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

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

American Society of Transplant Surgeons recommendations on best practices in donation after circulatory death organ procurement.

The American Society of Transplant Surgeons supports efforts to increase the number of organs that are critically needed for patients desperately awaiting transplantation. In the United States, transplantation using organs procured from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors has continued to increase in number. Despite these increases, substantial variability in the utilization and practices of DCD transplantation still exists. To improve DCD organ utilization, it is important to create a set of best practices for DCD recovery. The following recommendations aim to provide guidance on contemporary issues surrounding DCD organ procurement in the United States. A work group was composed of members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeon Scientific Studies Committee and the Thoracic Organ Transplantation Committee. The following topics were identified by the group either as controversial or lacking standardization: prewithdrawal preparation, definition of donor warm ischemia time, DCD surgical technique, combined thoracic and abdominal procurements, and normothermic regional perfusion. The proposed recommendations were classified on the basis of the grade of available evidence and the strength of the recommendation. This information should be valuable for transplant programs as well as for organ procurement organizations and donor hospitals as they develop robust DCD donor procurement protocols.

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

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

Updates and Expert Opinions on Liver Transplantation for Gastrointestinal Malignancies.

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

Kidney transplant from hepatitis C viremic donors into aviremic recipients and risk for post-transplant BK and cytomegalovirus infection.

BACKGROUND: kidney transplantation from Hepatitis C virus (HCV) viremic donors to uninfected recipients is associated with excellent short-term outcomes. However, HCV viremia might be associated with an increased risk for post-transplant viral complications. METHODS: We designed a retrospective study of HCV-negative kidney-only transplant recipients between 2018 and 2020. Recipients were grouped into group 1; HCV-negative donors, and group 2; HCV-viremic donors. Patients were matched 1:1 using propensity score. The primary objectives were to compare the incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia ≥ 200 ml/IU, and BK viremia ≥1000 copies/ml between the groups. Secondary outcomes included group comparison of CMV disease, BK viremia ≥10 000 copies/ml, and 1-year patient and allograft survival. RESULTS: The study included 634 patients in group 1, and 71 patients in group 2. Sixty-five pairs of patients were matched. Incidence of CMV viremia (33.3% vs. 40.0%, p = .4675), and BK viremia (15.9% vs. 27.7%, p = .1353) did not differ significantly between groups in the matched cohort. Incidence of CMV disease (81.0% vs. 76.9%, p = 1.000), and BK viremia ≥10 000 copies/ml (9.5% vs. 16.9%, p = .2987) were comparable between groups. There was no difference in the 1-year patient or allograft survival between groups. CONCLUSION: kidney transplant from HCV-viremic donors is not associated with increased risk for BK or CMV viremia.

A real-world, single-center experience of the utilization of hepatitis C-viremic kidneys for hepatitis C-negative recipients.

The advent of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies has allowed kidney transplantation from hepatitis C (HCV)-viremic donors into negative recipients. We evaluated the safety and feasibility of such practice when utilizing a patient's health plan to cover the cost for DAAs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, non-randomized, pilot clinical study. 30 HCV-negative participants received kidney transplant from HCV-viremic deceased donors. HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was checked on day 3 post transplant, and a request for pan-genotypic DAA therapy was sent once viremia was confirmed. Primary outcomes were the percentage of patients achieving sustained virologic response defined as undetectable HCV PCR 12 weeks after therapy completion, and the percentage of patients receiving DAAs via patient's health plan. RESULTS: HCV viremia occurred in all 30 recipients. Sustained viral response was achieved in 93% of the patients. Two patients failed first-line DAAs, 1 patient due to non-compliance with the prescribed regimen while the other due to NS5A mutation. DAA therapy was successfully obtained via patient's health plan in 28/30 patients. There was no significant liver-related complication, patient death, or graft loss. CONCLUSION: Kidney transplantation from HCV-viremic donors appears to be safe. However, challenges with obtaining DAA coverage in the United States persist.

Outcomes of hepatitis C virus seropositive donors to hepatitis C virus seronegative liver recipients: A large single center analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The success of direct-acting antivirals (DAA) has transformed the management of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and has led to the expansion of the deceased donor organ pool for liver transplantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We present a single center retrospective review of liver transplantations performed on HCV-seronegative recipients from HCV-seropositive organs from 11/2017 to 05/2020. HCV nucleic acid testing (NAT) was performed on HCV-seropositive donors to assess active HCV infection. RESULTS: 42 HCV-seronegative recipients underwent a liver transplant from a HCV-seropositive donor, including 21 NAT negative (20 liver, 1 simultaneous liver kidney transplant) and 21 NAT positive liver transplants. Two (9.5%) HCV antibody positive/NAT negative recipients developed HCV viremia and achieved sustained virologic response with DAA therapy. The remaining patients with available data (19 patients) remained polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative at 6 months. 20 (95%) of HCV antibody positive/NAT positive recipients had a confirmed HCV viremia. 100% of patients with available data (15 patients) achieved SVR. Observed events include 1 mortality and graft loss and equivalent rates of post-transplant complications between NAT positive and NAT negative recipients. CONCLUSIONS: HCV-seropositive organs can be safely transplanted into HCV-seronegative patients with minimal complications post-transplant.

Comparison of the glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide and liraglutide for the management of diabetes in solid organ transplant: A retrospective study.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are gaining popularity in the management of diabetes in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. There are no studies available comparing the two GLP-1RAs dulaglutide and liraglutide in SOT. We performed a retrospective chart review to assess the safety and effectiveness of these agents in adult SOT with diabetes at 6, 12 and 24 months. There were 63 and 25 recipients on dulaglutide and liraglutide, respectively. There was a sustained reduction in primary endpoints of weight, BMI and insulin requirement with dulaglutide when compared to liraglutide. Decrease in weight was 2%, 4% and 5.2% with dulaglutide and 0.09%, 0.87% and 0.89% with liraglutide at 6, 12 and 24 months respectively. BMI reduction followed the same trend in the two groups. The percentage reduction for insulin was 26% with dulaglutide and 3.6% with liraglutide. There was a 10% reduction in creatinine and a 15% increase in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at the end of 24 months with dulaglutide. However, there was an increase in creatinine by 7% and an 8% decrease in eGFR at the end of 24 months with liraglutide.

The impact of donor and recipient diabetes on renal transplant outcomes.

The use of diabetic kidneys is increasing worldwide with better outcome than being on waitlist and possible reversal of diabetic changes in transplanted kidneys. But particular caution is warranted in diabetic donor-recipient combination. Total 1223 deceased donor kidney transplants were performed at our center between 2008 and 2018. 689 from non-diabetic donor (NDD) to non-diabetic recipient, 400 from non-diabetic donor to diabetic recipient, 97 from diabetic to non-diabetic recipient, and 32 from diabetic donor (DD) to diabetic recipient. The DD was older than NDDs (median age 48 vs 39 years, P < 0.0001). DD had higher BMI (35.6 vs 26.9, P < 0.0001), higher KDPI (74% vs 37%, P < 0.0001), and higher terminal creatinine (1.10 mg/dl vs 0.95 mg/dl, p 0.0046) than the NDD. Diabetes recipients were comparatively older (57 vs 54, P < 0.001). DD recipients had higher serum creatinine at 6 months (1.70 vs 1.50 mg/dl, p 0.00304) and 2 years post-transplant (1.70 vs 1.50 mg/dl P < 0.0002). DD recipients had more favorable end CPRA than NDD recipients (77.5% at 0% vs 67.4% at 0, P = 0.0074). Ten-year patient and graft survival was best in NDD-recipient pair and worse in DD-recipient pair. Diabetic donor kidneys to diabetic recipients have lower 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival.

Sequential Versus Combined Heart-Liver Transplantation in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Combined heart-liver transplantation (CHLT) has resulted in acceptable survival rates compared to orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) alone and orthotopic heart transplantation alone. Using the US transplant registry, we compared outcomes following sequential and combined HLT. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. De-identified data were obtained from the United Network Organ Sharing Registry. The primary outcome was patient survival from the date of OLT. Secondary outcomes included liver allograft survival and heart allograft survival. RESULTS: The study cohort included 301 CHLT recipients and six sequential heart-liver transplantation (SHLT) recipients. Patient survival after CHLT was 88% at 1 year, 84% at 3 years, and 82% at 5 years compared to 83%, 67%, and 50% in the SHLT group (p = 0.010). Liver allograft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 88%,83% and 82%, respectively, in the CHLT group compared to 83% and 67%, and 50%, respectively, in the SHLT group (p = 0.009). After OLT, heart allograft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 86%, 79%, and 74% in the CHLT group, respectively, compared to 83%, 67%, and 50% in the SHLT group (p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited size of the SHLT cohort, we found that CHLT was superior to SHLT in survival rate and graft survival. The better outcomes noted in CHLT may relate to immunoprotection provided by liver transplantation from the same donor.

Largest single-centre experience of dulaglutide for management of diabetes mellitus in solid organ transplant recipients.

Published data regarding the approach to management of diabetes mellitus in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are limited. We performed a retrospective chart review of SOT recipients with diabetes, above 18 years of age, who were usisng dulaglutide. There was a sustained, statistically significant reduction in the primary endpoints of weight, body mass index (BMI) and insulin requirement in 63 SOT recipients at 6, 12 and 24 months, respectively. A total of 59, 50 and 13 recipients were followed during 6, 12 and 24 months, with a mean paired difference for weight reduction of 2.07 (P value <0.003), 4.007 (P value <0.001) and 5.23 (P value <0.034) kgs and a BMI reduction of 0.80 (P value <0.001), 1.35 (P value <0.005) and 2.015 (P value <0.045) kg/m2 , respectively. The mean paired difference for insulin reduction before and after dulaglutide treatment was 5.94 units (P value <0.0002). There was no increased risk of malignancy, cardiovascular morbidity, graft-failure or all-cause mortality. Gastrointestinal manifestations were rare, even in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), and required no change in immunosuppressive agents. Thus, dulaglutide may be considered an important option for diabetes management in SOT.

Liver biopsy in assessment of extended criteria donors.

The safety and liver utilization with prerecovery liver biopsy (PLB) in extended criteria liver donors are unclear. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 1323 brain death donors (PLB = 496) from 3 organ procurement organizations (OPOs). Outcomes were complications, preempted liver recovery (PLR), and liver transplantation (LT). Additional analyses included liver-only and propensity score-matched multiorgan donor subgroups. PLB donors were older (57 versus 53 years; P < 0.001). Hepatitis C antibody positivity (14.3% versus 9.6%, P = 0.01) and liver-only donors (42.6% versus 17.5%; P < 0.001) were more prevalent. The PLB cohort had fewer complications (31.9% versus 42.3%; P < 0.001). In the PLB cohort, PLR was significantly higher (odds ratio [OR], 3.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.42-4.92) and LT lower (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.91). In liver-only and propensity score-matched multiorgan donor subgroups, PLR was significantly higher (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.06-2.94 and OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.37-3.82, respectively) without a decrease in LT (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.43-1.18 and OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63-1.33, respectively) in PLB subgroups. In conclusion, in extended criteria liver donors, PLB is safe and decreases futile liver recovery without decreasing LT. Increased use of PLB, especially in liver-only donors, is likely to save costs to OPOs and transplant centers and improve efficiencies in organ allocation. Liver Transplantation 24 182-191 2018 AASLD.

Cohort Contributions to Race- and Gender-Specific Trends in the Incidence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing incidence of lifelong obesity and associated nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in younger birth cohorts may have contributed to growing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the USA. Yet, the contribution of cohort effects to trends in HCC incidence is unclear. METHODS: Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program 1973-2013, race- and gender-specific trends in HCC incidence in the USA were decomposed using age-period-cohort (APC) modeling. RESULTS: Among SEER registry sites included in the analysis, there were 25,532 cases of HCC diagnosed including 15,867 (62%) White males, 3541 (14%) Black males, 5009 (20%) White females, and 1115 (4%) Black females. HCC incidence increases across periods, especially among men. Underlying this increase, APC models found significant cohort effects among White men, White women, and Black men, with rapid growth in HCC risk among cohorts born after 1940. A similar cohort trend among Black women did not reach statistical significance when compared to an age-period model. CONCLUSIONS: Cohort-specific trends have significantly contributed to increasing HCC incidence in recent decades. The rapid increase in HCC risk among younger cohorts suggests that the incidence of HCC will continue increasing in the near future.

Patients From Appalachia Have Reduced Access to Liver Transplantation After Wait-Listing.

BACKGROUND: The Appalachian region is medically underserved and characterized by high morbidity and mortality. We investigated disparities among patients listed for liver transplantation (LT) in wait-list outcomes, according to residence in the Appalachian region. METHODS: Data on adult patients listed for LT were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing for July 2013 to December 2015. Wait-list outcomes were compared using cause-specific hazard models by region of residence (Appalachian vs non-Appalachian) among patients listed at centers serving Appalachia. Posttransplant patient and graft survival were also compared. The study included 1835 LT candidates from Appalachia and 5200 from non-Appalachian regions, of whom 1016 patients experienced wait-list mortality or were delisted; 3505 received liver transplants. RESULTS: In multivariable analyses, patients from Appalachia were less likely to receive LT (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.93; P < .001), but Appalachian residence was not associated with wait-list mortality or delisting (HR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.89-1.18; P = .696). Among liver transplant recipients, patient and graft survival did not differ by Appalachian versus non-Appalachian residence. CONCLUSION: Appalachian residence was associated with lower access to transplantation after listing for LT. This geographic disparity should be addressed in the current debate over reforming donor liver allocation and patient priority for LT.

Factors contributing to employment patterns after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Many liver transplant recipients return to work, but their patterns of employment are unclear. We examine patterns of employment 5 years after liver transplantation. METHODS: First-time liver transplant recipients ages 18-60 years transplanted from 2002 to 2009 and surviving at least 5 years were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry. Recipients' post-transplant employment status was classified as follows: (i) never employed; (ii) returned to work within 2 years and remained employed (continuous employment); (iii) returned to work within 2 years, but was subsequently unemployed (intermittent employment); or (iv) returned to work ≥3 years post-transplant (delayed employment). RESULTS: Of 28 306 liver recipients identified during the study period, 12 998 survived at least 5 years and contributed at least 1 follow-up of employment status. A minority of patients (4654; 36%) were never employed, while 3780 (29%) were continuously employed, 3027 (23%) were intermittently employed, and 1537 (12%) had delayed employment. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, predictors of intermittent and delayed employment included lower socioeconomic status, higher local unemployment rates, and post-transplant comorbidities or complications. CONCLUSION: Never, intermittent, and delayed employment are common after liver transplantation. Socioeconomic and labor market characteristics may add to clinical factors that limit liver transplant recipients' continuous employment.

Comparison of two equivalent model for end-stage liver disease scores for hepatocellular carcinoma patients using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing liver transplant waiting list registry.

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been advantaged on the liver transplant waiting list within the United States, and a 6-month delay and exception point cap have recently been implemented to address this disparity. An alternative approach to prioritization is an HCC-specific scoring model such as the MELD Equivalent (MELDEQ ) and the mixed new deMELD. Using data on adult patients added to the UNOS waitlist between 30 September 2009 and 30 June 2014, we compared projected dropout and transplant probabilities for patients with HCC under these two models. Both scores matched actual non-HCC dropout in groups with scores <22 and improved equity with non-HCC transplant probabilities overall. However, neither score matched non-HCC dropout accurately for scores of 25-40 and projected dropout increased beyond non-HCC probabilities for scores <16. The main differences between the two scores were as follows: (i) the MELDEQ assigns 6.85 more points after 6 months on the waitlist and (ii) the deMELD gives greater weight to tumor size and laboratory MELD. Post-transplant survival was lower for patients with scores in the 22-30 range compared with those with scores <16 (P = 0.007, MELDEQ ; P = 0.015, deMELD). While both scores result in better equity of waitlist outcomes compared with scheduled progression, continued development and calibration is recommended.

High Center Volume Does Not Mitigate Risk Associated with Using High Donor Risk Organs in Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: High-risk donor allografts increase access to liver transplant, but potentially reduce patient and graft survival. AIMS: It is unclear whether the risk associated with using marginal donor livers is mitigated by increasing center experience. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried for adult first-time liver transplant recipients between 2/2002 and 12/2015. High donor risk was defined as donor risk index >1.9, and 1-year patient and graft survival were compared according to donor risk index in small and large centers. Multivariable Cox regression estimated the hazard ratio (HR) associated with using high-risk donor organs, according to a continuous measure of annual center volume. RESULTS: The analysis included 51,770 patients. In 67 small and 67 large centers, high donor risk index predicted increased mortality (p = 0.001). In multivariable analysis, high-donor risk index allografts predicted greater mortality hazard at centers performing 20 liver transplants per year (HR 1.35; 95% CI 1.22, 1.49; p < 0.001) and, similarly, at centers performing 70 per year (HR 1.35; 95% CI 1.26, 1.43; p < 0.001). The interaction between high donor risk index and center volume was not statistically significant (p = 0.747), confirming that the risk associated with using marginal donor livers was comparable between smaller and larger centers. Results were consistent when examining graft loss. CONCLUSION: At both small and large centers, high-risk donor allografts were associated with reduced patient and graft survival after liver transplant. Specific strategies to mitigate the risk of liver transplant involving high-risk donors are needed, in addition to accumulation of center expertise.

Changes in liver acceptance patterns after implementation of Share 35.

The Share 35 policy was implemented June 2013. We sought to evaluate liver offer acceptance patterns of centers under this policy. We compared three 1-year eras (1, 2, and 3) before and 1 era (4) after the implementation date of the Share 35 policy (June 18, 2013). We evaluated all offers for liver-only recipients including only those offers for livers that were ultimately transplanted. Logistic regression was used to develop a liver acceptance model. In era 3, there were 4809 offers for Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score ≥ 35 patients with 1071 acceptances (22.3%) and 10,141 offers and 1652 acceptances (16.3%) in era 4 (P < 0.001). In era 3, there were 42,954 offers for MELD score < 35 patients with 4181 acceptances (9.7%) and 44,137 offers and 3882 acceptances (8.8%) in era 4 (P < 0.001). The lower acceptance rate persisted across all United Network for Organ Sharing regions and was significantly less in regions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Mean donor risk index was the same (1.3) for all eras for MELD scores ≥ 35 acceptances and the same (1.4) for MELD score < 35 acceptances. Refusal reasons did not vary throughout the eras. The adjusted odds ratio of accepting a liver for a MELD score of 35 + compared to a MELD score < 35 patient was 1.289 before the policy and 0.960 after policy implementation. In conclusion, the Share 35 policy has resulted in more offers to patients with MELD scores ≥ 35. Overall acceptance rates were significantly less compared to the same patient group before the policy implementation. Centers are less likely to accept a liver for a patient with a MELD score of 35 + after the policy change. Decreased donor acceptance rates could reflect more programmatic selectivity and ongoing donor and recipient matching.

A multicenter study of 30 days complications after deceased donor liver transplantation in the model for end-stage liver disease score era.

Knowledge of risk factors for posttransplant complications is likely to improve patient outcomes. Few large studies of all early postoperative complications after deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) exist. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective, cohort study of 30-day complications, their risk factors, and the impact on outcomes after DDLT. Three centers contributed data for 450 DDLTs performed from January 2005 through December 2009. Data included donor, recipient, transplant, and outcome variables. All 30-day postoperative complications were graded by the Clavien-Dindo system. Complications per patient and severe (≥ grade III) complications were primary outcomes. Death within 30 days, complication occurrence, length of stay (LOS), and graft and patient survival were secondary outcomes. Multivariate associations of risk factors with complications and complications with LOS, graft survival, and patient survival were examined. Mean number of complications/patient was 3.3 ± 3.9. At least 1 complication occurred in 79.3%, and severe complications occurred in 62.8% of recipients. Mean LOS was 16.2 ± 22.9 days. Graft and patient survival rates were 84% and 86%, respectively, at 1 year and 74% and 76%, respectively, at 3 years. Hospitalization, critical care, ventilatory support, and renal replacement therapy before transplant and transfusions during transplant were the significant predictors of complications (not the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score). Both number and severity of complications had a significant impact on LOS and graft and patient survival. Structured reporting of risk-adjusted complications rates after DDLT is likely to improve patient care and transplant center benchmarking. Despite the accomplished reductions in transfusions during DDLT, opportunities exist for further reductions. With increasing transplantation of sicker patients, reduction in complications would require multidisciplinary efforts and institutional commitment. Pretransplant risk characteristics for complications must factor in during payer contracting.

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

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