Adjusting for race in metrics of organ procurement organization performance.

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients has previously reported the effects of adjusting for demographic variables, including race, in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) organ procurement organization (OPO) performance metrics: donation rate and transplant rate. CMS chose not to adjust for most demographic variables other than age (for the transplant rate), arguing that there is no biological reason that these variables would affect the organ donation/utilization decision. However, organ donation is a process based on altruism and trust, not a simple biological phenomenon. Focusing only on biological impacts on health ignores other pathways through which demographic factors can influence OPO outcomes. In this study, we update analyses of demographic adjustment on the OPO metrics for 2020 with a specific focus on adjusting for race. We find that adjusting for race would lead to 8 OPOs changing their CMS tier rankings, including 2 OPOs that actually overperform the national rate among non-White donors improving from a tier 3 ranking (facing decertification without possibility of recompeting) to a tier 2 ranking (allowing the possibility of recompeting). Incorporation of stratified and risk-adjusted metrics in public reporting of OPO performance could help OPOs identify areas for improvement within specific demographic categories.

DCD liver transplant in patients with a MELD over 35.

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

Community-level social vulnerability and individual socioeconomic status on liver transplant referral outcome.

BACKGROUND: Recent endeavors emphasize the importance of understanding early barriers to liver transplantation (LT) by consistently collecting data on patient demographics, socioeconomic factors, and geographic social deprivation indices. METHODS: In this retrospective single-center cohort study of 1657 adults referred for LT evaluation, we assessed the association between community-level vulnerability and individual socioeconomic status measures on the rate of waitlisting and transplantation. Patients' addresses were linked to Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) at the census tract-level to characterize community-level vulnerability. Descriptive statistics were used to describe patient characteristics. Multivariable cause-specific HRs were used to assess the association between community-level vulnerability, individual measures of the socioeconomic status, and LT evaluation outcomes (waitlist and transplantation). RESULTS: Among the 1657 patients referred for LT during the study period, 54% were waitlisted and 26% underwent LT. A 0.1 increase in overall SVI correlated with an 8% lower rate of waitlisting (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.96, p < 0.001), with socioeconomic status, household characteristics, housing type and transportation, and racial and ethnic minority status domains contributing significantly to this association. Patients residing in more vulnerable communities experienced a 6% lower rate of transplantation (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91- 0.98, p = 0.007), with socioeconomic status and household characteristic domain of SVI significantly contributing to this association. At the individual level, both government insurance and employment status were associated with lower rates of waitlisting and transplantation. There was no association with mortality prior to waitlisting or mortality while on the waitlist. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that both individual and community measures of the socioeconomic status (overall SVI) are associated with LT evaluation outcomes. Furthermore, we identified individual measures of neighborhood deprivation associated with both waitlisting and transplantation.

OPTN/SRTR 2021 Annual Data Report: COVID-19.

This chapter updates the COVID-19 chapter from the 2020 Annual Data Report with trends through February 12, 2022, and introduces trends in COVID-19-specific cause of death on the waiting list and posttransplant. Transplant rates remain at or above prepandemic levels for all organs, indicating a sustained transplantation system recovery following the initial 3-month disruption due to the onset of the pandemic. Posttransplant mortality and graft failure remain a concern in all organs, with rates surging corresponding to waves of the pandemic. Waitlist mortality due to COVID-19 is also a concern, particularly among kidney candidates. While the recovery of the transplantation system has been sustained in the second year of the pandemic, ongoing efforts should focus on reducing posttransplant and waitlist mortality due to COVID-19, and graft failure.

Geographic disparities in access to liver transplantation.

Since the Final Rule regarding transplantation was published in 1999, organ distribution policies have been implemented to reduce geographic disparity. While a recent change in liver allocation, termed acuity circles, eliminated the donor service area as a unit of distribution to decrease the geographic disparity of waitlisted patients to liver transplantation, recently published results highlight the complexity of addressing geographic disparity. From geographic variation in donor supply, as well as liver disease burden and differing model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores of candidates and MELD scores necessary to receive liver transplantation, to the urban-rural disparity in specialty care access, and to neighborhood deprivation (community measure of socioeconomic status) in liver transplant access, addressing disparities of access will require a multipronged approach at the patient, transplant center, and national level. Herein, we review the current knowledge of these disparities-from variation in larger (regional) to smaller (census tract or zip code) levels to the common etiologies of liver disease, which are particularly affected by these geographic boundaries. The geographic disparity in liver transplant access must balance the limited organ supply with the growing demand. We must identify patient-level factors that contribute to their geographic disparity and incorporate these findings at the transplant center level to develop targeted interventions. We must simultaneously work at the national level to standardize and share patient data (including socioeconomic status and geographic social deprivation indices) to better understand the factors that contribute to the geographic disparity. The complex interplay between organ distribution policy, referral patterns, and variable waitlisting practices with the proportion of high MELD patients and differences in potential donor supply must all be considered to create a national policy strategy to address the inequities in the system.

Stakeholders' perspectives on transplant metrics: the 2022 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients' consensus conference.

In July 2022, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) hosted an innovative, multistakeholder consensus conference to identify information and metrics desired by stakeholders in the transplantation system, including patients, living donors, caregivers, deceased donor family members, transplant professionals, organ procurement organization professionals, payers, and regulators. Crucially, patients, caregivers, living donors, and deceased donor family members were included in all aspects of this conference, including serving on the planning committee, participating in preconference focus groups and learning sessions, speaking at the conference, moderating conference sessions and breakout groups, and shaping the conclusions. Patients constituted 24% of the meeting participants. In this report, we document the proceedings and enumerate 160 recommendations, 10 of which have been highly prioritized. SRTR will use the recommendations to develop new presentations of information and metrics requested by stakeholders to support informed decision-making.

Time to discard the term "discard".

The 2022 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Consensus Conference "People Driven Transplant Metrics" offered an opportunity for a diverse group of stakeholders in the solid organ transplant community to exchange ideas about what information and metrics are important to different stakeholders. Participating patients and family members called on the transplant community to cease using the term "discards" to refer to donated organs that are not transplanted.

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

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

The Reality of Inadequate Patient Care and the Need for a Global Action Framework in Organ Donation and Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Transplant therapy is considered the best and often the only available treatment for thousands of patients with organ failure that results from communicable and noncommunicable diseases. The number of annual organ transplants is insufficient for the worldwide need. METHODS: We elaborate the proceedings of the workshop entitled "The Role of Science in the Development of International Standards of Organ Donation and Transplantation," organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and cosponsored by the World Health Organization in June 2021. RESULTS: We detail the urgency and importance of achieving national self-sufficiency in organ transplantation as a public health priority and an important contributor to reaching relevant targets of the United Nations Agenda for Sustainable Development. It details the elements of a global action framework intended for countries at every level of economic development to facilitate either the establishment or enhancement of transplant activity. It sets forth a proposed plan, by addressing the technical considerations for developing and optimizing organ transplantation from both deceased and living organ donors and the regulatory oversight of practices. CONCLUSIONS: This document can be used in governmental and policy circles as a call to action and as a checklist for actions needed to enable organ transplantation as treatment for organ failure.

Assessment of Surgeon Performance of Advanced Open Surgical Skills Using a Microskills-Based Novel Curriculum.

Importance: The increase in minimally invasive surgical procedures has eroded exposure of general surgery residents to open operations. High-fidelity simulation, together with deliberate instruction, is needed for advanced open surgical skill (AOSS) development. Objective: To collect validity evidence for AOSS tools to support a shared model for instruction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included postresidency surgeons (PRSs) and second-year general surgery residents (R2s) at a single academic medical center who completed simulated tasks taught within the AOSS curriculum between June 1 and October 31, 2021. Exposures: The AOSS curriculum includes 6 fine-suture and needle handling tasks, including deep suture tying (with and without needles) and continuous suturing using the pitch-and-catch and push-push-pull techniques (both superficial and deep). Teaching and assessment are based on specific microskills using a 3-dimensional printed iliac fossa model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The PRS group was timed and scored (5-point Likert scale) on 10 repetitions of each task. Six months after receiving instruction on the AOSS tasks, the R2 group was similarly timed and scored. Results: The PRS group included 14 surgeons (11 male [79%]; 8 [57%] attending surgeons) who completed the simulation; the R2 group, 9 surgeons (5 female [55%]) who completed the simulation. Score and time variability were greater for the R2s compared with the PRSs for all tasks. The R2s scored lower and took longer on (1) deep pitch-and-catch suturing (69% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 142.0 [31.7] seconds vs 77% for a mean [SD] of 95.9 [29.4] seconds) and deep push-push-pull suturing (63% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 284.0 [72.9] seconds vs 85% for a mean [SD] of 141.4 [29.1] seconds) relative to the corresponding superficial tasks; (2) suture tying with a needle vs suture tying without a needle (74% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 64.6 [19.8] seconds vs 90% for a mean [SD] of 54.4 [15.6] seconds); and (3) the deep push-push-pull vs pitch-and-catch techniques (63% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 284.0 [72.9] seconds vs 69% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 142.0 [31.7] seconds). For the PRS group, time was negatively associated with score for the 3 hardest tasks: superficial push-push-pull (ρ = 0.60; P = .02), deep pitch-and-catch (ρ = 0.73; P = .003), and deep push-push-pull (ρ = 0.81; P < .001). For the R2 group, time was negatively associated with score for the 2 easiest tasks: suture tying without a needle (ρ = 0.78; P = .01) and superficial pitch-and-catch (ρ = 0.79; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study offer validity evidence for a novel AOSS curriculum; reveal differential difficulty of tasks that can be attributed to specific microskills; and suggest that position on the surgical learning curve may dictate the association between competency and speed. Together these findings suggest specific, actionable opportunities to guide instruction of AOSS, including which microskills to focus on, when individual rehearsal vs guided instruction is more appropriate, and when to focus on speed.

Transplant program evaluations in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Potential regional variations in effects of COVID-19 on federally mandated, program-specific evaluations by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) have been controversial. SRTR January 2022 program evaluations ended transplant follow-up on March 12, 2020, and excluded transplants performed from March 13, 2020 to June 12, 2020 (the "carve-out"). This study examined the carve-out's impact, and the effect of additionally censoring COVID-19 deaths, on first-year posttransplant outcomes for transplants from July 2018 through December 2020. Program-specific hazard ratios (HRs) for graft failure and death estimated under two alternative scenarios were compared with published HRs: (1) the carve-out was removed; (2) the carve-out was retained, but deaths due to COVID-19 were additionally censored. The HRs estimated by censoring COVID-19 deaths were highly correlated with those estimated with the carve-out alone (r2  = .96). Removal of the carve-out resulted in greater variation in HRs while remaining highly correlated (r2  = .82); however, little geographic impact of the carve-out was observed. The carve-out increased average HR in the Northwest by 0.049; carve-out plus censoring reduced average HR in the Midwest by 0.009. Other regions of the country were not significantly affected. Thus, the current COVID-19 carve-out does not appear to impart substantial bias based on the region of the country.

Pancreas Transplantation for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review, Critical Gaps in the Literature, and a Path Forward.

Pancreas transplantation in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains relatively uncommon compared with pancreas transplantation in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, several studies have suggested similar outcomes between T2D and T1D, and the practice has become increasingly common. Despite this growing interest in pancreas transplantation in T2D, no study has systematically summarized the data to date. We systematically reviewed the literature on pancreas transplantation in T2D patients including patient and graft survival, glycemic control outcomes, and comparisons with outcomes in T2D kidney transplant alone and T1D pancreas transplant recipients. We searched biomedical databases from January 1, 2000, to January 14, 2021, and screened 3314 records, of which 22 full texts and 17 published abstracts met inclusion criteria. Full-text studies were predominantly single center (73%), whereas the remaining most often studied the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. Methodological quality was mixed with frequent concern for selection bias and concern for inconsistent definitions of both T2D and pancreas graft survival across studies. Overall, studies generally reported favorable patient survival, graft survival, and glycemic control outcomes for pancreas transplantation in T2D and expressed a need to better characterize the T2D patients who would benefit most from pancreas transplantation. We suggest guidance for future studies, with the aim of supporting the safe and evidence-based treatment of end-stage T2D and judicious use of scarce resources.

Toward continuous improvement of Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients performance reporting: Advances following 2012 consensus conference and future consensus building for 2022 consensus conference.

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) held a consensus conference in 2012 that examined methods used by SRTR for constructing performance metrics and made recommendations on how to improve program-specific reports. That consensus conference provided 25 recommendations categorized as follows: statistical methods, risk adjustment, and outcomes and data. During the subsequent decade, SRTR has implemented most of these recommendations; these are described in this article along with plans for another consensus conference in 2022. With the present article, SRTR aims to create transparency in the field of transplant metrics and guide discussion in the planning of the next consensus conference in 2022. The new conference will revisit the previous topics and have a broader focus to improve the metrics and information that SRTR provides. Readers can provide feedback on topics to be discussed at the next consensus conference as early as possible, by emailing srtr@srtr.org with the subject line "Task 5 Public Comment."

Surgical complications after living and deceased donor liver transplant: The NSQIP transplant experience.

This study used the prospective National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Transplant pilot database to analyze surgical complications after liver transplantation (LT) in LT recipients from 2017to 2019. The primary outcome was surgical complication requiring intervention (Clavien-Dindo grade II or greater) within 90 days of transplant. Of the 1684 deceased donor and 109 living donor LT cases included from 29 centers, 38% of deceased donor liver recipients and 47% of living donor liver recipients experienced a complication. The most common complications included biliary complications (19% DDLT; 31% LDLT), hemorrhage requiring reoperation (14% DDLT; 9% LDLT), and vascular complications (6% DDLT; 9% LDLT). Management of biliary leaks (35.3% ERCP, 38.0% percutaneous drainage, 26.3% reoperation) and vascular complications (36.2% angioplasty/stenting, 31.2% medication, 29.8% reoperation) was variable. Biliary (aHR 5.14, 95% CI 2.69-9.8, P < .001), hemorrhage (aHR 2.54, 95% CI 1.13-5.7, P = .024) and vascular (aHR 2.88, 95% CI .85-9.7, P = .089) complication status at 30-days post-transplant were associated with lower 1-year patient survival. We conclude that biliary, hemorrhagic and vascular complications continue to be significant sources of morbidity and mortality for LT recipients. Understanding the different risk factors for complications between deceased and living donor liver recipients and standardizing complication management represent avenues for continued improvement.

Long-term Outcomes Following Kidney and Liver Transplant in Recipients With HIV.

Importance: Kidney transplant (KT) and liver transplant (LT) in HIV-positive patients have become more widely adopted. Data looking at long-term outcomes of patient and graft survival are lacking. Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of KT and LT in HIV-positive recipients with matched HIV-negative recipients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, single-center, cohort, study using data from 2000 to 2019. Patients were observed until death, or graft failure requiring retransplant. All HIV-positive patients who underwent KT and/or LT between 2000 and 2019 were included. Propensity matching was performed to the corresponding HIV-negative cohort, which was obtained from the University of California, San Francisco's transplant recipient registry. The data were analyzed from 2020 to 2021. Exposures: HIV infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient and graft survival for KT and patient survival for LT. Incidence of acute rejection and its association with KT graft survival. Results: For KT, 655 HIV-negative recipients (mean [SD] age, 52.3 [13.6] years; 450 [68.7%] were men) and 119 HIV-positive recipients (mean [SD] age, 51.7 [9.4] years; 86 [72.3%] were men) were included. Patient survival was 79.6% (95% CI, 73.6%-86.1%) and 53.6% (95% CI, 38.9%-74.0%) at 15 years posttransplant, respectively. Graft survival was 57.0% (95% CI, 47.8%-68.0%) and 75.0% (95% CI, 65.3%-86.2%) at 15 years posttransplant, respectively. Diagnosis of HIV was not associated with worse graft survival (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.61-1.97; P = .77). For LT, 80 HIV-positive recipients (mean [SD] age, 52.6 [8.2] years; 53 [66.3%] were men) and 440 HIV-negative recipients (mean [SD] age, 54.6 [12.8] years; 291 [66.1%] were men) were included. Patient survival was 75.7% (95% CI, 71.8%-79.8%) for HIV-negative LT recipients and 70.0% (95% CI, 60.6%-80.8%) for HIV-positive LT recipients at 15 years posttransplant. Diagnosis of HIV was not a statistically significant predictor of patient survival (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.83-2.24; P = .22). In KT, HIV-positive patients with at least 1 episode of acute rejection had a graft survival of 52.8% (95% CI, 38.4%-72.5%; P < .001) at 15 years posttransplant, compared with 91.8% in those without AR. Conclusions and Relevance: In this single-center cohort study, KT and LT in HIV-positive patients had comparable long-term outcomes with those in matched HIV-negative patients. The high incidence of acute rejection was associated with reduced graft survival. The findings support providing transplant to HIV-positive patients, which may be an appropriate use of transplant resources and provides equitable access for HIV-positive patients.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the size of US transplant waiting lists.

BACKGROUND: More patients are waitlisted for solid organs than transplants are performed each year. The COVID-19 pandemic immediately increased waitlist mortality and decreased transplants and listings. METHODS: To calculate the number of candidate listings after the pandemic began and short-term changes that may affect waiting time, we conducted a Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients surveillance study from January 1, 2012 to February 28, 2021. RESULTS: The number of candidates on the liver waitlist continued a steady decline that began before the pandemic. Numbers of candidates on the kidney, heart, and lung waitlists decreased dramatically. More than 3000 fewer candidates were awaiting a kidney transplant on March 7, 2021, than on March 8, 2020. Listings and removals decreased for each solid organ beginning in March 2020. The number of heart and lung listings returned to equal or above that of removals. Listings for kidney transplant, which is often less urgent than heart and lung transplant, remain below numbers of removals. Removals due to transplant decreased for all organs, while removals due to death increased for only kidneys. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of the predicted surge in listings for solid organ transplant with a plateau or control of the pandemic.

The Impact of Median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease at Transplant Minus 3 National Policy on Waitlist Outcomes in Patients With and Without Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

As a result of ongoing regional disparities, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) implemented policy in May 2019 limiting exception points for waitlisted patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease at transplant in the area surrounding a transplant center minus 3 points (MMAT-3). The impact of this policy change remains unknown. We included adult patients with HCC (n = 4567) and without HCC (n = 19,773) in the UNOS database added to the waiting list before this policy change (May 7, 2017-May 18, 2019) and after (May 19, 2019-March 7, 2020). Cumulative incidence analysis estimated the probability of dropout within 1 year of listing decreased from 12.9% before the policy to 11.1% after the policy in candidates without HCC and from 14% to 10.7% in candidates with HCC. Incidence rates of liver transplantation (LT) and waitlist dropout varied significantly before the policy in patients with HCC and without HCC but nearly equalized in the postpolicy era. These effects were observed in both shorter and longer wait regions. With policy change being modeled as a time-dependent covariate, competing risk regression analyses estimated a decreased risk of dropout after policy change in the non-HCC group (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.91; P = 0.02) after adjusting for demographic variables. These results suggest that the MMAT-3 policy has successfully reduced disparities in access to LT including across UNOS wait regions, although certain patients with HCC are now disadvantaged.

The Effect of Acuity Circles on Deceased Donor Transplant and Offer Rates Across Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Scores and Exception Statuses.

Acuity circles (AC), the new liver allocation system, was implemented on February 4, 2020. Difference-in-differences analyses estimated the effect of AC on adjusted deceased donor transplant and offer rates across Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) categories and types of exception statuses. The offer rates were the number of first offers, top 5 offers, and top 10 offers on the match run per person-year. Each analysis adjusted for candidate characteristics and only used active candidate time on the waiting list. The before-AC period was February 4, 2019, to February 3, 2020, and the after-AC period was February 4, 2020, to February 3, 2021. Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 and PELD/MELD scores 33 to 36 had higher transplant rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 after AC compared with before AC (transplant rate ratios: PELD/MELD scores 29-32, 2.34 3.324.71 ; PELD/MELD scores 33-36, 1.70 2.513.71 ). Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 or higher had higher offer rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28, and candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 had the largest difference (offer rate ratios [ORR]: first offers, 2.77 3.955.63 ; top 5 offers, 3.90 4.394.95 ; top 10 offers, 4.85 5.305.80 ). Candidates with exceptions had lower offer rates than candidates without exceptions for offers in the top 5 (ORR: hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], 0.68 0.770.88 ; non-HCC, 0.73 0.810.89 ) and top 10 (ORR: HCC, 0.59 0.650.71 ; non-HCC, 0.69 0.750.81 ). Recipients with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 and an HCC exception received a larger proportion of donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors after AC than before AC, although the differences in the liver donor risk index were comparatively small. Thus, candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 34 and no exceptions had better access to transplant after AC, and donor quality did not notably change beyond the proportion of DCD donors.