (P = 0.11). Patient survival was similar between SA and SM cohorts (SA 94% versus SM 91%, P = 0.34) 3 y after transplant. Conclusions: LDLT recipients treated with SA do not exhibit significantly higher rates of rejection or increased mortality than patients treated with SM. Notably, this result is similar for recipients with autoimmune disease.

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.

COVID-19 infection and vaccination rarely impact HLA antibody profile in waitlisted renal transplant candidates- a multicenter cohort.

Although rare, infection and vaccination can result in antibodies to human leukocyte antigens (HLA). We analyzed the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination on HLA antibodies in waitlisted renal transplant candidates. Specificities were collected and adjudicated if the calculated panel reactive antibodies (cPRA) changed after exposure. Of 409 patients, 285 (69.7 %) had an initial cPRA of 0 %, and 56 (13.7 %) had an initial cPRA > 80 %. The cPRA changed in 26 patients (6.4 %), 16 (3.9 %) increased, and 10 (2.4 %) decreased. Based on cPRA adjudication, cPRA differences generally resulted from a small number of specificities with subtle fluctuations around the borderline of the participating centers' cutoff for unacceptable antigen listing. All five COVID recovered patients with an increased cPRA were female (p = 0.02). In summary, exposure to this virus or vaccine does not increase HLA antibody specificities and their MFI in approximately 99 % of cases and 97 % of sensitized patients. These results have implications for virtual crossmatching at the time of organ offer after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, and these events of unclear clinical significance should not influence vaccination programs.

Number of Local Regional Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Peri-Operative Outcomes after Liver Transplantation.

The wait times for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) listed for liver transplant are longer than ever, which has led to an increased reliance on the use of pre-operative LRTs. The impact that multiple rounds of LRTs have on peri-operative outcomes following transplant is unknown. This was a retrospective single center analysis of 298 consecutive patients with HCC who underwent liver transplant (January 2017 to May 2021). The data was obtained from two institution-specific databases and the TransQIP database. Of the 298 patients, 27 (9.1%) underwent no LRTs, 156 (52.4%) underwent 1-2 LRTs, and 115 (38.6%) underwent ≥3 LRTs prior to LT. The patients with ≥3 LRTs had a significantly higher rate of bile leak compared to patients who received 1-2 LRTs (7.0 vs. 1.3%, p = 0.014). Unadjusted and adjusted regression analyses demonstrated a significant association between the total number of LRTs administered and bile leak, but not rates of overall biliary complications. The total number of LRTs was not significantly associated with any other peri-operative or post-operative outcome measure. These findings support the aggressive use of LRTs to control HCC in patients awaiting liver transplant, with further evaluation needed to confirm the biliary leak findings.

Simultaneous thoracic and abdominal donation after circulatory death organ recovery: the abdominal surgeon's perspective.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: To summarize the international experience with heart-liver (joint) donation after circulatory death (DCD) procurements and to explore the technical challenges in joint abdominal and thoracic DCD procurement. RECENT FINDINGS: Following completion of the Donors After Circulatory Death Heart Trial in the US, combined thoracic and abdominal DCD is poised to become the standard of care, expanding access to life-saving heart and lung allografts. DCD heart procurement relies on collection of donor blood for priming of the normothermic perfusion pump, which delays cooling of abdominal organs and increases risk of ischemic injury. We review the effect of donor ischemia time on abdominal organs, with several proposed technical solutions to optimize transplant outcomes for all organs. SUMMARY: The strategies reviewed in this manuscript may inform clinical decision-making, preoperative coordination between thoracic and abdominal procurement teams, and surgical technique for joint DCD procurements. Several approaches to organ procurement organization (OPO) and national policy, as well as future areas of focus for research are proposed.

Change in Body Mass Index and Attributable Risk of New-Onset Hypertension Among Obese Living Kidney Donors.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether body mass index (BMI) changes modify the association between kidney donation and incident hypertension. BACKGROUND: Obesity increases hypertension risk in both general and living kidney donor (LKD) populations. Donation-attributable risk in the context of obesity, and whether weight change modifies that risk, is unknown. METHODS: Nested case-control study among 1558 adult LKDs (1976-2020) with obesity (median follow-up: 3.6 years; interquartile range: 2.0-9.4) and 3783 adults with obesity in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) and Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) studies (9.2 y; interquartile range: 5.3-15.8). Hypertension incidence was compared by donor status using conditional logistic regression, with BMI change investigated for effect modification. RESULTS: Overall, LKDs and nondonors had similar hypertension incidence [incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.16, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.94-1.43, P =0.16], even after adjusting for BMI change (IRR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.99-1.58, P =0.05). Although LKDs and nondonors who lost >5% BMI had comparable hypertension incidence (IRR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.46-1.34, P =0.36), there was a significant interaction between donor and >5% BMI gain (multiplicative interaction IRR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.15-2.29, P =0.006; relative excess risk due to interaction: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.24-1.56, P =0.007), such that LKDs who gained weight had higher hypertension incidence than similar nondonors (IRR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.32-2.53, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, LKDs and nondonors with obesity had similar hypertension incidence. Weight stability and loss were associated with similar hypertension incidence by donor status. However, LKDs who gained >5% saw increased hypertension incidence versus similar nondonors, providing support for counseling potential LKDs with obesity on weight management postdonation.

Comparison of Biliary Complications Rates After Brain Death, Donation After Circulatory Death, and Living-Donor Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Cohort Study.

Donation-after-circulatory-death (DCD), donation-after-brain-death (DBD), and living-donation (LD) are the three possible options for liver transplantation (LT), each with unique benefits and complication rates. We aimed to compare DCD-, DBD-, and LD-LT-specific graft survival and biliary complications (BC). We collected data on 138 DCD-, 3,027 DBD- and 318 LD-LTs adult recipients from a single center and analyzed patient/graft survival. BC (leak and anastomotic/non-anastomotic stricture (AS/NAS)) were analyzed in a subset of 414 patients. One-/five-year graft survival were 88.6%/70.0% for DCD-LT, 92.6%/79.9% for DBD-LT, and, 91.7%/82.9% for LD-LT. DCD-LTs had a 1.7-/1.3-fold adjusted risk of losing their graft compared to DBD-LT and LD-LT, respectively (p < 0.010/0.403). Bile leaks were present in 10.1% (DCD-LTs), 7.2% (DBD-LTs), and 36.2% (LD-LTs) (ORs, DBD/LD vs. DCD: 0.7/4.2, p = 0.402/<0.001). AS developed in 28.3% DCD-LTs, 18.1% DBD-LTs, and 43.5% LD-LTs (ORs, DBD/LD vs. DCD: 0.5/1.8, p = 0.018/0.006). NAS was present in 15.2% DCD-LTs, 1.4% DBDs-LT, and 4.3% LD-LTs (ORs, DBD/LD vs. DCD: 0.1/0.3, p = 0.001/0.005). LTs w/o BC had better liver graft survival compared to any other groups with BC. DCD-LT and LD-LT had excellent graft survival despite significantly higher BC rates compared to DBD-LT. DCD-LT represents a valid alternative whose importance should increase further with machine/perfusion systems.

Diabetes-free survival among living kidney donors and non-donors with obesity: A longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Approval of living kidney donors (LKD) with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) risk factors, such as obesity, has increased. While lifetime ESKD development data are lacking, the study of intermediate outcomes such as diabetes is critical for LKD safety. Donation-attributable diabetes risk among persons with obesity remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate 10-year diabetes-free survival among LKDs and non-donors with obesity. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study identified adult, LKDs (1976-2020) from 42 US transplant centers and non-donors from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (1985-1986) and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (1987-1989) studies with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. LKDs were matched to non-donors on baseline characteristics (age, sex, race, body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure) plus diabetes-specific risk factors (family history of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, smoking history). Accelerated failure time models were utilized to evaluate 10-year diabetes-free survival. FINDINGS: Among 3464 participants, 1119 (32%) were LKDs and 2345 (68%) were non-donors. After matching on baseline characteristics plus diabetes-specific risk factors, 4% (7/165) LKDs and 9% (15/165) non-donors developed diabetes (median follow-up time 8.5 (IQR: 5.6-10.0) and 9.1 (IQR: 5.9-10.0) years, respectively). While not significant, LKDs were estimated to live diabetes-free 2 times longer than non-donors (estimate 1.91; 95% CI: 0.79-4.64, p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: LKDs with obesity trended toward living longer diabetes-free than non-donors with obesity, suggesting within the decade following donation there was no increased diabetes risk among LKDs. Further work is needed to evaluate donation-attributable diabetes risk long-term.