A Quality Analysis of Donor Nephrectomy-Related Information on YouTube; Education or Misinformation?

INTRODUCTION: There currently remains an urgent need to increase living kidney donation to help mitigate the high demand for waitlisted kidney failure patients. Potential kidney donors can readily access social media, particularly YouTube, to gain basic knowledge about live donor nephrectomy surgical procedures. YouTube is an open-source platform where anyone can upload videos about any topic without peer review or quality control and is frequently used for disseminating health education. This study aims to assess the quality and accuracy of information regarding live donor nephrectomy on YouTube. METHODS: A YouTube search was performed using the keywords "donor nephrectomy" and "kidney transplant." A total of 57 videos were assessed for eligibility criteria. Two validated tools for evaluating health information, the DISCERN and The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials tools, were used to assess YouTube video information quality, understandability, and actionability. RESULTS: A total of 53 of 57 screened videos were included in this study, with 4 videos being excluded for not being primarily in the English language. The mean (SD) DISCERN score was 23.3 (±8.3), and the mean (SD) The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials Understandability and Actionability scores of 41.7% (±17.5) and 8.2% (±22.9%), respectively. Although videos were generally relevant in content to donor nephrectomy, videos lacked quality information and actionable items. CONCLUSIONS: Information on living donor nephrectomies is prevalent on YouTube. Our assessment using quality measures of selected videos illustrates substantial misinformation on living donor nephrectomies. YouTube has the potential to be a source of reliable and accurate information on living donor nephrectomies and donations.

Long-term follow-up of temporary abdominal closure in complex abdomens during liver transplant.

BACKGROUND: Temporary abdominal closure is commonly employed in liver transplantation when patient factors make primary fascial closure challenging. However, there is minimal data evaluating long-term survival and patient outcomes after temporary abdominal closure. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective review of patients undergoing liver transplantation from January 2013 through December 2017 was performed with a 5-year follow-up. Patients were characterized as either requiring temporary abdominal closure or immediate primary fascial closure at the time of liver transplantation. RESULTS: Of 422 patients who underwent 436 liver transplantations, 17.2% (n = 75) required temporary abdominal closure, whereas 82.8% (n = 361) underwent primary fascial closure. Patients requiring temporary abdominal closure had higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores preoperatively (27 [22-36] vs 23 [20-28], P = .0002), had higher rates of dialysis preoperatively (28.0% vs 12.5%, P = .0007), and were more likely to be hospitalized within 90 days of liver transplantation (64.0% vs 47.5%, P = .0093). On univariable analysis, survival at 1 year was different between the groups (90.9% surviving at 1 year for primary fascial closure versus 82.7% for temporary abdominal closure, P = .0356); however, there was no significant difference in survival at 5 years (83.7% vs 76.0%, P = .11). On multivariable analysis, there was no difference in survival after adjusting for multiple factors. Patients requiring temporary abdominal closure were more likely to have longer hospital stays (median 16 days [9.75-29.5] vs 8 days [6-14], P < .0001), more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (45.3% vs 32.2%, P = .03), and less likely to be discharged home (36.5% vs 74.2%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Temporary abdominal closure after liver transplantation appears safe and has similar outcomes to primary fascial closure, though it is used more commonly in complex patients.

The Kidney Transplant Equity Index: Improving Racial and Ethnic Minority Access to Transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a scalable metric which quantifies kidney transplant (KT) centers' performance providing equitable access to KT for minority patients, based on the individualized prelisting prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities for access to transplant in patients with ESRD are well described; however, variation in care among KT centers remains unknown. Furthermore, no mechanism exists that quantifies how well a KT center provides equitable access to KT for minority patients with ESRD. METHODS: From 2013 to 2018, custom datasets from the United States Renal Data System and United Network for Organ Sharing were merged to calculate the Kidney Transplant Equity Index (KTEI), defined as the number of minority patients transplanted at a center relative to the prevalence of minority patients with ESRD in each center's health service area. Markers of socioeconomic status and recipient outcomes were compared between high and low KTEI centers. RESULTS: A total of 249 transplant centers performed 111,959 KTs relative to 475,914 nontransplanted patients with ESRD. High KTEI centers performed more KTs for Black (105.5 vs 24, P <0.001), Hispanic (55.5 vs 7, P <0.001), and American Indian (1.0 vs 0.0, P <0.001) patients than low KTEI centers. In addition, high KTEI centers transplanted more patients with higher unemployment (52 vs 44, P <0.001), worse social deprivation (53 vs 46, P <0.001), and lower educational attainment (52 vs 43, P <0.001). While providing increased access to transplant for minority and low socioeconomic status populations, high KTEI centers had improved patient survival (hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: The KTEI is the first metric to quantify minority access to KT incorporating the prelisting ESRD prevalence individualized to transplant centers. KTEIs uncover significant national variation in transplant practices and identify highly equitable centers. This novel metric should be used to disseminate best practices for minority and low socioeconomic patients with ESRD.

Expanding the Donor Pool: First Use of Hepatitis B Virus Nat Positive Solid Organ Allografts Into Seronegative Recipients.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the 1-year safety and effectiveness of HBV Nucleic Acid Test positive (HBV NAT+) allografts in seronegative kidney transplant (KT) and liver transplant (LT) recipients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Despite an ongoing organ shortage, the utilization of HBV NAT+ allografts into seronegative recipients has not been investigated. METHODS: From January 2017 to October 2020, a prospective cohort study was conducted among consecutive KT and LT recipients at a single institution. Primary endpoints were post-transplant HBV viremia, graft and patient survival. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 1-year, there were no HBV-related complications in the 89 HBV NAT+ recipients. Only 9 of 56 KTs (16.1%) and 9 of 33 LTs (27.3%) experienced post-transplant HBV viremia at a median of 185 (KT) and 269 (LT) days postoperatively. Overall, viremic episodes resolved to undetected HBV DNA after a median of 80 days of entecavir therapy in 16 of 18 recipients. Presently, 100% of KT recipients and 93.9% of LT recipients are HBV NAT- with median follow-up of 13 months, whereas 0 KT and 8 LT (24.2%) recipients are HBV surface antigen positive indicating chronic infection. KT and LT patient and allograft survival were not different between HBV NAT+ and HBV NAT- recipients (P > 0.05), whereas HBV NAT+ KT recipients had decreased waitlist time and pretransplant duration on dialysis (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series describing the transplantation of HBV NAT+ kidney and liver allografts into HBV seronegative recipients without chronic HBV viremia or decreased 1-year patient and graft survival. Increasing the utilization of HBV NAT+ organs in nonviremic recipients can play a role in decreasing the national organ shortage.

Impact of side-to-side cavocavostomy versus traditional piggyback implantation in liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Traditional piggyback implantation has often been used in liver transplant; however, this technique may be hindered by difficult visualization and postoperative incidences of outflow obstruction. Side-to-side cavocavostomy is an alternative approach, but perioperative outcomes associated with this technique remain largely unknown. METHODS: In July 2017, side-to-side cavocavostomy was adopted as the standard implantation technique at our institution by all surgeons (n = 4). A prospective cohort of patients undergoing liver transplant with side-to-side cavocavostomy after July 2017 until October 2018 was compared with a historical cohort of patients who underwent liver transplant with traditional piggyback previously from January 2016 to October 2018. RESULTS: Of 290 liver transplant patients, 50% (n = 145) underwent side-to-side cavocavostomy, while the remainder underwent traditional piggyback. There were no differences in recipient age, sex, race, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, or donor characteristics between groups. Side-to-side cavocavostomy was associated with decreased mean number intraoperative, red blood cell transfusions (2 vs 5 units), fresh frozen plasma (5 vs 10 units), cell saver (1.0 vs 2.0 L), and rates of temporary abdominal closure (8.3% vs 24.1%) compared with traditional piggyback (all P < .05). The side-to-side cavocavostomy group had lesser Rt3s of postoperative transfusion rates of red blood cells (21.4% vs 35.9%; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Side-to-side cavocavostomy may be superior to traditional piggyback implantation with regard to technical ease and perioperative transfusion requirements. To determine the optimal implantation technique, futures studies should evaluate side-to-side cavocavostomy versus traditional piggyback in a prospective, multicenter, randomized approach.

Perioperative thrombelastography serves as an important assessment tool of transfusion requirements during liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Thrombelastography has become increasingly used in liver transplantation. The implications of thrombelastography at various stages of liver transplantation, however, remain poorly understood. Our goal was to examine thrombelastography-based coagulopathy profiles in liver transplantation and determine whether preoperative thrombelastography is predictive of transfusion requirements perioperatively. METHODS: A retrospective review of 364 liver transplantations from January 2013 to May 2017 at a single institution was performed. Patients were categorized as hypocoagulable or nonhypocoagulable based on their preoperative thrombelastography profile. The primary outcome was intraoperative transfusion requirements. RESULTS: Of patients undergoing liver transplantation, 47% (n = 170) were hypocoagulable and 53% (n = 194) were nonhypocoagulable preoperatively. Hypocoagulable patients had higher transfusion requirements compared to nonhypocoagulable patients, requiring more units of packed red blood cells (7 vs 4, P < .01), fresh frozen plasma (14 vs 8, P < .01), cryoprecipitate (2 vs 1, P < .01), platelets (3 vs 2, P < .01), and cell saver (3 vs 2 L, P < .01). Additionally, these patients were more likely to receive platelets and cryoprecipitate in the first 24 hours following liver transplantation (both P < .05). No differences were found between rates of intensive care unit length of stay, 30-day readmission, or mortality. CONCLUSION: Coagulation abnormalities are common among liver transplantation patients and can be identified using thrombelastography. Identification of a patient's coagulation state preoperatively aids in guiding transfusion during liver transplantation. This work serves to better direct clinicians during major surgery to improve perioperative resource utilization. Future prospective work should aim to identify specific thrombelastography values that may predict transfusion requirements.

Impact of obesity on dialysis and transplant and its management.

Obesity is increasing to unprecedented levels, including in the end-stage kidney disease population, where upwards of 60% of kidney transplant patients are overweight or obese. Obesity poses additional challenges to the care of the dialysis patient, including difficulties in creating vascular access and inserting Tenckhoff catheters, higher rates of catheter malfunction and peritonitis, the need for longer and/or more frequent dialysis (or peritoneal dialysis [PD] exchanges) to achieve adequate clearance, increased metabolic complications particularly with PD, and obesity is a barrier to kidney transplantation. In this article, we review special considerations in performing PD, hemodialysis and transplant in the obese patient, as well as the evidence behind medical and surgical management of obesity in dialysis patients.

Use of Hepatitis C Nucleic Acid Test-Positive Liver Allografts in Hepatitis C Virus Seronegative Recipients.

Because of underutilization of liver allografts, our center previously showed that hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody-positive/nucleic acid test (NAT)-negative livers when transplanted into HCV nonviremic recipients were safe with a 10% risk of HCV transmission. Herein, we present our single-center prospective experience of using HCV NAT+ liver allografts transplanted into HCV NAT- recipients. An institutional review board-approved matched cohort study was conducted examining post- liver transplantation (LT) outcomes of HCV- patients who received HCV NAT+ organs (treatment group) compared with matched recipients with HCV NAT- organs (matched comparator group) between June 2018 to October 2019. The primary endpoint was success of HCV treatment and elimination of HCV infection. The secondary outcomes included the 30-day and 1-year graft and patient survival as well as perioperative complications. There were 32 recipients enrolled into each group. Because of 1 death in the index admission, 30/31 patients (97%) were given HCV treatment at a median starting time of 47 days (18-140 days) after LT. A total of 19 (63%) patients achieved sustained virological response at week 12 (SVR12). Another 6 patients achieved end-of-treatment response, while 5 remained on therapy and 1 is yet to start treatment. No HCV treatment failure has been noted. There were no differences in 30-day and 1-year graft and patient survival, length of hospital stay, biliary or vascular complications, or cytomegalovirus viremia between the 2 groups. In this interim analysis of a matched cohort study, which is the first and largest study to date, the patients who received the HCV NAT+ organs had similar outcomes regarding graft function, patient survival, and post-LT complications.

Changing Education Paradigms: Training Transplant Fellows for High Stake Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: Living kidney donation is a unique operation, as healthy patients are placed at risks inherent with major surgery without physical benefit. The ethical implications associated with any morbidity make it a high-stakes procedure. Fellowships are faced with the dilemma of optimizing fellow training in this demanding procedure while providing safe outcomes to donors. The Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy (LDN) Workshop is a resource that can provide intense instruction to help bridge the training deficit. Our aim was to examine the course's effectiveness in improving fellows' skill and confidence related to implementing LDN into future practice. METHODS: From 2017 to 2018, 36 abdominal transplant surgery fellows participated in a 2-day workshop consisting of live surgery observation, cadaver lab, and didactic sessions. Surveys were completed precourse, postcourse, and at 3-month postcourse follow-up. RESULTS: Preworkshop, 61% of participants reported less than 50% confidence in independent performance of LDN. Following workshop completion, 95% reported improved confidence. At 3-month follow-up, there was a 30% (p < 0.05) increase in median confidence level. Immediately following the course, 67% reported improved ability to analyze kidneys prior to donation, 74% changed the way donor candidates were evaluated, and 67% reported enhanced ability to risk stratify donors. Eighty-five percent felt it strengthened operative techniques with 70% implementing new diagnostic treatments and surgical strategies. Seventy percent of participants felt it improved their communication with colleagues and 67% had enhanced communication with patients. These trends were maintained at 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: These results indicated that the LDN Workshop improves confidence and increases fellows' skillset in a high-stakes procedure. The LDN Workshop is a useful adjunct to fellowship training to optimize successful, efficient, and safe performance of a demanding procedure in a uniquely healthy donor population.

Reducing Donor-specific Antibody During Acute Rejection Diminishes Long-term Renal Allograft Loss: Comparison of Early and Late Rejection.

BACKGROUND: Reduction in donor-specific antibody (DSA) has been associated with improved renal allograft survival after antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). These observations have not been separately analyzed for early and late AMR and mixed acute rejection (MAR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term responses to proteasome inhibitor-based therapy for 4 rejection phenotypes and to determine factors that predict allograft survival. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study evaluating renal transplant recipients with first AMR episodes treated with proteasome inhibitor-based therapy from January 2005 to July 2015. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients were included in the analysis. Immunodominant DSA reduction at 14 days differed significantly (early AMR 79.6%, early MAR 54.7%, late AMR 23.4%, late MAR 21.1%, P < 0.001). Death-censored graft survival (DCGS) differed at 3 years postrejection (early AMR 88.3% versus early MAR 77.8% versus late AMR 56.7% versus late MAR 54.9%, P = 0.02). Multivariate analysis revealed that immunodominant DSA reduction > 50% at 14 days was associated with improved DCGS (odds ratio, 0.12, 95% CI, 0.02-0.52, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, significant differences exist across rejection phenotypes with respect to histological and DSA responses. The data suggest that DSA reduction may be associated with improved DCGS in both early and late AMR.

Outcomes of en bloc simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation compared to the traditional technique.

Simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLKT) is indicated for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) and concurrent renal insufficiency. En bloc SLKT is an alternative to traditional separate implantations, but studies comparing the two techniques are limited. The en bloc technique maintains renal outflow via donor infrahepatic vena cava and inflow via anastomosis of donor renal artery to donor splenic artery. Comparison of recipients of en bloc (n = 17) vs traditional (n = 17) SLKT between 2013 and 2017 was performed. Recipient demographics and comorbidities were similar. More recipients of traditional SLKT were dialysis dependent (82.4% vs 41.2%, P = .01) with lower baseline pretransplant eGFR (14 vs 18, P = .01). En bloc SLKT was associated with shorter kidney cold ischemia time (341 vs 533 minutes, P < .01) and operative time (374 vs 511 minutes, P < .01). Two en bloc patients underwent reoperation for kidney allograft inflow issues due to kinking and renal steal. Early kidney allograft dysfunction (23.5% in both groups), 1-year kidney graft survival (88.2% vs 82.4%, P = 1.0), and posttransplantation eGFR were similar between groups. In our experience, the en bloc SLKT technique is safe and feasible, with comparable outcomes to the traditional method.

Use of HCV Ab+/NAT- donors in HCV naïve renal transplant recipients to expand the kidney donor pool.

Hepatitis C (HCV) disease transmission from the use of HCV antibody-positive and HCV nucleic acid test-negative (HCV Ab+/NAT-) kidneys have been anecdotally reported to be absent. We prospectively analyzed kidney transplant (KT) outcomes from HCV Ab+/NAT- donors to HCV naïve recipients under T-cell depleting early steroid withdrawal immunosuppression. Allografts from 40 HCV Ab+/NAT- donors were transplanted to 52 HCV Ab- recipients between July 2016 and February 2018. Thirty-three (82.5%) of donors met Public Health Service (PHS) increased risk criteria. De novo HCV infection was detected at 3 months post-KT in one recipient (1.9%). This was a case of transmission from a HCV Ab+ NAT+ donor with an initial false-negative NAT completed using sample collected on donor hospital admission (day 2). At the time of HCV diagnosis, a stored donor sample collected during procurement (day 4) was tested and resulted NAT-positive. Subsequently, sustained virologic response (SVR) was achieved with 12 weeks of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir. One death with functioning graft at 261 days post-KT was determined not related to HCV or donor factors. This experience provides evidence of a low transmission rate of HCV from HCV Ab+/ NAT- kidney donors, thereby arguing for increasing utilization.

Clinical Implications of Donor Warm and Cold Ischemia Time in Donor After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation.

The use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts has been constrained by limitations in the duration of donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), donor agonal time (DAT), and cold ischemia time (CIT). The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of longer DWIT, DAT, and CIT on graft survival and other outcomes in DCD liver transplants. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was queried for adult liver transplants from DCD donors between 2009 and 2015. Donor, recipient, and center variables were included in the analysis. During the study period, 2107 patients underwent liver transplant with DCD allografts. In most patients, DWIT and DAT were <30 minutes. DWIT was <30 minutes in 1804 donors, between 30 and 40 minutes in 248, and >40 minutes in 37. There was no difference in graft survival, duration of posttransplant hospital length of stay, and readmission rate between DCD liver transplants from donors with DWIT <30 minutes and DWIT between 30 and 40 minutes. Similar outcomes were noted for DAT. In the multivariate analysis, DAT and DWIT were not associated with graft loss. The predictors associated with graft loss were donor age, donor sharing, CIT, recipient admission to the intensive care unit, recipient ventilator dependence, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and low-volume transplant centers. Any CIT cutoff >4 hours was associated with increased risk for graft loss. Longer CIT was also associated with a longer posttransplant hospital stay, higher rate of primary nonfunction, and hyperbilirubinemia. In conclusion, slightly longer DAT and DWIT (up to 40 minutes) were not associated with graft loss, longer posttransplant hospitalization, or hospital readmissions, whereas longer CIT was associated with worse outcomes after DCD liver transplants.

Use of Hepatitis C Virus Antibody-Positive Donor Livers in Hepatitis C Nonviremic Liver Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Given the shortage of available liver grafts, transplantation (LTx) of hepatitis C virus antibody-positive, nucleic acid test-negative (HCV Ab+/NAT-) livers into nonviremic HCV recipients can expand the donor pool. Having previously described the sentinel experience of HCV Ab+/NAT- allografts in nonviremic recipients, we report the growth and extended follow-up of this program for 55 patients compared with recipients of Public Health Services (PHS) increased-risk donor HCV Ab-/NAT- allografts. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective review of all HCV nonviremic LTx patients receiving HCV Ab+/NAT- organs between March 2016 and August 2018 was performed. All HCV Ab+/NAT- organ recipients underwent HCV testing at 3 months and 1-year post-LTx to determine HCV transmission. RESULTS: Fifty-five HCV nonviremic candidates received HCV Ab+/NAT- organs; 64% male, median age 59 years (range 36 to 69 years) and median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 22.5. Two recipients were excluded due to death before HCV testing. The HCV disease transmission occurred in 5 recipients (9%). Of these, 4 (80%) underwent anti-HCV treatment with eradication of virus. No patient found to be negative at 3 months seroconverted at 1-year follow-up. No patients who received PHS increased-risk donor HCV Ab-/NAT- organs had viremia develop (0 of 57) and there was no difference in graft and renal function, complications, or survival between HCV Ab+/NAT- recipients and PHS increased-risk donor HCV Ab-/NAT- recipients. CONCLUSIONS: We report the largest experience with LTx from HCV Ab+/NAT- donors into 55 seronegative recipients with a HCV transmission rate of 9% with no late conversions at 1 year and no difference in function or graft loss compared with PHS increased-risk donor HCV Ab-/NAT- recipients. Due to availability of safe and effective HCV therapies, the use of such organs should be strongly considered to increase the donor organ pool.

Hepatitis C transmission from seropositive, nonviremic donors to non-hepatitis C liver transplant recipients.

Breakthroughs in hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment and rising rates of intravenous drug use have led to an increase in the number of organ donors who are HCV antibody-positive but serum nucleic acid test (NAT)-negative. The risk of HCV transmission from the liver grafts of these donors to recipients is unknown. To estimate the incidence of HCV transmission, we prospectively followed 26 consecutive HCV antibody-negative (n = 25) or NAT-negative (n = 1) transplant recipients who received a liver graft from donors who were HCV antibody-positive but serum NAT-negative between March 2016 and March 2017. HCV transmission was considered to have occurred if recipients exhibited a positive HCV PCR test by 3 months following transplantation. Drug overdose was listed as the cause of death in 15 (60%) of the donors. One recipient died 18 days after transplantation from primary graft nonfunction and was excluded. Of the remaining 25 recipients, HCV transmission occurred in 4 (16%), at a median follow-up of 11 months, all from donors who died of drug overdose. Three of these patients were treated with direct-acting antiviral therapy, with two achieving a sustained virologic response and one an end-of-treatment response. One patient with HCV transmission died after a complicated postoperative course and did not receive antiviral therapy. CONCLUSION: In this prospective cohort of non-HCV liver recipients receiving grafts from HCV antibody-positive/NAT-negative donors, the incidence of HCV transmission was 16%, with the highest risk conferred by donors who died of drug overdose; given the availability of safe and highly effective antiviral therapies, use of such organs could be considered to expand the donor pool. (Hepatology 2018;67:1673-1682).

Successful Simultaneous Liver-Kidney Transplantation in the Presence of Multiple High-Titered Class I and II Antidonor HLA Antibodies.

The results of simultaneous liver-kidney transplants in highly sensitized recipients have been controversial in terms of antibody-mediated rejection and kidney allograft outcomes. This case report provides a detailed and sophisticated documentation of histocompatibility and pathologic data in a simultaneous liver-kidney transplant performed in a recipient with multiple high-titered class I and II antidonor HLA antibodies and a strongly positive cytotoxic crossmatch. Patient received induction with steroids, rituximab, and eculizumab without lymphocyte depleting agents. The kidney transplant was delayed by 6 hours after the liver transplant to allow more time to the liver allograft to "absorb" donor-specific antibodies (DSA). Interestingly, the liver allograft did not prevent immediate antibody-mediated injury to the kidney allograft in this highly sensitized recipient. Anti-HLA single antigen bead analysis of liver and kidney allograft biopsy eluates revealed deposition of both class I and II DSA in both liver and kidney transplants during the first 2 weeks after transplant. Afterward, both liver and kidney allograft functions improved and remained normal after a year with progressive reduction in serum DSA values.

Use of Elderly Allografts in Liver Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: The use of liver allografts from elderly donors (≥70 years) has increased because of organ shortage and increased life expectancy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current utilization of elderly donors in United States, recipient selection, and their posttransplant outcomes. METHODS: A linkage between Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and University HealthSystem Consortium databases was performed. Between January 2007 and December 2011, 12,445 liver transplant (LT) recipients were identified and divided into 2 cohorts based on donor age: 70 years or older (n = 540) and younger than 60 years (n = 10,473). RESULTS: Elderly donors accounted for 4.3% of all donors used in the 5-year period. When compared to younger donors, elderly donors were more likely to be women, shared regionally or nationally, and used at higher volume centers. Elderly donor allografts were less likely to be used in recipients with model of end-stage liver disease score higher than 27 (13.2% vs. 23.0%, P < 0.001), hospitalized (16.8% vs. 21.7%, P = 0.03), or on hemodialysis at time of transplant (2.6% vs. 8.2%, P < 0.001). Both recipient groups had similar perioperative mortality, 30-day readmission rates, and short-term patient survival. In the multivariate analysis, including recipient, donor, center and regional factors, donor age 70 years or older was associated with slightly increased risk of graft loss (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.56; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The current trend toward the use of elderly donors in liver transplant recipients with low model of end-stage liver disease scores (<27), without hepatitis C, not hospitalized and not on dialysis, is associated with acceptable perioperative outcomes, patient survival, and slightly worse graft survival.