US Liver Transplant Outcomes After Normothermic Regional Perfusion vs Standard Super Rapid Recovery.

Importance: Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is an emerging recovery modality for transplantable allografts from controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) donors. In the US, only 11.4% of liver recipients who are transplanted from a deceased donor receive a cDCD liver. NRP has the potential to safely expand the US donor pool with improved transplant outcomes as compared with standard super rapid recovery (SRR). Objective: To assess outcomes of US liver transplants using controlled donation after circulatory death livers recovered with normothermic regional perfusion vs standard super rapid recovery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study comparing liver transplant outcomes from cDCD donors recovered by NRP vs SRR. Outcomes of cDCD liver transplant from January 2017 to May 2023 were collated from 17 US transplant centers and included livers recovered by SRR and NRP (thoracoabdominal NRP [TA-NRP] and abdominal NRP [A-NRP]). Seven transplant centers used NRP, allowing for liver allografts to be transplanted at 17 centers; 10 centers imported livers recovered via NRP from other centers. Exposures: cDCD livers were recovered by either NRP or SRR. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). Secondary end points included primary nonfunction (PNF), early allograft dysfunction (EAD), biliary anastomotic strictures, posttransplant length of stay (LOS), and patient and graft survival. Results: A total of 242 cDCD livers were included in this study: 136 recovered by SRR and 106 recovered by NRP (TA-NRP, 79 and A-NRP, 27). Median (IQR) NRP and SRR donor age was 30.5 (22-44) years and 36 (27-49) years, respectively. Median (IQR) posttransplant LOS was significantly shorter in the NRP cohort (7 [5-11] days vs 10 [7-16] days; P < .001). PNF occurred only in the SRR allografts group (n = 2). EAD was more common in the SRR cohort (123 of 136 [56.1%] vs 77 of 106 [36.4%]; P = .007). Biliary anastomotic strictures were increased 2.8-fold in SRR recipients (7 of 105 [6.7%] vs 30 of 134 [22.4%]; P = .001). Only SRR recipients had IC (0 vs 12 of 133 [9.0%]; P = .002); IC-free survival by Kaplan-Meier was significantly improved in NRP recipients. Patient and graft survival were comparable between cohorts. Conclusion and Relevance: There was comparable patient and graft survival in liver transplant recipients of cDCD donors recovered by NRP vs SRR, with reduced rates of IC, biliary complications, and EAD in NRP recipients. The feasibility of A-NRP and TA-NRP implementation across multiple US transplant centers supports increasing adoption of NRP to improve organ use, access to transplant, and risk of wait-list mortality.

Regional Social Vulnerability is Associated With Geographic Disparity in Waitlist Outcomes for Patients With Non-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Model for End-stage Liver Disease Exceptions in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the role of regional social vulnerability in geographic disparity for patients listed for liver transplantation with non-hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exceptions. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: Prior work has demonstrated regional variability in the appropriateness of MELD exceptions for diagnoses other than HCC. METHODS: Adults listed at a single center for first-time liver-only transplantation without HCC after June 18, 2013 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database as of March 2021 were examined. Candidates were mapped to hospital referral regions (HRRs). Adjusted likelihood of mortality and liver transplantation were modeled. Advantaged HRRs were defined as those where exception patients were more likely to be transplanted, yet no more likely to die in adjusted analysis. The Centers for Disease Control's Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) was used as the measure for community health. Higher SVIs indicate poorer community health. RESULTS: There were 49,494 candidates in the cohort, of whom 4337 (8.8%) had MELD exceptions. Among continental US HRRs, 27.3% (n = 78) were identified as advantaged. The mean SVI of advantaged HRRs was 0.42 versus 0.53 in nonadvantaged HRRs ( P = 0.002), indicating better community health in these areas. Only 25.3% of advantaged HRRs were in spatial clusters of high SVI versus 40.7% of nonadvantaged HRRs, whereas 44.6% of advantaged HRRs were in spatial clusters of low SVI versus 38.0% of nonadvantaged HRRs ( P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: An advantage for non-HCC MELD exception patients is associated with lower social vulnerability on a population level. These findings suggest assigning similar waitlist priority to all non-HCC exception candidates without considering geographic differences in social determinants of health may actually exacerbate rather than ameliorate disparity.

Non-invasive evaluation of hepatic macrosteatosis in deceased donors.

INTRODUCTION: Liver allocation changes have led to increased travel and expenditures, highlighting the need to efficiently identify marginal livers suitable for transplant. We evaluated the validity of existing non-invasive liver quality tests and a novel machine learning-based model at predicting deceased donor macrosteatosis >30%. METHODS: We compared previously-validated non-invasive tests and a novel machine learning-based model to biopsies in predicting macrosteatosis >30%. We also tested them in populations enriched for macrosteatosis. RESULTS: The Hepatic Steatosis Index area-under-the-curve (AUC) was 0.56. At the threshold identified by Youden's J statistic, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were 49.6%, 58.9%, 14.0%, and 89.7%. Other tests demonstrated comparable results. Machine learning produced the highest AUC (0.71). Even in populations enriched for macrosteatosis, no test was sufficiently predictive. CONCLUSION: Commonly used clinical scoring systems and a novel machine learning-based model were not clinically useful, highlighting the importance of pre-procurement biopsies to facilitate allocation.

Impact of refitted race-free eGFR formula on obesity pharmacotherapy options.

OBJECTIVE: Recent changes to the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) formula (2021 CKD-EPI) removed race from the 2009 formula, increasing the number of Black people classified as having CKD, but these changes may impact eligibility and/or dosing for antiobesity medications. This study estimated the number of people with obesity nationwide who might have pharmacotherapy options impacted by the new formula. METHODS: Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cohort study data, the number of people eligible for antiobesity medication was estimated, and the number who would require a dosage reduction or would no longer be eligible for specific medications based on the new eGFR formula was also estimated. RESULTS: Among 16,412,571 Black and 109,654,751 non-Black people eligible for antiobesity medication, 911,336 (6.1%) Black and 6,925,492 (6.6%) non-Black people had ≥CKD stage 3 by the 2009 CKD-EPI formula. Applying the 2021 CKD-EPI formula, 1,260,969 (8.5%) Black people and 4,989,919 (4.7%) non-Black people had ≥CKD stage 3. For medications requiring renal adjustment, the number of Black people who would require a lower dose or be precluded from using a medication increased by 24.7% to 50.2%. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of measuring-rather than estimating-GFR in Black people with CKD when considering many antiobesity pharmacotherapy options.

Perpetuating Disparity: Failure of the Kidney Transplant System to Provide the Most Kidney Transplants to Communities With the Greatest Need.

BACKGROUND: The burden of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and kidney transplant rates vary significantly across the United States. This study aims to examine the mismatch between ESKD burden and kidney transplant rates from a perspective of spatial epidemiology. METHODS: US Renal Data System data from 2015 to 2017 on incident ESKD and kidney transplants per 1000 incident ESKD cases was analyzed. Clustering of ESKD burden and kidney transplant rates at the county level was determined using local Moran's I and correlated to county health scores. Higher percentile county health scores indicated worse overall community health. RESULTS: Significant clusters of high-ESKD burden tended to coincide with clusters of low kidney transplant rates, and vice versa. The most common cluster type had high incident ESKD with low transplant rates (377 counties). Counties in these clusters had the lowest overall mean transplant rate (61.1), highest overall mean ESKD incidence (61.3), and highest mean county health scores percentile (80.9%, P <0.001 vs all other cluster types). By comparison, counties in clusters with low ESKD incidence and high transplant rates (n=359) had the highest mean transplant rate (110.6), the lowest mean ESKD incidence (28.9), and the lowest county health scores (20.2%). All comparisons to high-ESKD/low-transplant clusters were significant at P value <0.001. CONCLUSION: There was a significant mismatch between kidney transplant rates and ESKD burden, where areas with the greatest need had the lowest transplant rates. This pattern exacerbates pre-existing disparities, as disadvantaged high-ESKD regions already suffer from worse access to care and overall community health, as evidenced by the highest county health scores in the study.

Greater community vulnerability is associated with poor living donor navigator program fidelity.

BACKGROUND: Community-level factors contribute to living donor kidney transplantation disparities but may also influence the interventions aimed to mitigate these disparities. The Living Donor Navigator Program was designed to separate the advocacy role from the patient in need of transplantation-friends/family are encouraged to participate as the patients' advocates to identify living donors, though some of the patients participate alone as self-advocates. Self-advocates have a lower living donor kidney transplantation likelihood compared to the patients with an advocate. We sought to evaluate the relationship between the patients' community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy as a surrogate for program fidelity. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included 110 Living Donor Navigator participants (April 2017-June 2019). Program fidelity was assessed using the participants' advocacy status. Measures of community vulnerability were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index. Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy. RESULTS: Of the 110 participants, 19% (n = 21) were self-advocates. For every 10% increase in community-level vulnerability, patients had 17% higher risk of self-advocacy (adjusted relative risk 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.32, P = .01). Living in areas with greater unemployment (adjusted relative risk: 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.33, P = .01), single-parent households (adjusted relative risk: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.42, P = .006), minority population (adjusted relative risk: 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.55, P = .02), or no-vehicle households (adjusted relative risk: 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.35, P = .02) were associated with increased risk of self-advocacy. CONCLUSION: Having a greater community-level vulnerability was associated with poor Living Donor Navigator Program fidelity. The potential barriers identified using the Social Vulnerability Index may direct resource allocation and program refinement to optimize program fidelity and efficacy for all participants.

County-level Differences in Liver-related Mortality, Waitlisting, and Liver Transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Much of our understanding regarding geographic issues in transplantation is based on statistical techniques that do not formally account for geography and is based on obsolete boundaries such as donation service area. METHODS: We applied spatial epidemiological techniques to analyze liver-related mortality and access to liver transplant services at the county level using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from 2010 to 2018. RESULTS: There was a significant negative spatial correlation between transplant rates and liver-related mortality at the county level (Moran's I, -0.319; P = 0.001). Significant clusters were identified with high transplant rates and low liver-related mortality. Counties in geographic clusters with high ratios of liver transplants to liver-related deaths had more liver transplant centers within 150 nautical miles (6.7 versus 3.6 centers; P < 0.001) compared with all other counties, as did counties in geographic clusters with high ratios of waitlist additions to liver-related deaths (8.5 versus 2.5 centers; P < 0.001). The spatial correlation between waitlist mortality and overall liver-related mortality was positive (Moran's I, 0.060; P = 0.001) but weaker. Several areas with high waitlist mortality had some of the lowest overall liver-related mortality in the country. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that high waitlist mortality and allocation model for end-stage liver disease do not necessarily correlate with decreased access to transplant, whereas local transplant center density is associated with better access to waitlisting and transplant.

Lost potential and missed opportunities for DCD liver transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Donation after cardiac death(DCD) has been proposed as an avenue to expand the liver donor pool. METHODS: We examined factors associated with nonrecovery of DCD livers using UNOS data from 2015 to 2019. RESULTS: There 265 non-recovered potential(NRP) DCD livers. Blood type AB (7.8% vs. 1.1%) and B (16.9% vs. 9.8%) were more frequent in the NRP versus actual donors (p < 0.001). The median driving time between donor hospital and transplant center was similar for NRP and actual donors (30.1 min vs. 30.0 min; p = 0.689), as was the percentage located within a transplant hospital (20.8% vs. 20.9%; p = 0.984).The donation service area(DSA) of a donor hospital explained 27.9% (p = 0.001) of the variability in whether a DCD liver was recovered. CONCLUSION: A number of potentially high quality DCD donor livers go unrecovered each year, which may be partially explained by donor blood type and variation in regional and DSA level practice patterns.

Outcomes in Elderly Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation Compared with Liver-Directed Ablative Therapy in Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is the accepted treatment in patients with unresectable, early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the setting of cirrhosis. Due to increasing waitlist demand for OLT, determining optimal groups for transplant is critical. Elderly patients are known to have poorer postoperative outcomes. Considering the effectiveness of liver-directed therapies for HCC, we sought to determine whether elderly patients received survival benefit from OLT over liver-directed therapy alone. STUDY DESIGN: The National Cancer Database participant use file was used to analyze data between 2004 and 2017. Only patients ≥70 years of age who received OLT or liver-directed therapy alone were included. Patients with alpha-fetoprotein >500 ng/mL or missing alpha-fetoprotein values were excluded. Baseline demographic variables, model for end-stage liver disease score, and overall survival from time of diagnosis were collected. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival, Cox proportional hazards model, and propensity score matching were used. RESULTS: A total of 2,377 patients received ablative therapy alone, and 214 patients received OLT. Multivariable analysis and Kaplan-Meier showed that OLT conferred a significant survival benefit compared to liver-directed therapy alone. Age was also associated with a yearly 3% increase in risk of mortality. Propensity-matched analysis adjusting also demonstrated a significant survival benefit for elderly patients receiving OLT compared to liver-directed therapy alone. CONCLUSION: Despite increased age and associated comorbidities being factors associated with poor outcomes, OLT confers a survival advantage compared to liver-directed ablative therapies alone in selected elderly patients with HCC. OLT should be offered in medically appropriate elderly patients with HCC.

Early United States experience with liver donation after circulatory determination of death using thoraco-abdominal normothermic regional perfusion: A multi-institutional observational study.

Mortality on the liver waitlist remains unacceptably high. Donation after circulatory determination of death (DCD) donors are considered marginal but are a potentially underutilized resource. Thoraco-abdominal normothermic perfusion (TA-NRP) in DCD donors might result in higher quality livers and offset waitlist mortality. We retrospectively reviewed outcomes of the first 13 livers transplanted from TA-NRP donors in the US. Nine centers transplanted livers from eight organ procurement organizations. Median donor age was 25 years; median agonal phase was 13 minutes. Median recipient age was 60 years; median lab MELD score was 21. Three patients (23%) met early allograft dysfunction (EAD) criteria. Three received simultaneous liver-kidney transplants; neither had EAD nor delayed renal allograft function. One recipient died 186 days post-transplant from sepsis but had normal presepsis liver function. One patient developed a biliary anastomotic stricture, managed endoscopically; no recipient developed clinical evidence of ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). Twelve of 13 (92%) patients are alive with good liver function at 439 days median follow-up; one patient has extrahepatic recurrent HCC. TA-NRP DCD livers in these recipients all functioned well, particularly with respect to IC, and provide a valuable option to decrease deaths on the waiting list.

Donor-reported barriers to living kidney donor follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Despite regulations mandating follow-up laboratory testing for living kidney donors, less than half of transplant centers are in compliance. We sought to understand barriers to follow-up testing from the donors' perspective. METHODS: We surveyed our center's living kidney donors. Binary logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with follow-up testing completion. RESULTS: Of 185 living kidney donors, 110 (59.4%) participated. Among them, 82 (74.5%) completed 6-month laboratory testing, 76 (69.1%) completed 12-month testing, 68 (61.8%) completed both, and 21 (19.0%) completed neither. Six-month testing completion was strongly associated with 12-month testing completion (OR 9.74, 95%CI: 2.23-42.50; p = .002). Those who disagreed with the statements, "Getting labs checked wasn't a priority for me," (OR for completing 6-month testing: 15.05, 95%CI: 3.70-61.18; p < .001; OR for completing 12-month testing: 5.85, 95%CI: 1.94-17.63; p = .002); and, "I forgot to get labs drawn [until I was reminded]" (OR for completing 6-month testing: 6.93, 95%CI: 1.59-30.08; p = .01; OR for completing 12-month testing: 6.55, 95%CI: 1.98-21.63; p = .002) were more likely to complete testing. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the only study providing perspective on donor insights regarding the need for follow-up testing post donation. Interventions to influence living donor attitudes toward follow-up testing may improve follow-up.

Hepatic macrosteatosis in the US pediatric deceased liver donor population.

INTRODUCTION: The pediatric obesity epidemic is associated with early development of hepatic macrosteatosis, a hallmark of non-alcoholic fatty LI disease, which is thought to be more rapidly progressive in children than adults. Macrosteatosis in adult allografts is associated with allograft loss, but this has not been examined in pediatric donors. METHODS: We studied all pediatric potential whole LI donors (2005-2018) who had a LI biopsy in the SRTR (n = 862) and whose LI was transplanted (n = 862). Macrosteatosis was abstracted from biopsy reports and compared to values in the SRTR standard analytic file. Recipients of macrosteatotic pediatric allografts were matched 1:1 to recipients of non-macrosteatotic pediatric allografts by propensity score matching on donor/recipient variables. All-cause allograft loss was estimated via Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2018, the proportion of pediatric donors (age ≥2 years) with obesity increased (14.8% to 21.7%; p < .001), as did the proportion of pediatric deceased whole LI-only donor allografts with macrosteatosis (n = 10 648; 1.8% to 3.9%; p < .001). The median degree of macrosteatosis among macrosteatotic donors was 10% (IQR 5-30). There were no significant differences in all-cause allograft loss between recipients of pediatric LI allografts with and without macrosteatosis at 90 days (p = .11) or 1 year (p = .14) post-transplant in Kaplan-Meier analysis or a Cox proportional hazards model (p > .05). CONCLUSION: Obese pediatric LI donors have increased over time and were more likely to have hepatic macrosteatosis; however, pediatric macrosteatosis did not appear to adversely affect recipient outcomes.

Patient survival following third time liver transplant in the United States in the MELD era.

BACKGROUND: Third time liver transplantation is a technically demanding exercise with variable outcomes in single center series. There has been no national level description of survival following third time liver transplant in the US in the MELD era. METHODS: Third time liver transplants between March 1, 2002 and January 1, 2018 in the UNOS dataset were analyzed. RESULTS: Patient survival among the 240 third time liver transplant recipients in the study at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years (71.8%, 62.4%, 59.1%, 49.5%) was significantly worse compared to primary liver transplant (90.6%, 83.9%, 78.8%, 67.6%; p < 0.001) and retransplant (77.1%, 70.3%, 65.6%, 54.9%; p = 0.014). Recipients who were under 43 years old, not on dialysis, without diabetes, and over 1 month out from their second transplant had acceptable survival at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years (88.5%, 78.4%, 73.6%, 69.7%). CONCLUSIONS: While redo-redo transplant remains a challenging endeavor, appropriate patient selection can yield acceptable results.

Impact of Social Vulnerability on Access to Educational Programming Designed to Enhance Living Donation.

INTRODUCTION: Transplant candidate participation in the Living Donor Navigator Program is associated with an increased likelihood of achieving living donor kidney transplantation; yet not every transplant candidate participates in navigator programming. RESEARCH QUESTION: We sought to assess interest and ability to participate in the Living Donor Navigator Program by the degree of social vulnerability. DESIGN: Eighty-two adult kidney-only candidates initiating evaluation at our center provided Likert-scaled responses to survey questions on interest and ability to participate in the Living Donor Navigator Program. Surveys were linked at the participant-level to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index and county health rankings and overall social vulnerability and subthemes, individual barriers, telehealth capabilities/ knowledge, interest, and ability to participate were assessed utilizing nonparametric Wilcoxon ranks sums tests, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Participants indicating distance as a barrier to participation in navigator programming lived approximately 82 miles farther from our center. Disinterested participants lived in areas with the highest social vulnerability, higher physical inactivity rates, lower college education rates, and higher uninsurance (lack of insurance) and unemployment rates. Similarly, participants without a computer, who never heard of telehealth, and who were not encouraged to participate in telehealth resided in areas of highest social vulnerability. CONCLUSION: These data suggest geography combined with being from under-resourced areas with high social vulnerability was negatively associated with health care engagement. Geography and poverty may be surrogates for lower health literacy and fewer health care interactions.

Optimal Timing of Administration of Direct-acting Antivirals for Patients With Hepatitis C-associated Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Liver Transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the optimal timing of direct acting antiviral (DAA) administration in patients with hepatitis C-associated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing liver transplantation (LT). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In patients with hepatitis C (HCV) associated HCC undergoing LT, the optimal timing of direct-acting antivirals (DAA) administration to achieve sustained virologic response (SVR) and improved oncologic outcomes remains a topic of much debate. METHODS: The United States HCC LT Consortium (2015-2019) was reviewed for patients with primary HCV-associated HCC who underwent LT and received DAA therapy at 20 institutions. Primary outcomes were SVR and HCC recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Of 857 patients, 725 were within Milan criteria. SVR was associated with improved 5-year RFS (92% vs 77%, P < 0.01). Patients who received DAAs pre-LT, 0-3 months post-LT, and ≥3 months post-LT had SVR rates of 91%, 92%, and 82%, and 5-year RFS of 93%, 94%, and 87%, respectively. Among 427 HCV treatment-naïve patients (no previous interferon therapy), patients who achieved SVR with DAAs had improved 5-year RFS (93% vs 76%, P < 0.01). Patients who received DAAs pre-LT, 0-3 months post-LT, and ≥3 months post-LT had SVR rates of 91%, 93%, and 78% (P < 0.01) and 5-year RFS of 93%, 100%, and 83% (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The optimal timing of DAA therapy appears to be 0 to 3 months after LT for HCV-associated HCC, given increased rates of SVR and improved RFS. Delayed administration after transplant should be avoided. A prospective randomized controlled trial is warranted to validate these results.

Obesity as an isolated contraindication to kidney transplantation in the end-stage renal disease population: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with obesity as their only contraindication to listing and to quantify wait-list and transplant access. METHODS: Using the US Renal Data System, a retrospective cohort study of incident dialysis cases (2012 to 2014) was performed. The primary outcomes were time to wait-listing and time to transplantation. RESULTS: Of 157,572 dialysis patients not already listed, 39,844 had BMI as their only demonstrable transplant contraindication. They tended to be younger, female, and Black. Compared with patients with BMI < 35, those with BMI 35 to 39.9, 40 to 44.9, and ≥45 were, respectively, 15% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.85; 95% CI: 0.83-0.88; p < 0.001), 45% (aHR 0.55; 95% CI: 0.52-0.57; p < 0.001), and 71% (aHR 0.29; 95% CI: 0.27-0.31; p < 0.001) less likely to be wait-listed. Wait-listed patients with BMI 35 to 39.9 were 24% less likely to achieve transplant (aHR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.72-0.80; p < 0.0001), BMI 40 to 44.9 were 21% less likely (aHR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.72-0.86; p < 0.0001), and BMI ≥ 45 were 15% less likely (aHR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75-0.95; p = 0.004) compared with patients with BMI < 35. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity was the sole contraindication to wait-listing for 40,000 dialysis patients. They were less likely to be wait-listed. For those who were, they had a lower likelihood of transplant. Aggressive weight-loss interventions may help this population achieve wait-listing and transplant.

Early Outcomes With the Liver-kidney Safety Net.

BACKGROUND: A safety net policy was implemented in August 2017 giving liver transplant alone (LTA) recipients with significant renal dysfunction posttransplant priority for subsequent kidney transplantation (KT). This study was undertaken to evaluate early outcomes under this policy. METHODS: Adults undergoing LTA after implementation of the safety net policy and were subsequently listed for KT between 60 and 365 days after liver transplantation contained in United Network for Organ Sharing data were examined. Outcomes of interest were receipt of a kidney transplant and postliver transplant survival. Safety net patients were compared with LTA recipients not subsequently listed for KT as well as to patients listed for simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplant yet underwent LTA and were not subsequently listed for KT. RESULTS: There were 100 patients listed for safety net KT versus 9458 patients undergoing LTA without subsequent KT listing. The cumulative incidence of KT following listing was 32.5% at 180 days. The safety net patients had similar 1-year unadjusted patient survival (96.4% versus 93.4%; P = 0.234) but superior adjusted survival (hazard ratio0.133, 0.3570.960; P = 0.041) versus LTA recipients not subsequently listed for KT. Safety net patients had superior 1-year unadjusted (96.4% versus 75.0%; P < 0.001) and adjusted (hazard ratio0.039, 0.1260.406; P < 0.001) survival versus SLK listed patients undergoing LTA without subsequent KT listing. CONCLUSIONS: The safety net appears to provide rapid access to KT with good early survival for those able to take advantage of it. Survival of patients unable to qualify for KT listing after LTA needs to be better understood before further limitation of SLK, however.

Survival following simultaneous liver-lung versus liver alone transplantation: Results of the US national experience.

BACKGROUND: There are little data to compare the post-transplant survival between lung-liver transplant (LLT) and liver-alone recipients. This study was undertaken to compare survival between LLT and liver-alone transplant. METHODS: UNOS data for patients undergoing LLT from 2002 to 2017 was analyzed. LLT recipients (n = 81) were matched 1:4 to liver-alone recipients (n = 324) by propensity score and patient survival was compared in the matched cohorts. RESULTS: Unadjusted 1, 3, and 5-year patient survival in the matched cohort was significantly worse in the LLT (82.5%, 72.2%, and 62.2%) versus liver-alone (92.2%, 82.8%, and 80.9%; p = 0.005). This difference persisted after adjusting for covariates with residual imbalance (HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.37-3.08; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: LLT has significantly worse survival than liver-alone transplant. With an increasing organ shortage, medical necessity criteria such as those developed for simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation should be developed for simultaneous lung-liver transplants to assure liver allografts are only allocated when truly needed.