Quality measures in pre-liver transplant care by the Practice Metrics Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The liver transplantation (LT) evaluation and waitlisting process is subject to variations in care that can impede quality. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) developed quality measures and patient-reported experience measures along the continuum of pre-LT care to reduce care variation and guide patient-centered care. Following a systematic literature review, candidate pre-LT measures were grouped into 4 phases of care: referral, evaluation and waitlisting, waitlist management, and organ acceptance. A modified Delphi panel with content expertise in hepatology, transplant surgery, psychiatry, transplant infectious disease, palliative care, and social work selected the final set. Candidate patient-reported experience measures spanned domains of cognitive health, emotional health, social well-being, and understanding the LT process. Of the 71 candidate measures, 41 were selected: 9 for referral; 20 for evaluation and waitlisting; 7 for waitlist management; and 5 for organ acceptance. A total of 14 were related to structure, 17 were process measures, and 10 were outcome measures that focused on elements not typically measured in routine care. Among the patient-reported experience measures, candidates of LT rated items from understanding the LT process domain as the most important. The proposed pre-LT measures provide a framework for quality improvement and care standardization among candidates of LT. Select measures apply to various stakeholders such as referring practitioners in the community and LT centers. Clinically meaningful measures that are distinct from those used for regulatory transplant reporting may facilitate local quality improvement initiatives to improve access and quality of care.

A comparison of deprivation indices and application to transplant populations.

The choice of deprivation index can influence conclusions drawn regarding the extent of deprivation within a community and the identification of the most deprived communities in the United States. This study aimed to determine the degree of correlation among deprivation indices commonly used to characterize transplant populations. We used a retrospective cohort consisting of adults listed for liver or kidney transplants between 2008 and 2018 to compare 4 deprivation indices: neighborhood deprivation index, social deprivation index (SDI), area deprivation index, and social vulnerability index. Pairwise correlation between deprivation indices by transplant referral regions was measured using Spearman correlations of population-weighted medians and upper quartiles. In total, 52 individual variables were used among the 4 deprivation indices with 25% overlap. For both organs, the correlation between the population-weighted 75th percentile of the deprivation indices by transplant referral region was highest between SDI and social vulnerability index (liver and kidney, 0.93) and lowest between area deprivation index and SDI (liver, 0.19 and kidney, 0.15). The choice of deprivation index affects the applicability of research findings across studies examining the relationship between social risk and clinical outcomes. Appropriate application of these measures to transplant populations requires careful index selection based on the intended use and included variable relevance.

One size does not fit all: Differential benefits of simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation by eligibility criteria.

Standard eligibility criteria for simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLK) are in place in the United States. We hypothesize that the benefit associated with SLK over liver transplant alone differs by patient, depending on the specific SLK criteria met. We analyzed a retrospective US cohort of 5446 adult liver transplant or SLK recipients between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, who are potentially qualified for SLK. Exposure was a receipt of SLK. We tested effect modification by the specific SLK eligibility criteria met (end-stage kidney disease, acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, or unknown). The primary outcome was death within 1 year of a liver transplant. We used a modified Cox regression analysis containing an interaction term of SLK * time from transplant. Two hundred ten (9%) SLK recipients and 351 (11%) liver-alone recipients died in 1 year. In the overall population, SLK was associated with a mortality benefit over liver transplant on the day of the transplant, without adjustment [HR: 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46-0.76)] and with adjustment [aHR: 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35-0.71)]. However, when SLK eligibility criteria were included, only in patients with end-stage kidney disease was SLK associated with a sustained survival benefit at day 0 [HR: 0.17 (0.08-0.35)] up to 288 (95% CI, 120-649) days post-transplant. Benefit within the first year post-transplant associated with SLK over liver-alone transplantation was only pronounced in patients with end-stage kidney disease but not present in patients meeting other criteria for SLK. A "strict SLK liberal Safety Net" strategy may warrant consideration at the national policy level.

Characterization of social determinants of health of a liver transplant referral population.

Disparities exist in referral and access to the liver transplant (LT) waitlist, and social determinants of health (SDOH) are increasingly recognized as important factors driving health inequities, including in LT. The SDOH of potential transplant candidates is therefore important to characterize when designing targeted interventions to promote equity in access to LT. Yet, it is uncertain how a transplant center should approach this issue, characterize SDOH, identify disparities, and use these data to inform interventions. We performed a retrospective study of referrals for first-time, single-organ LT to our center from 2016 to 2020. Addresses were geoprocessed and mapped to the corresponding county, census tract, and census block group to assess their geospatial distribution, identify potential disparities in referrals, and characterize their communities across multiple domains of SDOH to identify potential barriers to evaluation and selection. We identified variability in referral patterns and areas with disproportionately low referrals, including counties in the highest quartile of liver disease mortality (9%) and neighborhoods in the highest quintile of socioeconomic deprivation (17%) and quartile of poverty (21%). Black individuals were also under-represented compared with expected state demographics (12% vs. 18%). Among the referral population, several potential barriers to evaluation and selection for LT were identified, including poverty, educational attainment, access to healthy food, and access to technology. This approach to the characterization of a transplant center's referral population by geographic location and associated SDOH demonstrates a model for identifying disparities in a referral population and potential barriers to evaluation that can be used to inform targeted interventions for disparities in LT access.

An appraisal of technical variant grafts compared to whole liver grafts in pediatric liver transplant recipients: Multicenter analysis from the SPLIT registry.

BACKGROUND: Shortages of liver allografts for children awaiting transplantation have led to high LT waitlist mortality. Prior studies have shown that usage of TVG can reduce waiting time and waitlist mortality, but their use is not universal. We sought to compare patient and graft survival between WLG and TVG and to identify potential associated risk factors in a contemporary pediatric LT cohort. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patient survival, graft survival, and biliary and vascular complications for LT recipients <18 years old entered into the Society of Pediatric Liver Transplantation prospective multicenter database. RESULTS: Of 1839 LT recipients, 1029 received a WLG and 810 received a TVG from either a LD or a DD. There was no difference in patient survival or graft survival by graft type. Three-year patient survival and graft survival were 96%, 93%, and 96%, and 95%, 89%, and 92% for TVG-LD, TVG-DD, and WLG, respectively. Biliary complications were more frequent in TVG. Hepatic artery thrombosis was more frequent in WLG. Multivariate analysis revealed primary diagnosis was the only significant predictor of patient survival. Predictors for graft survival included time-dependent development of biliary and vascular complications. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in patient and graft survival based on graft types in this North American multi-center pediatric cohort. Widespread routine use of TVG should be strongly encouraged to decrease mortality on the waitlist for pediatric LT candidates.

Equity in liver transplantation: are we any closer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As policies governing liver transplantation (LT) continue to change and influence clinical practice, it is important to monitor trends in equitable access and outcomes amongst patients. The purpose of this review is to closely examine recent advances and findings in health equity research in LT over the last 2 years; specifically evaluating inequities at the different stages of LT (referral, evaluation, listing, waitlist outcomes and post-LT outcomes). RECENT FINDINGS: Advancements in geospatial analysis have enabled investigators to identify and begin to study the role of community level factors (such as neighborhood poverty, increased community capital/urbanicity score) in driving LT disparities. There has also been a shift in investigating center specific characteristics that contributes to disparities in waitlist access. Modification to the current model for end stage liver disease (MELD) score policy accounting for height differences is also crucial to eradicating the disparity in LT amongst sexes. Lastly, Black pediatric patients have been shown to have higher rates of death and worse posttransplant outcome after transitioning to adult healthcare. SUMMARY: Although, there have been some advances in methodology and policies, inequities in waitlist access, waitlist outcomes and posttransplant outcomes continue to be pervasive in the field of LT. Future directions include expansion of social determinants of health measures, inclusion of multicenter designs, MELD score modification and investigation into drivers of worse posttransplant outcomes in Black patients.

Social determinants of health data in solid organ transplantation: National data sources and future directions.

Health equity research in transplantation has largely relied on national data sources, yet the availability of social determinants of health (SDOH) data varies widely among these sources. We sought to characterize the extent to which national data sources contain SDOH data applicable to end-stage organ disease (ESOD) and transplant patients. We reviewed 10 active national data sources based in the United States. For each data source, we examined patient inclusion criteria and explored strengths and limitations regarding SDOH data, using the National Institutes of Health PhenX toolkit of SDOH as a data collection instrument. Of the 28 SDOH variables reviewed, eight-core demographic variables were included in ≥80% of the data sources, and seven variables that described elements of social status ranged between 30 and 60% inclusion. Variables regarding identity, healthcare access, and social need were poorly represented (≤20%) across the data sources, and five of these variables were included in none of the data sources. The results of our review highlight the need for improved SDOH data collection systems in ESOD and transplant patients via: enhanced inter-registry collaboration, incorporation of standardized SDOH variables into existing data sources, and transplant center and consortium-based investigation and innovation.

Center variations in patient selection for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation.

There are no established regulations governing patient selection for simultaneous heart-kidney (SHK) transplantation, creating the potential for significant center-level variations in clinical practice. METHODS: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Standard Transplant Analysis and Research (STAR) file, we examined practice trends and variations in patient selection for SHK at the center level between January 1, 2004 and March 31, 2019. RESULTS: Overall, SHK is becoming more common with most centers performing heart transplants also performing SHK. Among patients who underwent heart transplant who were receiving dialysis, the rate of SHK varied from 22% to 86% at the center level. Among patients not on dialysis, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of patients receiving SHK varied between 19 and 59 mL/min/1.73 m2 . When adjusting for other factors, the odds of SHK varied 57-fold between the highest and lowest SHK performing centers. CONCLUSION: Variation in SHK at the center level suggests the need for national guidelines around the selection of patients for SHK.

A scoping review of inequities in access to organ transplant in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Organ transplant is the preferred treatment for end-stage organ disease, yet the majority of patients with end-stage organ disease are never placed on the transplant waiting list. Limited access to the transplant waiting list combined with the scarcity of the organ pool result in over 100,000 deaths annually in the United States. Patients face unique barriers to referral and acceptance for organ transplant based on social determinants of health, and patients from disenfranchised groups suffer from disproportionately lower rates of transplantation. Our objective was to review the literature describing disparities in access to organ transplantation based on social determinants of health to integrate the existing knowledge and guide future research. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature reporting disparities in access to heart, lung, liver, pancreas and kidney transplantation based on social determinants of health (race, income, education, geography, insurance status, health literacy and engagement). Included studies were categorized based on steps along the transplant care continuum: referral for transplant, transplant evaluation and selection, living donor identification/evaluation, and waitlist outcomes. RESULTS: Our search generated 16,643 studies, of which 227 were included in our final review. Of these, 34 focused on disparities in referral for transplantation among patients with chronic organ disease, 82 on transplant selection processes, 50 on living donors, and 61 on waitlist management. In total, 15 studies involved the thoracic organs (heart, lung), 209 involved the abdominal organs (kidney, liver, pancreas), and three involved multiple organs. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, and patients in lower socioeconomic status groups were less likely to be referred, evaluated, and added to the waiting list for organ transplant. The quality of the data describing these disparities across the transplant literature was variable and overwhelmingly focused on kidney transplant. CONCLUSIONS: This review contextualizes the quality of the data, identifies seminal work by organ, and reports gaps in the literature where future research on disparities in organ transplantation should focus. Future work should investigate the association of social determinants of health with access to the organ transplant waiting list, with a focus on prospective analyses that assess interventions to improve health equity.

The impact of race on utilization of durable left ventricular assist device therapy in patients with advanced heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure affects >6 million people in the United States alone and is most prevalent in Black patients who suffer the highest mortality risk. Yet prior studies have suggested that Black patients are less likely to receive advanced heart failure therapy. We hypothesized that Black patients would have decreased rates of durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation within our expansive heart failure program. METHODS: A retrospective single-center cohort study was conducted at a single high-volume academic medical center. Patients between 18 and 85 years admitted with a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock or congestive heart failure between 1, 2013 and 12, 2017 with a left ventricular ejection fraction < 30% and inotropic dependence or need for mechanical circulatory support were included. Patients with contraindications to durable LVAD were excluded. An adjusted logistic regression model for durable LVAD implantation within 90 days of the index admission was used to determine the effect of race on durable LVAD implantation. RESULTS: Among the 702 study patients (60.9% White, 34.1% Black), durable LVAD implantation was performed within 90 days of the index admission in 183 (26%) of the cohort. After multivariate analysis, Black patients were not found to have a statistically significant difference in durable LVAD implantation rates compared to White patients in our study (OR: 0.68 [95% confidence interval: 0.45-1.04; p: .074]). CONCLUSIONS: Black patients in our study did not have a statistically significant difference in the rate of durable LVAD implantation compared with White patients after adjustments were made for age, sex, socioeconomic, and clinical covariates. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Eudaimonia: An Aristotelian approach to transplantation.

Despite extraordinary achievements in over the past 20 years, the field of transplantation remains hindered by relatively narrow metrics for success. Eudaimonia is an Aristotelian concept that refers to flourishing, or achieving the best conditions possible, in every sense. The vast amounts of patient data that are collected throughout the transplant care continuum, ranging from social determinants of health to genomic profiles and patient-reported outcomes, afford us unprecedented opportunity to enhance our definition of success for our transplant patients. We must engage the technologies available for data integration and analysis and apply them in an insightful way, such that our clinical practice evolves beyond patient and graft survival and toward a more comprehensive state of wellness.

Need for improvements in simultaneous heart-kidney allocation: The limitation of pretransplant glomerular filtration rate.

The incidence of simultaneous heart-kidney transplant (SHK) has increased markedly in the last 15 years. There are no universally agreed upon indications for SHK vs. heart alone (HA) transplant, and center evaluation processes vary widely. We utilized Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2003 to 2017 to quantify changes in the practice of SHK, examine the survival of SHK vs. HA, and identify patients with marginal benefit from SHK. We used Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards to assess differences in survival. The incidence of SHK increased more than fourfold between 2003 and 2017 from 1.6% to 6.6% of total hearts transplanted, while the proportion of dialysis-dependent patients undergoing SHK has remained constant. SHK was associated with increased survival in dialysis-dependent patients (Median Survival SHK: 12.6 vs. HA: 7.1 years p < .0001) but not with nondialysis-dependent patients (Median Survival SHK: 12.5 vs. HA 12.3, p = .24). The marginal effect of SHK in decreasing the hazard of death diminished with increasing eGFR. Delayed graft function occurred in 26% of SHK recipients. Posttransplant chronic dialysis was similar for both operations (6.4% of HA and 6.0% of SHK). Further study is needed to define patients who benefit from SHK.

Donor-Recipient Height Mismatch Is Associated With Decreased Survival in Pediatric-to-Adult Liver Transplant Recipients.

Liver grafts from pediatric donors represent a small fraction of grafts transplanted into adult recipients, and their use in adults requires special consideration of donor size to prevent perioperative complications. In the past, graft weight or volume ratios have been adopted from the living donor liver transplant literature to guide clinicians; however, these metrics are not regularly available to surgeons accepting deceased donor organs. In this study, we evaluated all pediatric-to-adult liver transplants in the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research database from 1987 to 2019, stratified by donor age and donor-recipient height mismatch ratio (HMR; defined as donor height/recipient height). On multivariable regression controlling for cold ischemia time, age, and transplantation era, the use of donors from ages 0 to 4 and 5 to 9 had increased risk of graft failure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81 [P < 0.01] and HR, 1.16 [P < 0.01], respectively) compared with donors aged 15 to 17. On Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, a HMR < 0.8 was associated with inferior graft survival (mean, 11.8 versus 14.6 years; log-rank P < 0.001) and inferior patient survival (mean, 13.5 versus 14.9 years; log-rank P < 0.01) when compared with pairs with similar height (HMR, 0.95-1.05; ie, donors within 5% of recipient height). This study demonstrates that both young donor age and low HMR confer additional risk in adult recipients of pediatric liver grafts.

The Impact of the 2017 Kidney Allocation Policy Change on Simultaneous Liver-Kidney Utilization and Outcomes.

Historically in the United States, kidneys for simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLKT) candidates were allocated with livers, prioritizing SLKT recipients over much of the kidney waiting list. A 2017 change in policy delineated renal function criteria for SLKT and implemented a safety net for kidney-after-liver transplantation. We compared the use and outcomes of SLKT and kidney-after-liver transplant with the 2017 policy. United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files were used to identify adults who received liver transplantations (LT) from August 10, 2007 to August 10, 2012; from August 11, 2012 to August 10, 2017; and from August 11, 2017 to June 12, 2019. LT recipients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) were defined by dialysis requirement or estimated glomerular filtration rate <25. We evaluated outcomes and center-level, regional, and national practice before and after the policy change. Nonparametric cumulative incidence of kidney-after-liver listing and transplant were modeled by era. A total of 6332 patients received SLKTs during the study period; fewer patients with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) ≥50 mL/min underwent SLKT over time (5.8%, 4.8%, 3.0%; P = 0.01 ). There was also less variability in GFR at transplant after policy implementation on center and regional levels. We then evaluated LT-alone (LTA) recipients with ESRD (n = 5408 from 2012-2017; n = 2321 after the policy). Listing for a kidney within a year of LT increased from 2.9% before the policy change to 8.8% after the policy change, and the rate of kidney transplantation within 1 year increased from 0.7% to 4% (P < 0.001). After the policy change, there was no difference in patient survival rates between SLKT and LTA among patients with ESRD. Implementation of the 2017 SLKT policy change resulted in reduced variability in SLKT recipient kidney function and increased access to deceased donor kidney transplantation for LTA recipients with kidney disease without negatively affecting outcomes.

African Americans' discussions about living-donor kidney transplants with family or friends: Who, what, and why not?

BACKGROUND: Although discussions with family or friends can improve access to living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT), they remain an understudied step in the LDKT process. METHODS: Among 300 African American transplant candidates, we examined how sociodemographic, clinical, LDKT-related, and psychosocial characteristics related to the occurrence of LDKT discussions with family or friends. We also analyzed the relation between discussion occurrence and donor activation on transplant candidates' behalves (at least one donor inquiry or completed donor evaluation in the medical record). We assessed associations of discussion characteristics (context, content, and perceptions) with donor activation among discussants, and we identified discussion barriers among non-discussants. RESULTS: Most candidates (90%) had discussed LDKT. Only family functioning was statistically significantly associated with discussion occurrence. Specifically, family dysfunction was associated with 62% lower odds of discussion than family function. Family functioning, discussion occurrence, and different discussion characteristics were statistically significantly related to donor activation. The most prevalent discussion barrier was never having thought about discussing LDKT. CONCLUSIONS: Family functioning affected the likelihood of discussing LDKT, and family functioning, discussion occurrence, and discussion characteristics were associated with donor activation. Advancing understanding of how family functioning and LDKT discussions affect progression to LDKT may benefit interventions to increase LDKT.

Definition and Analysis of Textbook Outcome: A Novel Quality Measure in Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: "Textbook outcome" (TO) is a novel composite quality measure that encompasses multiple postoperative endpoints, representing the ideal "textbook" hospitalization for complex surgical procedures. We defined TO for kidney transplantation using a cohort from a high-volume institution. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent isolated kidney transplantation at our institution between 2016 and 2019 were included. TO was defined by clinician consensus at our institution to include freedom from intraoperative complication, postoperative reintervention, 30-day intensive care unit or hospital readmission, length of stay > 75th percentile of kidney transplant patients, 90-day mortality, 30-day acute rejection, delayed graft function, and discharge with a Foley catheter. Recipient, operative, financial characteristics, and post-transplant patient, graft, and rejection-free survival were compared between patients who achieved and failed to achieve TO. RESULTS: A total of 557 kidney transplant patients were included. Of those, 245 (44%) achieved TO. The most common reasons for TO failure were delayed graft function (N = 157, 50%) and hospital readmission within 30 days (N = 155, 50%); the least common was mortality within 90 days (N = 6, 2%). Patient, graft, and rejection-free survival were significantly improved among patients who achieved TO. On average, patients who achieved TO incurred approximately $50,000 less in total inpatient charges compared to those who failed TO. CONCLUSIONS: TO in kidney transplantation was associated with favorable post-transplant outcomes and significant cost-savings. TO may offer transplant centers a detailed performance breakdown to identify aspects of perioperative care in need of process improvement.

Left lateral segment liver volume is not correlated with anthropometric measures.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is definitive therapy for end stage liver disease in pediatric patients. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) with the left lateral segment (LLS) is often a feasible option. However, the size of LLS is an important factor in donor suitability - particularly when the recipient weighs less than 10 kg. In the present study, we sought to define a formula for estimating left lateral segment volume (LLSV) in potential LLS donors. METHODS: We obtained demographic and anthropometric measurements on 50 patients with Computed Tomography (CT) scans to determine whole liver volume (WLV), right liver volume (RLV), and LLSV. We performed univariable and multivariable linear regression with backwards stepwise variable selection (p < 0.10) to determine final models. RESULTS: Our study found that previously reported anthropometric and demographics variables correlated with volume were significantly associated with WLV and RLV. On univariable analysis, no demographic or anthropometric measures were correlated with LLSV. On multivariable analysis, LLSV was poorly predicted by the final model (R2 = 0.10, Coefficient of Variation [CV] = 42.2) relative to WLV (R2 = 0.33, CV = 18.8) and RLV (R2 = 0.41, CV = 15.8). CONCLUSION: Potential LLS living donors should not be excluded based on anthropometric data: all potential donors should be evaluated regardless of their size.

Outcomes in Kidney Transplantation Between Veterans Affairs and Civilian Hospitals: Considerations in the Context of the MISSION Act.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare kidney transplantation outcomes between Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA transplant centers. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Transplant care at the VA has previously been scrutinized due to geographic and systematic barriers. The recently instituted MISSION Act entered effect June 6th, 2019, which enables veteran access to surgical care at civilian hospitals if certain eligibility criteria are met. METHODS: We evaluated observed-to-expected outcome ratios (O:E) for graft loss and mortality using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database for all kidney transplants during a 15-year period (July 1, 2001-June 30, 2016). Of 229,188 kidney transplants performed during the study period, 1508 were performed at VA centers (N = 7), 7750 at the respective academic institutions affiliated with these VA centers, and 227,680 at non-VA centers nationwide (N = 286). RESULTS: Aggregate O:E ratios for mortality were lower in VA centers compared with non-VA centers at 1 month and 1 year (O:E = 0.27 vs 1.00, P = 0.03 and O:E = 0.62 vs 1.00, P = 0.03, respectively). Graft loss at 1 month and 1 year was similar between groups (O:E = 0.65 vs 1.00, P = 0.11 and O:E = 0.79 vs 1.00, P = 0.15, respectively). Ratios for mortality and graft loss were similar between VA centers and their respective academic affiliates. Additionally, a subgroup analysis for graft loss and mortality at 3 years (study period January 1, 2009-December 31, 2013) demonstrated no significant differences between VA centers, VA-affiliates, and all non-VA centers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite low clinical volume, VA centers offer excellent outcomes in kidney transplantation. Veteran referral to civilian hospitals should weigh the benefit of geographic convenience and patient preference with center outcomes.

Going the distance for procurement of donation after circulatory death livers for transplantation-Does reimbursement reflect reality?

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) has increased slowly over the past decade. Given that transplant surgeons generally determine liver offer acceptance, understanding surgeon incentives and disincentives is paramount. The purpose of this study was to assess aggregate travel distance per successful DCD versus deceased after brain death (DBD) liver procurement as a surrogate for surgeon time expenditure and opportunity cost. All consecutive liver offers made to Michigan Medicine from 2006 to 2017 were analyzed. Primary outcome was the summative travel distance (spent on all attempted procurements) per successful liver procurement that resulted in LT. Donation after circulatory death liver offer acceptance was lower than DBD liver offers, as was proportion of successful procurements among accepted offers. Overall, 10 275 miles were travelled for accepted DCD liver offers, resulting in 23 successful procurements (mean 447 miles per successful DCD liver procurement). For accepted DBD liver offers, 197 299 miles were travelled, resulting in 863 successful procurements (mean 229 miles per successful DBD liver procurement). On average, each successful DCD liver procurement required 218 more miles of travel than each successful DBD liver procurement. Current reimbursement policies poorly reflect increased surgeon travel (and time) expenditures between DCD and DBD liver offers.

Textbook Outcomes in Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Textbook outcome (TO) is an emerging concept within multiple surgical domains, which represents a novel effort to define a standardized, composite quality benchmark based on multiple postoperative endpoints that represent the ideal "textbook" hospitalization. We sought to define TO for liver transplantation (LT) using a cohort from a high procedural volume center. METHODS: Patients who underwent LT at our institution between 2014 and 2017 were eligible for the study. The definition of TO was determined by clinician consensus at our institution to include freedom from: mortality within 90 days, primary allograft non-function, early allograft dysfunction (EAD), rejection within 30 days, readmission with 30 days, readmission to the ICU during index hospitalization, hospital length of stay > 75th percentile of all liver transplant patients, red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirement greater than the 75th percentile for all liver transplant patients, Clavien-Dindo Grade III complication (re-intervention), and major intraoperative complication. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-one liver transplants with complete data were performed within the study period. Of those, 71 (31%) achieved a TO. Overall, the most likely event to lead to failure to achieve TO was readmission within 30 days (n = 57, 37%) or reoperation (n = 49, 32%). Overall and rejection-free survival did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Interestingly, patients who achieved TO incurred approximately $60,000 less in total charges than those who did not. When we limit this to charges specifically attributable to the transplant episode, the difference was approximately $50,000 and remained significantly less for those that achieved TO. CONCLUSIONS: Here, we present the first definition of TO in LT. Though not associated with long-term outcomes, TO in LT is associated with a significantly lower charges and costs of the initial hospitalization. A multi-institutional study to validate this definition of TO is warranted.