Waitlist Time, Age, and Social Vulnerability: Impact on the Survival Benefit of Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation Versus Long-term Dialysis Among Patients With End-stage Renal Disease.

BACKGROUND: We sought to define the survival benefit of kidney transplantation versus long-term dialysis relative to waitlist time on dialysis, social vulnerability, and age among end-stage renal transplant candidates. METHODS: End-stage renal disease patients who were candidates for their first deceased donor kidney transplantation between 2008 and 2020 were identified using the US Renal Data System. Survival probabilities for patient survival were compared using the restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) across different age and social vulnerability index (SVI) ranges. RESULTS: Among 149 923 patients, 68 795 (45.9%) patients underwent a kidney transplant and 81 128 (54.1%) remained on dialysis. After propensity-score matching (n = 58 035 in each cohort), the 5-y RMST difference between kidney transplant and dialysis demonstrated an increasing trend in mean life-years gained within 5 y of follow-up relative to advancing age (<30 y: 0.40 y, 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.44 y versus >70 y: 0.75 y, 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.80 y). Conversely, disparities in 5-y RMSTs remained consistent relative to social vulnerability (median 5-y RMST difference: 0.62 y comparing low versus high SVI). When considering waitlist duration, stratified analyses demonstrated increasing trends across different age groups with the largest RMST differences observed among older patients aged ≥70 y. Notably, longer waitlist durations (>3 y) yielded more pronounced RMST differences compared with shorter durations (<1 y). CONCLUSIONS: These data underscore the survival benefit associated with kidney transplantation over long-term dialysis across various age and SVI ranges. Transplantation demonstrated a greater advantage among older patients who had a longer waitlist duration.

Chronological and Geographical Variations in the Incidence and Acceptance of COVID-19-Positive Donors and Outcomes Among Abdominal Transplant Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Given the importance of understanding COVID-19-positive donor incidence and acceptance, we characterize chronological and geographic variations in COVID-19 incidence relative to COVID-19-positive donor acceptance. METHODS: Data on deceased donors and recipients of liver and kidney transplants were obtained from the UNOS database between 2020 and 2023. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to assess trends in COVID-19-positive donor incidence. Posttransplant graft and patient survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: From among 38 429 deceased donors, 1517 were COVID-19 positive. Fewer kidneys (72.4% vs. 76.5%, p < 0.001) and livers (56.4% vs. 62.0%, p < 0.001) were used from COVID-19-positive donors versus COVID-19-negative donors. Areas characterized by steadily increased COVID-19 donor incidence exhibit the highest transplantation acceptance rates (92.33%), followed by intermediate (84.62%) and rapidly increased (80.00%) COVID-19 incidence areas (p = 0.016). Posttransplant graft and patient survival was comparable among recipients, irrespective of donor COVID-19 status. CONCLUSIONS: Regions experiencing heightened rates of COVID-19-positive donors are associated with decreased acceptance of liver and kidney transplantation. Similar graft and patient survival is noted among recipients, irrespective of donor COVID-19 status. These findings emphasize the need for adaptive practices and unified medical consensus in navigating a dynamic pandemic.

Variation in DCD Liver Transplant Protocols Among Transplant Centers in the United States.

Background: Variation in donation after circulatory death (DCD) organ recovery and liver transplant practices exist among transplant centers. This study aimed to evaluate these practices among centers in the United States. Methods: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data were accessed to identify centers that performed liver transplantation in 2021 and 2022. Surveys were sent to transplant centers that consistently performed ≥5 DCD liver transplants per year. Results: DCD liver transplants were performed by 95 centers (65.1%) of the 146 liver transplant centers in the United States. Survey results were recorded from 42 centers that consistently performed ≥5 DCD liver transplants per year, with a 59.5% response rate. Withdrawal-to-asystole and agonal time were used to define donor warm ischemia time (WIT) in 16% and 84% centers, respectively. Fifty-six percent of the centers did not use oxygen saturation to define donor WIT. Systolic blood pressure cutoffs used to define agonal time varied between 50 and 80 mm Hg, donor age cutoffs ranged between 55 and 75 y, and cold ischemia times varied between 4 and 10 h. Seventy-six percent of centers used normothermic machine perfusion for DCD liver transplantation. Conclusions: This study highlights the wide variation in use, recovery, and definition of donor WIT. Using national data to rigorously define best practices will encourage greater utilization of this important donor resource.

The impact of county-level food access on the mortality and post-transplant survival among patients with steatotic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: The impact of county-level food access on mortality associated with steatotic liver disease, as well as post-liver transplant outcomes among individuals with steatotic liver disease, have not been characterized. METHODS: Data on steatotic liver disease-related mortality and outcomes of liver transplant recipients with steatotic liver disease between 2010 and 2020 were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control Prevention mortality as well as the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases. These data were linked to the food desert score, defined as the proportion of the total population in each county characterized as having both low income and limited access to grocery stores. RESULTS: Among 2,710 counties included in the analytic cohort, median steatotic liver disease-related mortality was 27.3 per 100,000 population (interquartile range 24.9-32.1). Of note, patients residing in counties with high steatotic liver disease death rates were more likely to have higher food desert scores (low: 5.0, interquartile range 3.1-7.8 vs moderate: 6.1, interquartile range, 3.8-9.3 vs high: 7.6, interquartile range 4.1-11.7). Among 28,710 patients who did undergo liver transplantation, 5,310 (18.4%) individuals lived in counties with a high food desert score. Liver transplant recipients who resided in counties with the worst food access were more likely to have a higher body mass index (>35 kg/m2: low food desert score, 17.3% vs highest food desert score, 20.1%). After transplantation, there was no difference in 2-year graft survival relative to county-level food access (food desert score: low: 88.4% vs high: 88.6%; P = .77). CONCLUSION: Poor food access was associated with a higher incidence rate of steatotic liver disease-related death, as well as lower utilization of liver transplants. On the other hand, among patients who did receive a liver transplant, there was no difference in 2-year graft survival regardless of food access strata. Policy initiatives should target the expansion of transplantation services to vulnerable communities in which there is a high mortality of steatotic liver disease.

Effect of the opioid crisis on the liver transplantation donor pool: A national analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade there has been a surge in overdose deaths due to the opioid crisis. We sought to characterize the temporal change in overdose donor (OD) use in liver transplantation (LT), as well as associated post-LT outcomes, relative to the COVID-19 era. METHODS: LT candidates and donors listed between January 2016 and September 2022 were identified from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database. Trends in LT donors and changes related to OD were assessed pre- versus post-COVID-19 (February 2020). RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2022, most counties in the United States experienced an increase in overdose-related deaths (n = 1284, 92.3%) with many counties (n = 458, 32.9%) having more than a doubling in drug overdose deaths. Concurrently, there was an 11.2% increase in overall donors, including a 41.7% increase in the number of donors who died from drug overdose. In pre-COVID-19 overdose was the 4th top mechanism of donor death, while in the post-COVID-19 era, overdose was the 2nd most common cause of donor death. OD was younger (OD: 35 yrs, IQR 29-43 vs. non-OD: 43 yrs, IQR 31-56), had lower body mass index (≥35 kg/cm2, OD: 31.2% vs. non-OD: 33.5%), and was more likely to be HCV+ (OD: 28.9% vs. non-OD: 5.4%) with lower total bilirubin (≥1.1 mg/dL, OD: 12.9% vs. non-OD: 20.1%) (all p < .001). Receipt of an OD was not associated with worse graft survival (HR .94, 95% CI .88-1.01, p = .09). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid deaths markedly increased following the COVID-19 pandemic, substantially altering the LT donor pool in the United States.

Missing the Match: A National Survey Investigating Education in Renal Donor-Recipient Matching.

PURPOSE: Clinical judgment in renal donor organ and recipient selection is gained through fellowship and mentorship in early career. We aim to understand the past and current state of organ acceptance education. METHODS: We developed and distributed an anonymous, national survey to American Society of Transplant Surgeons faculty members and transplant surgery fellows in 2022. Survey questions explored in detail the evaluation of organ offers, the extent of formal education in organ evaluation, and attitudes regarding training adequacy. FINDINGS: Ninety-eight attending surgeons (65 men, 25 women, and 3 nonbinary) and 38 fellows (25 men, 6 women, and 2 nonbinary) responded. Seventy-eight percent of attending surgeons and 6% of fellows take primary organ offers. Forty-four percent of fellows report no didactic education in donor evaluation and recipient selection. Fellows report that discussion with attending surgeons (37.2%) and independent study of the literature (35.4%) are their primary modes of learning. Fellows call for additional clinical decision-making experience (47.3%), further didactic sessions (44.7%), and additional discussions with faculty (44.7%). Sixty-four percent of fellows and 55% of attendings felt their training provided adequate education about donor selection. CONCLUSION: Our responses suggest gaps in education regarding donor and recipient selection. Increased clinical experience and standardized education at the national level represent opportunities for improvement.

Textbook outcome: A novel metric in heart transplantation outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Assessing heart transplant program quality using short-term survival is insufficient. We define and validate the composite metric textbook outcome and examine its association with overall survival. METHODS: We identified all primary, isolated adult heart transplants in the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files from May 1, 2005, to December 31, 2017. Textbook outcome was defined as length of stay 30 days or less; ejection fraction greater than 50% during 1-year follow-up; functional status 80% to 100% at 1 year; freedom from acute rejection, dialysis, and stroke during the index hospitalization; and freedom from graft failure, dialysis, rejection, retransplantation, and mortality during the first year post-transplant. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Factors independently associated with textbook outcome were used to create a predictive nomogram. Conditional survival at 1 year was measured. RESULTS: A total of 24,620 patients were identified with 11,169 (45.4%, 95% confidence interval, 44.7-46.0) experiencing textbook outcome. Patients with textbook outcome were more likely free from preoperative mechanical support (odds ratio, 3.504, 95% confidence interval, 2.766 to 4.439, P < .001), free from preoperative dialysis (odds ratio, 2.295, 95% confidence interval, 1.868-2.819, P < .001), to be not hospitalized (odds ratio, 1.264, 95% confidence interval, 1.183-1.349, P < .001), to be nondiabetic (odds ratio, 1.187, 95% confidence interval, 1.113-1.266, P < .001), and to be nonsmokers (odds ratio, 1.160, 95% confidence interval,1.097-1.228, P < .001). Patients with textbook outcome have improved long-term survival relative to patients without textbook outcome who survive at least 1 year (hazard ratio for death, 0.547, 95% confidence interval, 0.504-0.593, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Textbook outcome is an alternative means of examining heart transplant outcomes and is associated with long-term survival. The use of textbook outcome as an adjunctive metric provides a holistic view of patient and center outcomes.

Liver Transplant as a Treatment of Primary and Secondary Liver Neoplasms.

Importance: Liver malignancies are an increasing global health concern with a high mortality. We review outcomes following liver transplant for primary and secondary hepatic malignancies. Observations: Transplant may be a suitable treatment option for primary and secondary hepatic malignancies in well-selected patient populations. Conclusions and Relevance: Many patients with primary or secondary liver tumors are not eligible for liver resection because of advanced underlying liver disease or high tumor burden, precluding complete tumor clearance. Although liver transplant has been a long-standing treatment modality for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, recently transplant has been considered for patients with other malignant diagnoses. In particular, while well-established for hepatocellular carcinoma and select patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, transplant has been increasingly used to treat patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, as well as metastatic disease from colorectal liver and neuroendocrine primary tumors. Because of the limited availability of grafts and the number of patients on the waiting list, optimal selection criteria must be further defined. The ethics of organ allocation to individuals who may benefit from prolonged survival after transplant yet have a high incidence of recurrence, as well as the role of living donation, need to be further discerned in the setting of transplant oncology.

Liver transplantation access and outcomes: Impact of variations in liver-specific specialty care.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize the impact access to gastroenterologists/hepatologists has on liver transplantation listing, as well as time on the liver transplantation waitlist and post-transplant outcomes. METHODS: Liver transplantation registrants aged >18 years between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2019 were identified from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Standard Analytic Files. The liver transplantation registration ratio was defined as the ratio of liver transplant waitlist registrations in a given county per 1,000 liver-related deaths. RESULTS: A total of 150,679 liver transplantation registrants were included. Access to liver transplantation centers and liver-specific specialty physicians varied markedly throughout the United States. Of note, the liver transplantation registration ratio was lower in counties with poor access to liver-specific care versus counties with adequate access (poor access 137.2, interquartile range 117.8-163.2 vs adequate access 157.6, interquartile range 127.3-192.2, P < .001). Among patients referred for liver transplantation, the cumulative incidence of waitlist mortality and post-transplant graft survival was comparable among patients with poor versus adequate access to liver-specific care (both P > .05). Among liver transplantation recipients living in areas with poor access, after controlling for recipient and donor characteristics, cold ischemic time, and model for end-stage liver disease score, the area deprivation index predicted graft survival (referent, low area deprivation index; medium area deprivation index, hazard ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.03-12.23; high area deprivation index, 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.01-12.09, both P < .05). CONCLUSION: Poor access to liver-specific care was associated with a reduction in liver transplantation registration, and individuals residing in counties with high social deprivation had worse graft survival among patients living in counties with poor access to liver-specific care.

Association of Neighborhood Deprivation and Transplant Center Quality with Liver Transplantation Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health can impact the quality of liver transplantation (LT) care. We sought to assess whether the association between neighborhood deprivation and transplant outcomes can be mitigated by receiving care at high-quality transplant centers. STUDY DESIGN: In this population-based cohort study, patients who underwent LT between 2004 and 2019 were identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. LT-recipient neighborhoods were identified at the county level and stratified into quintiles relative to Area Deprivation Index (ADI). Transplant center quality was based on the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients 5-tier ranking using standardized transplant rate ratios. Multivariable Cox regression was used to assess the relationship between ADI, hospital quality, and posttransplant survival. RESULTS: A total of 41,333 recipients (median age, 57.0 [50.0 to 63.0] years; 27,112 [65.4%] male) met inclusion criteria. Patients residing in the most deprived areas were more likely to have nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, be Black, and travel further distances to reach a transplant center. On multivariable analysis, post-LT long-term mortality was associated with low- vs high-quality transplant centers (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32), as well as among patients residing in high- vs low-ADI neighborhoods (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.34; both p ≤ 0.001). Of note, individuals residing in high- vs low-ADI neighborhoods had a higher risk of long-term mortality after treatment at a low-quality (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.62, p = 0.011) vs high-quality (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.52, p = 0.471) LT center. CONCLUSIONS: LT at high-quality centers may be able to mitigate the association between posttransplant survival and neighborhood deprivation. Investments and initiatives that increase access to referrals to high-quality centers for patients residing in higher deprivation may lead to better outcomes and help mitigate disparities in LT.

Liver transplantation for elderly patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Although liver resection is a viable option for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), liver transplantation is the optimal treatment. The aim of this study was to identify characteristics of liver transplantation for elderly patients, and to assess the therapeutic benefit derived from liver transplantation over liver resection. METHODS: This was a population-based study of patients undergoing liver transplantation for HCC in the USA between 2004 and 2018. Data were retrieved from the National Cancer Database. Elderly patients were defined as individuals aged 70 years and over. Propensity score overlap weighting was used to control for heterogeneity between the liver resection and liver transplantation cohorts. RESULTS: Among 4909 liver transplant recipients, 215 patients (4.1 per cent) were classified as elderly. Among 5922 patients who underwent liver resection, 1907 (32.2 per cent) were elderly. Elderly patients who underwent liver transplantation did not have a higher hazard of dying during the first 5 years after transplantation than non-elderly recipients. After propensity score weighting, liver transplantation was associated with a lower risk of death than liver resection. Other factors associated with overall survival included diagnosis during 2016-2018, non-white/non-African American race, and α-fetoprotein level over 20 ng/dl. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with HCC should not be excluded from liver transplantation based on age only. Transplantation leads to favourable survival compared with liver resection.

Updates and Expert Opinions on Liver Transplantation for Gastrointestinal Malignancies.

Transplant oncology is a relatively new field in which transplantation is used to treat patients who would otherwise be unresectable. New anticancer treatment paradigms using tumor and transplant immunology and cancer immunogenomics are emerging. In turn, liver transplantation (LT) has become a potential therapy for certain patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with liver metastasis, hepatocellular (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), and metastatic neuroendocrine tumor (NET) of the liver. Although there are established criteria for LT in HCC, evidence regarding LT as a treatment modality for certain gastrointestinal malignancies is still debated. The aim of this review is to highlight updates in the role of LT for certain malignancies, including HCC, metastatic CRC, hilar CCA, and neuroendocrine tumor (NET), as well as contextualize LT use and discuss controversies in transplant oncology.

Understanding Concerns about COVID-19 and Vaccination: Perspectives from Kidney Transplant Recipients.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a significant risk for immunosuppressed groups such as transplant patients. The purpose of this study was to improve our understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on kidney transplant recipients, including their views on COVID-19 vaccination. Semi-structured interviews were conducted from December 2021 to August 2022 with 38 kidney transplant recipients who had an appointment with their transplant care team within the previous 6 months. We used qualitative thematic analysis to characterize the perspectives of interviewees. Regardless of COVID-19 vaccination status, most interviewees reported utilizing public health measures such as masking, hand washing, and avoiding crowds to protect themselves against COVID-19. Vaccinated interviewees (n = 31) noted that they chose to receive a COVID-19 vaccine because of their increased risk due to their immunocompromised state. For unvaccinated interviewees (n = 7), reasons for not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine included concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated interviewees expressed concerns about the lack of adequate testing of the vaccine in transplant patients and questioned if the vaccine might have unknown side effects for transplant recipients. Regardless of the vaccination status, most interviewees noted having trust in their healthcare team. Interviewees also described interpersonal tensions that arose during the pandemic, many of which surrounded vaccination and other preventive measures that were important to participants to protect their health. Together, these data demonstrate differing concerns and experiences related to the COVID-19 pandemic for vaccinated and unvaccinated transplant recipients. These findings highlight the unique needs of transplant recipients and reveal opportunities to support this vulnerable patient population in efforts to protect their health as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves.

Outcomes After Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation Using Kidney Allografts With Marginal Perfusion Parameters.

BACKGROUND: This study examines outcomes of deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) in recipients of kidney allografts with marginal perfusion parameters. METHODS: Allografts with marginal perfusion parameters (resistance index [RI] >0.4 and pump flow rate [F] <70 mL/min; MP group) were compared with those with good parameters (RI <0.4 and F >70 mL/min; GP group) for DDKT recipients between January 1996 and November 2017 after hypothermic pulsatile perfusion. Demographics, creatinine, cold ischemia times (CIT), delayed graft function (DGF), and recipient glomerular filtration rate at pre- and post-transplant were noted. The primary outcome was graft survival post-transplant. RESULTS: In the MP (n = 31) versus GP (n = 1281) group, the median recipient was aged 57 years versus 51 years; the median donor was aged 47 versus 37 years; terminal creatinine was 0.9 versus 0.9 mg/dL; CIT was 10.2 versus 13 hours, and the RI and flow were 0.46 and 60 mL/min versus 0.21 and 120 mL/min. The DGF rate was 19% (MP) versus 8% (GP). The graft survival in the MP versus GP group was 81% versus 90% (1 year), 65% versus 79% (3 years), 65% versus 73% (4 years), and 45% versus 68% (5 years). CONCLUSION: Carefully selected kidney allografts after comprehensive donor and recipient evaluation may allow for the use of these routinely discarded kidneys with marginal perfusion parameters.

Intracardiac thrombosis and pulmonary thromboembolism during liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Intracardiac thrombosis and/or pulmonary thromboembolism (ICT/PE) is a rare but devastating complication during liver transplantation. Its pathophysiology remains poorly understood, and successful treatment remains a challenge. This systematic review summarizes the available published clinical data regarding ICT/PE during liver transplantation. Databases were searched for all publications reporting on ICT/PE during liver transplantation. Data collected included its incidence, patient characteristics, the timing of diagnosis, treatment strategies, and patient outcomes. This review included 59 full-text citations. The point prevalence of ICT/PE was 1.42%. Thrombi were most often diagnosed during the neohepatic phase, particularly at allograft reperfusion. Intravenous heparin was effective in preventing early-stage thrombus from progressing further and restoring hemodynamics in 76.32% of patients it was utilized for; however, the addition of tissue plasminogen activator or sole use of tissue plasminogen activator offered diminishing returns. Despite all resuscitation efforts, the in-hospital mortality rate of an intraoperative ICT/PE was 40.42%, with nearly half of these patients dying intraoperatively. The results of our systematic review are an initial step for providing clinicians with data that can help identify higher-risk patients. The clinical implications of our results warrant the development of identification and management strategies for the timely and effective treatment of these tragic occurrences during liver transplantation.

The Impact of a Liver Transplant Program on the Outcomes of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the impact of liver transplantation (LT) programs on the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who underwent liver resection (LR) and noncurative intent treatment. BACKGROUND: LT programs have an array of resources and services that would positively affect the prognosis of patients with HCC. METHODS: Patients who underwent LT, LR, radiotherapy (RT), or chemotherapy (CTx) for HCC between 2004 and 2018 were included in the National Cancer Database. Institutions with LT programs were defined as those that performed 1 or more LT for at least 5 years. Centers were stratified by hospital volume. The impact of LT programs was assessed after propensity score matching to achieve covariate balance. RESULTS: A total of 71,735 patients were identified, of which 7997 received LT (11.1%), 12,683 LR (17.7%), 15,675 RT (21.9%), and 35,380 CTx (49.3%). Among a total of 1267 distinct institutions, 94 (7.4%) were categorized as LT programs. Designation as an LT program was also associated with a high volume of LR and noncurative intent treatment (both P <0.001). After propensity score matching, LT programs were associated with better survival among LR and noncurative intent treatment patients. Although hospital volume was also associated with improved prognosis, LT programs were associated with additional survival benefits in noncurative intent treatment. On the other hand, no such benefit was noted in patients who underwent LR. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of an LT program was associated with a higher volume of LR and noncurative intent treatment. Furthermore, designation as an LT program had a "halo effect" on the prognosis of patients undergoing RT/CTx that went beyond the procedure-volume effect.

Patients are pragmatic and physicians are perfectionists? Comparing success after liver transplantation among patients and physicians.

Although both patients and physicians are key stakeholders in health care outcomes, patients and physicians often define success differently. The purpose of this study was to compare patient and physician perceptions of success 1 year after liver transplantation. This was a single-institution, qualitative study. We conducted in-person, semi-structured interviews with liver transplant recipients 1 year after transplantation and virtual interviews with transplant surgeons and hepatologists. Transcripts were coded and iteratively analyzed for themes using the principles of phenomenology. Twenty patients, 8 caregivers, 5 transplant surgeons, and 4 hepatologists were interviewed. Subject interviews averaged 57 (patient) and 27 (physician) minutes. Overall, patients and physicians had significant agreement in their definitions of success, which included avoidance of death, restoration of physical and mental function, return to society, acquisition of new health care knowledge, and open communication between the patient and the physician. Patients highlighted relief from worry about their future health status, and physicians highlighted decreased health care costs. Patients noted that a liver transplant did not have to be perfect, that is free from complications, to be successful. Physicians had a more stringent view and felt that any deviation from an ideal course reduced the relative success of a transplant. Detailed assessment of patient and physician responses reveals similar overall goals of regaining physical, mental, and emotional function. Complications are perceived differently by patients and physicians. Awareness of this discordance may serve to enhance relationships between transplant patients and their providers.