Bridge to simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation via extracorporeal life support: National outcomes in the new heart allocation policy era.

BACKGROUND: Since United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) revised their heart allocation policy in 2018, usage of veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) has dramatically increased as a bridge to transplant. This study investigated outcomes of VA-ECLS patients bridged to simultaneous heart-kidney transplant (SHK) in the new policy era. METHODS: This study included 774 adult patients from the UNOS database who received SHK between 10/18/18 and 12/31/21 and compared patients bridged to transplant on VA-ECLS (n = 50) with those not bridged (n = 724). RESULTS: At baseline, SHK recipients bridged from VA-ECLS were younger (50.5 vs 58.0 years, p = 0.007), had higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at time of transplant (47.6 vs 30.1, p < 0.001), and spent fewer days on the waitlist (7.0 vs 33.5 days, p < 0.001). In the perioperative period, VA-ECLS was associated with higher rates of temporary dialysis (56.0% vs 28.0%, p < 0.001) but similar 2-year cumulative incidence of chronic dialysis (7.5% vs 5.4%, p = 0.800) and renal allograft failure (12.0% vs 8.1%, p = 0.500) compared to non-ECLS cohort. However, VA-ECLS patients had decreased survival to discharge (76.0% vs 92.7%, p < 0.001) and 2-year post-transplant survival (71.7% vs 83.0%, p = 0.004), as well as greater 2-year cumulative incidence of cardiac allograft failure (10.0% vs 2.7%, p = 0.002). Multivariable analyses found VA-ECLS at time of transplant to be independently associated with 2-year post-transplant mortality (HR [95% CI]: 3.40 [1.66-6.96], p = 0.001) and cardiac allograft failure (sub-distribution hazard ratio [SHR] [95% CI]: 8.51 [2.77-26.09], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Under the new allocation policy, patients bridged to SHK from VA-ECLS displayed greater early mortality and cardiac allograft failure but similar renal outcomes compared to non-ECLS counterparts.

Outcomes of single vs double lung retransplantation in patients with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring lung transplant for cystic fibrosis (CF) may require retransplant due to limited graft survival and otherwise excellent life expectancy. Optimal transplant strategy for this population, including single vs double lung retransplant, has not been established. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (UNOS/OPTN) database to identify adult lung retransplant recipients from 2005 to 2021 with a primary diagnosis of CF. Patients were stratified by retransplant type (single lung [re-SLTx] vs double lung [re-DLTx] retransplant). Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and multivariable Cox regression were performed. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2021, 384 recipients underwent retransplant after an initial transplant for an indication of CF; more recipients underwent re-DLTx (N = 337 [87.8%]) than re-SLTx (N = 47 [12.2%]). The median (IQR) time from initial transplant to retransplant was similar between re-SLTx and re-DLTx recipients (4.4 [2.9-8.6] vs 4.6 [2.6-7.4] years, p = 0.73). Ischemic time was shorter and lung allocation score was lower for re-SLTx than re-DLTx recipients. Median survival after retransplant was significantly shorter for re-SLTx vs re-DLTx recipients (2.0 [95% CI 1.2-3.5] vs 4.3 [95% CI 3.5-6.1] years post-retransplant, p = 0.008). Median survival for adults with CF undergoing primary transplant for CF in the same period was 9.1 (8.5-9.9) years. After adjusting for donor and recipient characteristics, re-SLTx in patients with CF was associated with 88% higher hazard of mortality than re-DLTx (aHR=1.88 [95% CI 1.28-2.78], p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of lung retransplant in recipients with CF, re-SLTx was associated with a higher hazard of mortality compared to re-DLTx, supporting re-DLTx as treatment for this population.

Regional disparities in heart transplant mortality in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Mortality after heart transplantation can be influenced by multiple factors. This study analyzed its variation across 4 regions of the United States. OBJECTIVE: Analyze the differences in mortality among patients receiving a heart transplant across 4 regions of the United States. METHODS: Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry was analyzed for adult heart transplant recipients from 1987-2023. They were divided into 4 regions according to heart transplant recipients' residence: the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. The endpoint was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 33,482 heart transplant recipients were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics differed by region. The median survival (years) was lower in the South [Northeast 12.9 (6.1-17.9), Midwest 13.1 (6.5-18.1), South 11.6 (5.3-16.8), West 13.6 (7.0-18.6); p<0.0001]. Mortality incidence rate was greater in the South. When compared to the Northeast, in the unadjusted analysis, mortality was higher in the South [HR 1.13 (95%CI 1.07-1.19), p<0.001] and lower in the West [HR 0.89 (95%CI 0.83-0.94), p<0.001]. After adjusting for demographic and clinical variables, only the South retained significant differences [HR 1.17 (95%CI 1.10-1.24), p<0.001]. Mortality significantly increased in all regions after 2018. CONCLUSION: Mortality of heart transplant recipients varies across region of residence in the United States. A significant increase in adjusted mortality was observed in the South. These findings suggest that there are regional disparities in the mortality rates of heart transplant recipients.

Procurement Trends, Indications, and Outcomes of Heart-Lung Transplantation in the Contemporary Era.

BACKGROUND: Evolving trends in organ procurement and technological innovation prompted an investigation into recent trends, indications, and outcomes following combined heart-lung transplantation (HLTx). METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for all adult (≥18 years) HLTx performed between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2023. Patients with previous transplants were excluded. The primary endpoint was the effect of donor, recipient, and transplantation characteristics on 1- and 5-year survival. Secondary analyses included a comparison of HLTx at high- and low-volume centers, an assessment of HLTx following donation after circulatory death (DCD), and an evaluation of HLTx volume over time. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to assess factors associated with mortality. Temporal trends were evaluated with linear regression. RESULTS: After exclusions, 319 patients were analyzed, of whom 5 (1.6%) were DCD. HLTx volume increased from 2013 to 2023 (p < 0.001). One- and 5-year survival following HLTx was 84.0% and 59.5%, respectively. One-year survival was higher for patients undergoing HLTx at a high-volume center (88.3% vs. 77.9%; p = 0.012). After risk adjustment, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support 72 h posttransplant and predischarge dialysis were associated with increased 1-year mortality (HR = 3.19, 95% CI = 1.86-5.49 and HR = 3.47, 95% CI = 2.17-5.54, respectively) and 5-year mortality (HR = 2.901, 95% CI = 1.679-5.011 and HR = 3.327, 95% CI = 2.085-5.311, respectively), but HLTx at a high-volume center was not associated with either. CONCLUSIONS: HLTx volume has resurged, with DCD HLTx emerging as a viable procurement strategy. Factors associated with 1- and 5-year survival may be used to guide postoperative management following HLTx.

Durable left ventricular assist devices as a bridge to transplantation: what to expect along the way?

INTRODUCTION: The scarcity of donors coupled with the improvements in left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) technology has led to the use of LVAD as a bridge to transplantation (BTT). AREAS COVERED: The authors provide an overview of the current status of LVAD BTT implantation with special focus ranging from patient selection and pre-implantation optimization to post-transplant outcomes. EXPERT OPINION: The United Network for Organ Sharing 2018 policy amendment resulted in a significant reduction in the number of LVADs used for BTT in the US. To overcome this issue, modifications in the US allocation policy to consider factors such as days on device support, age, and type of complications may be necessary to potentially increase implantation rates.

Primary Team Versus Local Recovery in Liver Transplantation in the Modern Era: A National Analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing Database.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of acuity circles (AC) in 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of local surgeons to recover livers for transplant; however, the impact on liver transplant (LT) outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Deceased donor adult LT recipients from the UNOS database were identified.  Recipients were grouped by donor surgeon: local versus primary recovery.  Patient and graft survival as well as trends in local recovery in the 2 years pre-AC and post-AC were assessed. RESULTS: The utilization of local recovery in LT increased from 22.3% to 37.9% post-AC (p < 0.01).  LTs with local recovery had longer cold ischemia times (6.5 h [5.4-7.8] vs. 5.3 h [4.4-6.5], p < 0.01) and traveled further (210 miles [89-373] vs. 73 miles [11-196], p < 0.01) than those using primary recovery. Multivariate analyses revealed no differences in patient or graft survival between local and primary recovery, and between OPO and local surgeon. There was no difference in survival when comparing simultaneous liver-kidney, donation after circulatory death, MELD ≥ 30, or redo-LT by recovery team.  Recovery and utilization rates were also noted to be higher post-AC (51.4% vs. 48.6% pre-AC, p < 0.01) as well as when OPO surgeons recovered the allografts (72.5% vs. 66.0%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Nearly 40% of LTs are performed using local recovery, and utilization rates and trends continue to change with changing organ-sharing paradigms such as AC.  This practice appears safe with outcomes similar to recovery by the primary team in appropriately selected recipients and may lead to increased access and the ability to transplant more livers.

Assessing the Role of Primary Heart Failure Etiology on Cardiac Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There are diverse indications for heart transplantation (HTx), often categorized into ischemic (ICM) and nonischemic (NICM) cardiomyopathy. Although there is extensive research comparing the outcomes for these disease processes following certain therapeutic interventions, there are limited data on how recipient etiology impacts post-HTx survival. Our investigation seeks to identify this relationship. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using adult HTx patients from the United Network for Organ Sharing database between 2000 and 2021. Patients with a combined heart-lung transplant or previous HTx were excluded. ICM included coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. NICM included nonischemic dilated (NIDCM), hypertrophic (HCM), and restrictive (RCM) cardiomyopathy. Overall survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: A total of 42 268 patients were included in our study. Recipients with ICM were older and more likely to be males, obese, diabetics, and smokers. We found that patients with ICM had an increased incidence of transplant CAD (OR = 1.23, p < 0.001) and risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.22, p < 0.001) compared to NICM. When NICM was expanded, RCM had a similar hazard risk compared to ICM (HR = 1.03, p = 0.650), whereas both NIDCM (HR = 0.81, p < 0.001) and HCM (HR = 0.70, p < 0.001) had improved survival. CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence to suggest that ICM has decreased survival when compared to NICM. When NICM was expanded, RCM was found to have an increased mortality risk similar to ICM, whereas NIDCM and HCM both had superior outcomes. The clinical implication of this investigation will allow clinicians to better understand the prognosis of certain patient groups.

Three-Year Left Ventricular Assist Device Outcomes and Strategy After Heart Transplant Allocation Score Change.

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) adopted new criteria for the heart allocation score on October 18, 2018 to reflect the changing trends of candidates' mortality while awaiting transplant. We examined the impact of these policy changes on rates of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and outcomes after transplant from a relatively newer UNOS database. The UNOS registry was used to identify first-time adult heart recipients with LVAD at listing or transplant who underwent transplantation between January 1, 2016 and March 10, 2020. Survival data were collected through March 30, 2023. Those listed before October 18, 2018 but transplanted after were excluded. Patients were divided into before or after change groups. Demographics and clinical parameters were compared. Survival was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. A p <0.05 was considered significant. We identified 4,387 heart recipients with LVAD in the before (n = 3,606) and after (n = 781) score change eras. The after group had a lower rate of LVAD implantation while listed than the before group (20.4% vs 34.9%, p <0.0001), and were more likely to be female (25.1% vs 20.2%, p = 0.002); in both groups, most recipients (62.8%) were white. There was significantly farther distance from the donor hospital to transplant center in the after group (264.4 NM vs 144.2 NM, p <0.0001) and decreased waitlist days (84.9 ± 105.1 vs 369.2 ± 459.5, p <0.0001). Recipients in the after group were more likely to use extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (3.7% vs 0.5%, p <0.0001) and intravenous inotropes (19.1% vs 7.5%, p <0.0001) and receive a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention increased risk donor organ (37.9% vs 30.5%, p <0.0001). Survival at 3 years was comparable between the 2 groups. The allocation score change in 2018 yielded considerable changes in mechanical circulatory support device implantation strategy and outcomes. The rate of LVAD implantation decreased with increased utilization of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices.

Etiology-Specific Effects of Impaired Functional Status on Liver Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pre-liver transplant (LT) functional status is an important determinant of prognosis post LT. There is insufficient data on how functional status affects outcomes of transplant recipients based on the specific etiology of liver disease. We stratified LT recipients by etiology of liver disease to evaluate the effects of functional status on post-LT prognosis in each subgroup. METHODS: 2005-2019 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Standard Transplant Analysis and Research (STAR) was used to select patients with liver transplant. A total of 14,290 patients were included in the analysis. These patients were stratified by functional status according to Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score: no assistance, some assistance, or total assistance. They were then further divided into six diagnosis categories: metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hereditary disorders, hepatitis C, hepatitis B, autoimmune disease (AID), and alcoholic liver disease (ALD). Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and graft failure, while secondary endpoints included organ-specific causes of death. Those under the age of 18 and those with non-whole liver or prior liver transplantation were excluded. RESULTS: Patients with MASLD requiring some assistance (aHR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.03-2.39, p = 0.04) and those requiring total assistance (aHR: 2.32, 95% CI 1.48-3.64, p < 0.001) had higher incidences of graft failure compared to those requiring no assistance. Those with MASLD requiring total assistance had a higher all-cause mortality rate than those needing no assistance (aHR: 1.62, 95% CI 1.38-1.89, p < 0.001). Patients with hereditary causes of liver disease showed a lower incidence of all-cause mortality in recipients needing some assistance compared with those needing no assistance (aHR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.34-0.80, p = 0.003). LT recipients with hepatitis C, AID, and ALD all showed higher incidences of all-cause mortality in the total assistance cohort when compared to the no assistance cohort. For the secondary endpoints of specific cause of death, transplant recipients with MASLD needing total assistance had higher rates of death due to general cardiac causes, graft rejection, general infectious causes, sepsis, general renal causes, and general respiratory causes. CONCLUSION: Patients with MASLD cirrhosis demonstrated the worst overall outcomes, suggesting that this population may be particularly vulnerable. Poor functional status in patients with end-stage liver disease from hepatitis B or hereditary disease was not associated with a significantly increased rate of adverse outcomes, suggesting that the KPS score may not be broadly applicable to all patients awaiting LT.

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.

The Spread Pattern of New Practice in Liver Transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Introducing new liver transplantation (LT) practices, like unconventional donor use, incurs higher costs, making evaluation of their prognostic justification crucial. This study reexamines the spread pattern of new LT practices and its prognosis across the United States. METHODS: The study investigated the spread pattern of new practices using the UNOS database (2014-2023). Practices included LT for hepatitis B/C (HBV/HCV) nonviremic recipients with viremic donors, LT for COVID-19-positive recipients, and LT using onsite machine perfusion (OMP). One year post-LT patient and graft survival were also evaluated. RESULTS: LTs using HBV/HCV donors were common in the East, while LTs for COVID-19 recipients and those using OMP started predominantly in California, Arizona, Texas, and the Northeast. K-means cluster analysis identified three adoption groups: facilities with rapid, slow, and minimal adoption rates. Rapid adoption occurred mainly in high-volume centers, followed by a gradual increase in middle-volume centers, with little increase in low-volume centers. The current spread patterns did not significantly affect patient survival. Specifically, for LTs with HCV donors or COVID-19 recipients, patient and graft survivals in the rapid-increasing group was comparable to others. In LTs involving OMP, the rapid- or slow-increasing groups tended to have better patient survival (p = 0.05) and significantly improved graft survival rates (p = 0.02). Facilities adopting new practices often overlap across different practices. DISCUSSION: Our analysis revealed three distinct adoption groups across all practices, correlating the adoption aggressiveness with LT volume in centers. Aggressive adoption of new practices did not compromise patient and graft survivals, supporting the current strategy. Understanding historical trends could predict the rise in future LT cases with new practices, aiding in resource distribution.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Stroke After Combined Heart-Kidney and Heart-Liver Transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: While stroke is a well-recognized complication of isolated heart transplantation, stroke in patients undergoing simultaneous heart-liver (HLT) and heart-kidney transplantation (HKT) has not been explored. This study assessed postoperative stroke incidence, risk factors, and outcomes in HLT and HKT compared with isolated heart transplant. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for adult patients undergoing HLT, HKT, and isolated heart transplants between 1994 and 2022. Patients were stratified by presence of in-hospital stroke after transplant. Post-transplant survival at 1-year was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests. Separate multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to identify risk factors for stroke after HKT and HLT. RESULTS: Of 2326 HKT recipients, 85 experienced stroke, and of 442 HLT recipients, 19 experienced stroke. Stroke was more common after HKT and HLT than after an isolated heart transplant (3.7% vs. 4.3% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.01). One-year post-transplant survival was lower in those with stroke among both HKT recipients (64.5% vs. 88.7%, p(log-rank) < 0.001) and HLT recipients (43.8% vs. 87.4%, p(log-rank) < 0.001. Pre-transplant pVAD, prior stroke, postoperative dialysis, diabetes, prior cardiac surgery, and heart cold ischemic time were independent risk factors for stroke after HKT, after adjusting for age, sex, and need for blood transfusion on the waitlist. For HLT, postoperative dialysis was a significant risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke is more common after HKT and HLT than after isolated heart transplant, and results in poor survival. Independent risk factors for stroke include pre-transplant percutaneous VAD (HKT) and postoperative dialysis (HKT and HLT).

An explainable machine learning approach using contemporary UNOS data to identify patients who fail to bridge to heart transplantation.

Background: The use of Intra-aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) and Impella devices as a bridge to heart transplantation (HTx) has increased significantly in recent times. This study aimed to create and validate an explainable machine learning (ML) model that can predict the failure of status two listings and identify the clinical features that significantly impact this outcome. Methods: We used the UNOS registry database to identify HTx candidates listed as UNOS Status 2 between 2018 and 2022 and supported with either Impella (5.0 or 5.5) or IABP. We used the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm to build and validate ML models. We developed two models: (1) a comprehensive model that included all patients in our cohort and (2) separate models designed for each of the 11 UNOS regions. Results: We analyzed data from 4,178 patients listed as Status 2. Out of them, 12% had primary outcomes indicating Status 2 failure. Our ML models were based on 19 variables from the UNOS data. The comprehensive model had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (±0.03), with a range between 0.44 (±0.08) and 0.74 (±0.01) across different regions. The models' specificity ranged from 0.75 to 0.96. The top five most important predictors were the number of inotropes, creatinine, sodium, BMI, and blood group. Conclusion: Using ML is clinically valuable for highlighting patients at risk, enabling healthcare providers to offer intensified monitoring, optimization, and care escalation selectively.

Machine Learning Approach for Cardiovascular Death Prediction among Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH) Liver Transplant Recipients.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality among nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) patients who undergo liver transplants. In the present study, machine learning algorithms were used to identify important risk factors for cardiovascular death and to develop a prediction model. The Standard Transplant Analysis and Research data were gathered from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. After cleaning and preprocessing, the dataset comprised 10,871 patients and 92 features. Recursive feature elimination (RFE) and select from model (SFM) were applied to select relevant features from the dataset and avoid overfitting. Multiple machine learning algorithms, including logistic regression, random forest, decision tree, and XGBoost, were used with RFE and SFM. Additionally, prediction models were developed using a support vector machine, Gaussian naïve Bayes, K-nearest neighbors, random forest, and XGBoost algorithms. Finally, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) were used to increase interpretability. The findings showed that the best feature selection method was RFE with a random forest estimator, and the most critical features were recipient and donor blood type, body mass index, recipient and donor state of residence, serum creatinine, and year of transplantation. Furthermore, among all the outcomes, the XGBoost model had the highest performance, with an accuracy value of 0.6909 and an area under the curve value of 0.86. The findings also revealed a predictive relationship between features and cardiovascular death after liver transplant among NASH patients. These insights may assist clinical decision-makers in devising strategies to prevent cardiovascular complications in post-liver transplant NASH patients.

Long-Term Outcomes After Lung Transplantation in Children With Intellectual Disabilities.

BACKGROUND: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) started recording data on intellectual disability status in 2008. This study aimed to characterize the long-term outcomes for children with intellectual disabilities (IDs) undergoing lung transplantation. METHODS: All pediatric patients (under 18 years old) undergoing bilateral lung transplantation were identified using the UNOS database. The patients were grouped into the following categories: no cognitive delay, possible cognitive delay, and definite cognitive delay. The primary endpoint was graft survival at 3-year posttransplantation. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate the independent effect of cognitive disability on graft survival. RESULTS: Five hundred four pediatric patients who underwent lung transplantation between March 2008 and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. 59 had a definite cognitive delay (12%), 23 had a possible delay (5%), and 421 had no delay (83%). When comparing these three groups, there was no significant difference in 60-day graft survival (p = 0.4), 3-year graft survival (p = 0.6), 3-year graft survival for patients who survived at least 60-day posttransplantation (p = 0.9), distribution of causes of death (p = 0.24), nor distribution treatment of rejection within 1-year posttransplantation (p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Intellectual disability does not impact long-term outcomes after bilateral lung transplantation. Intellectual disability should not be a contraindication to bilateral lung transplantation on the basis of inferior graft survival.

The suggestion of mitigating disparity in the liver transplantation field among ABO blood type.

Medical literature highlights differences in liver transplantation (LT) waitlist experiences among ABO blood types. Type AB candidates reportedly have higher LT rates and reduced mortality. Despite liver offering guidelines, ABO disparities persist. This study examines LT access discrepancies among blood types, focusing on type AB, and seeks equitable strategies. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2003-2022), 170 276 waitlist candidates were retrospectively analyzed. Dual predictive analyses (LT opportunity and survival studies) evaluated 1-year recipient pool survival, considering waitlist and post-LT survival, alongside anticipated allocation value per recipient, under 6 scenarios. Of the cohort, 97 670 patients (57.2%) underwent LT. Type AB recipients had the highest LT rate (73.7% vs 55.2% for O), shortest median waiting time (90 vs 198 days for A), and lowest waitlist mortality (12.9% vs 23.9% for O), with the lowest median model for end-stage liver disease-sodium (MELD-Na) score (20 vs 25 for A/O). The LT opportunity study revealed that reallocating type A (or A and O) donors originally for AB recipients to A recipients yielded the greatest reduction in disparities in anticipated value per recipient, from 0.19 (before modification) to 0.08. Meanwhile, the survival study showed that ABO-identical LTs reduced disparity the most (3.5% to 2.8%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings were specific to the MELD-Na score < 30 population, indicating current LT allocation may favor certain blood types. Prioritizing ABO-identical LTs for MELD-Na score < 30 recipients could ensure uniform survival outcomes and mitigate disparities.

The impact of macro- and micro-steatosis on the outcomes of patients who undergo liver transplant: Analysis of the UNOS-STAR database.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The presence of steatosis in a donor liver and its relation to post-transplantation outcomes are not well defined. This study evaluates the effect of the presence and severity of micro- and macro-steatosis of a donor graft on post-transplantation outcomes. METHODS: The UNOS-STAR registry (2005-2019) was used to select patients who received a liver transplant graft with hepatic steatosis. The study cohort was stratified by the presence of macro- or micro-vesicular steatosis, and further stratified by histologic grade of steatosis. The primary endpoints of all-cause mortality and graft failure were compared using sequential Cox regression analysis. Analysis of specific causes of mortality was further performed. RESULTS: There were 9184 with no macro-steatosis (control), 150 with grade 3 macro-steatosis, 822 with grade 2 macro-steatosis and 12 585 with grade 1 macro-steatosis. There were 10 320 without micro-steatosis (control), 478 with grade 3 micro-steatosis, 1539 with grade 2 micro-steatosis and 10 404 with grade 1 micro-steatosis. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality or graft failure among recipients who received a donor organ with any evidence of macro- or micro-steatosis, compared to those receiving non-steatotic grafts. There was increased mortality due to cardiac arrest among recipients of a grade 2 macro-steatosis donor organ. CONCLUSION: This study shows no significant difference in all-cause mortality or graft failure among recipients who received a donor liver with any degree of micro- or macro-steatosis. Further analysis identified increased mortality due to specific aetiologies among recipients receiving donor organs with varying grades of macro- and micro-steatosis.

Impact of age over 70 years in the new allocation system on the outcomes of heart transplantation in the US.

BACKGROUND: United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation criteria changed in 2018 to accommodate the increased prevalence of patients on a ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplant and prioritize sicker people in anticipation of a heart graft. We aimed to assess the impact of patient age in the new allocation policy on mortality following heart transplantation. Secondary outcomes included the effect of age ≥70 on post-transplant events, including stroke, dialysis, pacemaker, and rejection requiring treatment. METHODS: The UNOS Registry was queried to identify patients who underwent heart transplants alone in the US between 2000 and 2021. Patients were divided into groups according to their age (over 70 and under 70 years old). RESULTS: Patients aged over 70 were more likely to require dialysis during follow-up, but less likely to experience rejection requiring treatment, compared with patients aged <70. Age ≥70 in the new allocation system was a significant predictor of 1-year mortality (adjusted HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.05-1.91; p = .024), but its effect on 5-year mortality was not significant after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted HR: 1.27; 95% CI:.97-1.66; p = .077). Undergoing transplantation under the new allocation policy vs the old allocation policy was not a significant predictor of mortality in patients over 70 years old. CONCLUSIONS: Age ≥70 is a significant predictor of 1-year mortality following heart transplantation, but not at 5 and 10 years; however, the new allocation does not seem to have changed the outcomes for this group of patients.

Influence of cardiac diagnosis on outcomes of pediatric heart-lung transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Pediatric Heart-lung transplant (HLTX) is performed for endstage congenital heart disease (CHD) with irreversible pulmonary hypertension or non-congenital heart disease (NCHD) with end-stage heart and lung disease. CHD could influence the outcomes of HTLX due to increased complexity of the operation as compared to NCHD. In this study we evaluated the influence of cardiac diagnosis on outcomes of pediatric HTLX. METHODS: The UNOS database (1987-2022) was queried for primary HTLX in patients <18 years. The data were extracted for demographics, pretransplant characteristics, post-transplant outcomes, and analyzed for the impact of cardiac diagnosis on post-transplant outcomes. Standard statistical tests were used. Survival was compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Ninety of the 213 patients who underwent HLTX had CHD. There were no demographic differences. Heart listing status was similar but with a higher LAS score for NCHD. NCHD had higher pre-operative life support use (mechanical ventilation, inotropes or dialysis) but the use of ECMO as a bridge to transplantation was similar. Wait-list times were longer for CHD. The ischemic times were similar. Post-transplant dialysis, stroke, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and rejection were similar. Survival at 30-days, 1-year, and long-term survival at 17 years was similar. Non-survivors at 30-days post-transplant were on life support, used ECMO as a bridge, had lower wait-list times, longer ischemic times and had strokes. Non-survivors at 1-year had similar factors in addition to a higher dialysis use. CONCLUSION: Cardiac diagnosis had no impact on outcomes after Pediatric HLTX. Patients on life support or ECMO before transplantation were transplanted faster but with lower survival.

Does lung procurement and exposure to Perfadex impact heart transplantation outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Some studies have shown increased incidence of Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) after heart and lung procurement for heart transplant recipients. There have been limited investigations of the impact of lung procurement on heart procurement and the potential effects of the exposure to the type of lung preservation solution, the volume of the lung preservation solution and adequacy of decompression of the heart during heart and lung procurement and the impact on heart transplant outcomes. METHODS: Adult heart transplant recipients in the UNOS database recorded from January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2022 formed the study cohort. Any heart that was procured with a lung team that utilized Perfadex preservation solution (XVIVO, Gothenburg, Sweden) was classified as exposed to Perfadex and otherwise classified as not exposed to Perfadex. Lung procurements performed with a preservation solution other than Perfadex or unknown were excluded (n = 2486). Simple comparisons were made with t-tests or chi-squared tests. Logistic regression models were used to predict 30 day and 1 year survival. Accelerated failure time models were employed to analyze time to death and time to rejection. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 34 192 heart transplants, of which 21 928 donors were not exposed to Perfadex (64.1%). There were statistically, but not clinically, significant differences in donor characteristics for these groups including in donor age (33.34 ± 11.01 not exposed vs. 30.70 ± 10.69 exposed; p < .001), diabetic donor (4% not exposed vs. 3% exposed; p = .004), and ischemic time (3.28 ± 1.09 h not exposed vs. 3.24 ± 1.05 h exposed; p = .002). In adjusted models, for all included donors, Perfadex exposure was associated with increased short term mortality, but no long term difference (1 year mortality OR 1.10, p = .014). CONCLUSION: Perfadex exposure was associated with increased short-term mortality for heart transplant recipients. Mechanistic investigation is warranted.