Infiltrating Kaposi sarcoma presenting as acute kidney injury: An unexpected consequence of deliberate hepatitis C-positive organ transplantation.

Kaposi sarcoma (KS) following kidney transplantation can result from recipient reactivation of latent human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) infection or activation of donor-acquired HHV-8 infection. Post-transplant KS typically manifests with cutaneous pathology, but rare cases of renal allograft involvement have been reported. We describe two cases of donor-derived HHV-8 infection in two hepatitis C (HCV) viremia-negative transplant recipients who each received a kidney from a donor with HCV viremia. One recipient did not develop KS while the other presented with acute kidney injury caused by extensive KS infiltration of the renal parenchyma and metastatic disease. This report reviews the literature for cases of KS involving the renal allograft and highlights an unexpected consequence of deliberate HCV-positive organ transplantation.

Decline of increased risk donor offers increases waitlist mortality in paediatric heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Increased risk donors in paediatric heart transplantation have characteristics that may increase the risk of infectious disease transmission despite negative serologic testing. However, the risk of disease transmission is low, and refusing an IRD offer may increase waitlist mortality. We sought to determine the risks of declining an initial IRD organ offer. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective analysis of candidates waitlisted for isolated PHT using 20072017 United Network of Organ Sharing datasets. Match runs identified candidates receiving IRD offers. Competing risks analysis was used to determine mortality risk for those that declined an initial IRD offer with stratified Cox regression to estimate the survival benefit associated with accepting initial IRD offers. Overall, 238/1067 (22.3%) initial IRD offers were accepted. Candidates accepting an IRD offer were younger (7.2 versus 9.8 years, p < 0.001), more often female (50 versus 41%, p = 0.021), more often listed status 1A (75.6 versus 61.9%, p < 0.001), and less likely to require mechanical bridge to PHT (16% versus 23%, p = 0.036). At 1- and 5-year follow-up, cumulative mortality was significantly lower for candidates who accepted compared to those that declined (6% versus 13% 1-year mortality and 15% versus 25% 5-year mortality, p = 0.0033). Decline of an IRD offer was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio for mortality of 1.87 (95% CI 1.24, 2.81, p < 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: IRD organ acceptance is associated with a substantial survival benefit. Increasing acceptance of IRD organs may provide a targetable opportunity to decrease waitlist mortality in PHT.

Association between increased-risk donor social behaviors and recipient outcomes after heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to investigate the association between social behaviors of increased-risk donors (IRD) and recipient outcomes after heart transplantation. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was queried to identify patients who received a heart transplant between 2004 and 2015. Patients were grouped based on donor's risk status (IRD vs standard risk donor [SRD]). Recipients of IRD were categorized based on donor social behaviors (SB), and recipient survival was assessed. Cox regression analysis was used to identify associations between SB of donors and recipient survival. RESULTS: Out of 22 333 heart transplantations performed during the study period, 2769 (12%) received an IRD graft with the following SB: Unprofessional tattoos or piercings (n = 1722) (63%), cocaine use (n = 916) (33%), heavy smoking (n = 437) (16%), and heavy alcohol abuse (n = 610) (22%). Viral screens detected 72(3%) hepatitis B virus (HBV) positive and 12 (0.4%) hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive at donation. There was no difference in recipient survival based on both donor risk and their social behaviors. Cox regression analysis found only donor HCV infection and non-identical ABO mismatch to be associated with poor recipient survival among recipients of IR grafts. CONCLUSION: Cardiac allografts from IRD, serologically negative for viruses, can safely be used. There is no association between social behaviors of IRD and recipient survival.

Accepting hepatitis C virus-infected donor hearts for transplantation: Multistep consent, unrealized opportunity, and the Stanford experience.

The current mismatch between supply and demand of organs has prompted transplant clinicians to consider innovative solutions to broaden the donor pool. Advancements of direct-acting antiviral agent (DAA) therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have allowed entertaining the use of viremic donor organs in nonviremic recipients. In this report, we describe the evolution of HCV treatment, ethics and informed consent, cost-effectiveness of HCV medications in treating acute HCV post-transplantation, and the Stanford experience with two HCV-viremic donor heart transplantations. We describe excellent short-term outcomes post-heart transplantation with HCV NAT-positive organs. The availability of this therapy may expand the donor pool. While we await larger-scale clinical data on the effectiveness and safety of DAA therapy in patients after heart transplantation, many transplant centers have already started accepting organs from HCV-infected donors, balancing the unknown long-term risks versus the benefits of shorter wait times and expansion of the donor pool. Protocols and multidisciplinary teams are needed to effectively communicate risk to potential recipients, to ensure timely DAA access, and to implement appropriate clinical follow-up in order to achieve excellent clinical outcomes and to maximize the donor pool by utilizing HCV-infected organs for heart transplantation.

A model to estimate the probability of human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C infection despite negative nucleic acid testing among increased-risk organ donors.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, guidelines were released for reducing the risk of viral bloodborne pathogen transmission through organ transplantation. Eleven criteria were described that result in a donor being designated at increased infectious risk. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission risk from an increased-risk donor (IRD), despite negative nucleic acid testing (NAT), likely varies based on behavior type and timing. METHODS: We developed a Monte Carlo risk model to quantify probability of HIV among IRDs. The model included NAT performance, viral load dynamics, and per-act risk of acquiring HIV by each behavior. The model also quantifies the probability of HCV among IRDs by non-medical intravenous drug use (IVDU). RESULTS: Highest risk is among donors with history of unprotected, receptive anal male-to-male intercourse with partner of unknown HIV status (MSM), followed by sex with an HIV-infected partner, IVDU, and sex with a commercial sex worker. CONCLUSION: With NAT screening, the estimated risk of undetected HIV remains small even at 1 day following a risk behavior. The estimated risk for HCV transmission through IVDU is likewise small and decreases quicker with time owing to the faster viral growth dynamics of HCV compared with HIV. These findings may allow for improved organ allocation, utilization, and recipient informed consent.

Increased-risk versus standard-risk donation in lung transplantation: A United Network of Organ Sharing analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Donors with characteristics that increase risk of hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and HIV transmission are deemed increased-risk donors (IRDs) per Public Health Service guidelines. Compared with organs from standard-risk donors (SRDs), IRD organs are more frequently declined. We sought to investigate the outcomes of IRD lung transplant recipients following the 2013 guideline change. METHODS: We retrospectively identified lung transplant recipients using the United Network of Organ Sharing registry (February 2014 to March 2020). Patients were divided into 2 cohorts, based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention risk status of the donor: SRD or IRD. Demographics and clinical parameters were compared across groups. Survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazard model was performed to identify variables associated with survival outcome. RESULTS: We identified 13,205 lung transplant recipients, 9963 who received allografts from SRDs and 3242 who received allografts from IRDs. In both groups, most donors were White, male, and <30 years old. IRDs demonstrated greater rates of heavy alcohol, cigarette, and cocaine use. SRDs had greater rates of cancer, hypertension, previous myocardial infarction, and diabetes. Survival analysis demonstrated no significant difference in 90-day, 1-year, 3-year, or 5-year survival outcome between SRD and IRD recipients (P = .34, P = .67, P = .40, P = .52, respectively). Cox regression demonstrated that double-lung transplants were associated with 13% decreased mortality risk compared with single-lung (P = .0009). CONCLUSIONS: IRD and SRD recipients demonstrated equivalent survival outcomes. Our study suggests that IRDs offer a safe approach to expand the donor pool and increase availability of lungs for transplantation.

Introduction to the Best-Case/Worst-Case Framework Within Transplantation Surgery to Improve Decision-Making for Increased Risk Donor Organ Offers.

Public Health Service increased risk donor kidneys are discarded 50% more often than nonincreased risk donor kidneys despite equivalent patient and graft survival outcomes. Patient and provider biases as well as challenges in risk interpretation contribute to the underuse of increased risk donor organs. As the ultimate decision to accept or reject an increased risk donor organ results from the patient-provider conversation, there is an opportunity to improve this dialogue. This report introduces the best-case/worst-case communication guide for structuring high-stake conversations on increased risk kidney offers between transplant providers and their patients. Through best case/worst case, providers focus on eliciting patient values and long-term goals. The patient's unique context can then inform an individualized discussion of "best," "worst," and "most likely" outcomes and support the provider's ultimate recommendation. Transplant providers are encouraged to adopt this communication strategy to enhance shared decision-making and improve patient outcomes.

Implications of declining donor offers with increased risk of disease transmission on waiting list survival in lung transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Donors with characteristics that may increase the likelihood of disease transmission with transplantation are noted as increased risk via Public Health Service criteria. This study aimed to establish the implications of declining an increased-risk donor (IRD) organ offer in lung transplantation. METHODS: Adult candidates waitlisted for isolated lung transplantation in the United States using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network /United Network of Organ Sharing registry from 2007 to 2017 were identified. Individual match run files identified candidate recipients who matched to an IRD offer. Competing-risks analysis ascertained the likelihood of survival to transplantation. A stratified Cox model and restricted mean survival times estimated the survival benefit associated with the acceptance of an IRD organ. RESULTS: A total of 6,963 candidates met inclusion criteria, and 1,473 (21.2%) accepted an IRD offer. Candidates who accepted an IRD offer were older, more likely to be male, and had a higher lung allocation score at the time of listing (all p < 0.05). At 1 year after an IRD offer decline, 70.5% of candidates underwent a lung transplant, 13.8% died or decompensated, and 14.9% were still awaiting transplant. Compared with those who declined, candidates who accepted the IRD offer had significantly improved cumulative mortality at 1 year (14.1% vs 23.9%, p < 0.001) and 5 years (48.4% vs 53.8%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IRD organ declination is associated with a decreased rate of lung transplantation and worse survival. Overall post-transplant survival rates for those who survive to transplantation are equivalent.

Impact of "increased-risk" donor hearts on transplant outcomes: A propensity-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) remains the gold standard for advanced heart failure. Increased risk (IR) donors were categorized by the United Network for Organ Sharing Database (UNOS) according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. However, the impact of CDC IR donor hearts on the outcome of adult OHT recipients remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of adult OHT recipients between CDC IR and non-CDC IR donor grafts. METHODS: Data were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Databas. All adult patients (age ≥18 years) undergoing OHT from 2004 through 2016 were included (n = 24,751). Propensity scores for CDC IR donors were calculated by estimating probabilities of CDC IR donor graft use using a nonparsimonious multivariable logistic regression model. Patients were matched 1:1 using a greedy matching algorithm based on the propensity score of each patient. The impact of CDC IR donors on the post-transplant outcomes, such as 30-day and overall mortalities, was investigated using Cox-proportional hazards. Overall survival probability analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 24,751 primary heart transplants from 2004 to 2016 with 3584 (14.5%) as IR donors, 6304 transplants were successfully matched (n = 3152 in CDC IR group and non-IR group). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics in recipients and donors. In the Cox-proportional hazards model for matched subjects, the use of CDC IR grafts was not associated with 30-day (hazard ratio of IR group vs non-IR group 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.08; P = .57) and overall mortalities (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.21; P = .62). Interestingly, post-transplant acute myocardial rejection episodes during hospital stays were found more often in the CDC-IR group, compared with the non-CDC IR group (CDC IR, n = 358 [11.4%]; non-CDC IR, n = 304 [9.6%] P = .03), whereas post-transplant pacemaker placements were performed less frequently in the CDC IR group (CDC IR, n = 80 [2.6%]; non-CDC IR, n = 111 [3.5%] P = .020). Importantly, there was no significant difference in the overall survival probability between CDC IR and non-IR groups in both unadjusted and adjusted survival analyses. CONCLUSIONS: CDC IR status does not have a significant impact on adult OHT recipient survival probability. Increased use of CDC IR donor grafts can potentially alleviate the persistent and worsening shortage of available donor organs and shorten the waitlist time for heart transplantation.