Deciphering the True Immunologic Risk in Renal Transplantation in Patients With HIV.

Since 1995, rates of end-stage renal disease have risen dramatically in patients living with HIV infection. However, given the concern for higher rates of acute rejection in this patient population, the immunologic threat posed by HIV infection is a specter clinicians must continually confront. Living donor transplantation may negate this risk; this study aims to assess the benefit of living donor transplantation in this population and to ascertain the immunologic risk faced by patients who are HIV-infected. The 2021 UNOS database was queried, and all HIV-infected kidney transplant recipients since 1987 were identified. Recipients were stratified based on deceased (DDKT) vs living (LDKT) donor status. Overall survival, allograft survival, acute rejection, panel reactive antibody (PRA) percentage, and crossmatch positivity were compared between groups. One thousand two hundred twenty-six patients underwent DDKT, and 304 patients underwent LDKT. Living donor kidney transplantation demonstrated greater overall survival (P = .045) and graft survival (P < .001). However, no difference in acute rejection was noted between the cohorts, and no difference in overall or graft survival was evident based on PRA percentage. Crossmatch positive status did not negatively affect graft survival. Patients with HIV undergoing LDKT fared better than those undergoing DDKT. Nevertheless, patients at higher immunologic risk-elevated PRA% and crossmatch positivity-did not experience graft loss at a higher rate than patients at lower immunologic risk. These results were valid in both DDKT and LDKT cohorts. These findings suggest that infection with HIV does not overtly increase patients' immunologic risk, and concerns surrounding transplantation in this population may be overestimated.

High and Low Frequency Domino Liver Transplantation Centers Demonstrate Similar Performance Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: A Domino Liver Transplant (DLT) is a successfully validated surgical option for a subset of patients awaiting liver transplant. Increased utilization of DLTs could increase the donor organ pool. However, DLTs occur primarily at a small number of high volume centers, and are rarely performed at lower volume transplant centers. This study compares DLT recipient performance outcomes between high frequency DLT centers and low frequency DLT centers. METHODS: The UNOS/OPTN STAR database was queried for DLTs performed at transplant centers between 1996-2018. 193 patients were identified and categorized into high (>5 DLTs) or low (≤5 DLTs) frequency centers. Our primary endpoint was allograft survival. Our secondary endpoints were graft status at last follow up and mortality secondary to cardiac, renal, or respiratory failure. RESULTS: Overall median allograft survival between high and low volume DLT centers was similar (48.2 months versus 42.7 months, P >0.314). The one-year (82% versus 76%), three-year (57% versus 56%), and five-year (45% versus 43%) survival percentages were also similar between the high and low volume DLT centers respectively. Overall mortality from cardiac (high 4% versus low 1.7%), renal (high 0.8% versus low 1.7%), or respiratory failure (high 0.8% versus low 1.7%) was similarly low in both groups. CONCLUSION: Low volume and high volume DLT centers are associated with similar outcomes of allograft survival and mortality. DLTs should be utilized more frequently, when the criteria are met, including in centers with limited experience, to expand the donor pool, decrease time on the waitlist, and improve overall survival.