Search

Background: Kidneys from infectious risk donors (IRD) confer substantial survival benefit in adults, yet the benefit of IRD kidneys to pediatric candidates remains unclear in the context of high waitlist prioritization., Methods: Using 2010-2016 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we studied 2417 pediatric candidates (age <18 y) who were offered an IRD kidney that was eventually used for transplantation. We followed candidates from the date of first IRD kidney offer until the date of death or censorship and used Cox regression to estimate mortality risk associated with IRD kidney acceptance versus decline, adjusting for age, sex, race, diagnosis, and dialysis time., Results: Over the study period, 2250 (93.1%) pediatric candidates declined and 286 (11.8%) accepted an IRD kidney offer; 119 (41.6%) of the 286 had previously declined a different IRD kidney. Cumulative survival among those who accepted versus declined the IRD kidney was 99.6% versus 99.4% and 96.3% versus 97.8% 1 and 6 years post decision, respectively (P = 0.1). Unlike the substantial survival benefit seen in adults (hazard ratio = 0.52), among pediatric candidates, we did not detect a survival benefit associated with accepting an IRD kidney (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.791.723.73, P = 0.2). However, those who declined IRD kidneys waited a median 9.6 months for a non-IRD kidney transplant (11.2 mo among those <6 y, 8.8 mo among those on dialysis). Kidney donor profile index (KDPI) of the eventually accepted non-IRD kidneys (median = 13, interquartile range = 6-23) was similar to KDPI of the declined IRD kidneys (median = 16, interquartile range = 9-28)., Conclusions: Unlike in adults, IRD kidneys conferred no survival benefit to pediatric candidates, although they did reduce waiting times. The decision to accept IRD kidneys should balance the advantage of faster transplantation against the risk of infectious transmission.

The Kidney Allocation System (KAS) has resulted in fewer pediatric kidneys being allocated to pediatric deceased donor kidney transplant (pDDKT) recipients. This had prompted concerns that post-pDDKT outcomes may worsen. To study this, we used SRTR data to compare the outcomes of 953 pre-KAS pDDKT (age <18 years) recipients (December 4, 2012-December 3, 2014) with the outcomes of 934 post-KAS pDDKT recipients (December 4, 2014-December 3, 2016). We analyzed mortality and graft loss by using Cox regression, delayed graft function (DGF) by using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) by using negative binomial regression. Post-KAS recipients had longer pretransplant dialysis times (median 1.26 vs 1.07 years, P = .02) and were more often cPRA 100% (2.0% vs 0.1%, P = .001). Post-KAS recipients had less graft loss than pre-KAS recipients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.35 0.54 0.83 , P = .005) but no statistically significant differences in mortality (HR: 0.29 0.72 1.83 , P = .5), DGF (odds ratio: 0.93 1.32 1.93 , P = .2), and LOS (LOS ratio: 0.96 1.06 1.19 , P = .4). After adjusting for donor-recipient characteristics, there were no statistically significant post-KAS differences in mortality (adjusted HR: 0.37 1.04 2.92 , P = .9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio: 0.94 1.41 2.13 , P = .1), or LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: 0.93 1.04 1.16 , P = .5). However, post-KAS pDDKT recipients still had less graft loss (adjusted HR: 0.38 0.59 0.91 , P = .02). KAS has had a mixed effect on short-term posttransplant outcomes for pDDKT recipients, although our results are limited by only 2 years of posttransplant follow-up., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Several single-center reports of using HCV-viremic organs for HCV-uninfected (HCV-) recipients were recently published. We sought to characterize national utilization of HCV-exposed donors for HCV- recipients (HCV D+/R-) in kidney transplantation (KT) and liver transplantation (LT). Using SRTR data (April 1, 2015-December 2, 2018) and Gini coefficients, we studied center-level clustering of 1193 HCV D+/R- KTs and LTs. HCV-viremic (NAT+) D+/R- KTs increased from 1/month in 2015 to 22/month in 2018 (LTs: 0/month to 12/month). HCV-aviremic (Ab+/NAT-) D+/R- KTs increased from < 1/month in 2015 to 26/month in 2018 (LTs: <1/month to 8/month). HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic kidneys spent a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 0.7 (0.2-1.6) and 1.6 (0.4-3.5) years on the waitlist versus 1.8 (0.5-4.0) among HCV D-/R-. HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic livers had median (IQR) MELD scores of 24 (21-30) and 25 (21-32) at transplantation versus 29 (23-36) among HCV D-/R-. 12 KT and 14 LT centers performed 81% and 76% of all viremic HCV D+/R- transplants; 11 KT and 13 LT centers performed 76% and 69% of all aviremic HCV D+/R- transplants. There have been marked increases in HCV D+/R- transplantation, although few centers are driving this practice; centers should continue to weigh the risks and benefits of HCV D+/R- transplantation., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Livers from older donors (OLDs; age ≥70) are risky and often declined; however, it is likely that some candidates will benefit from OLDs versus waiting for younger ones. To characterize the survival benefit of accepting OLD grafts, we used 2009-2017 SRTR data to identify 24 431 adult liver transplant (LT) candidates who were offered OLD grafts eventually accepted by someone. Outcomes from the time-of-offer were compared between candidates who accepted an OLD graft and matched controls within MELD ± 2 who declined the same offer. Candidates who accepted OLD grafts (n = 1311) were older (60.5 vs. 57.8 years, P < .001), had a higher median MELD score (25 vs. 22, P < .001), and were less likely to have hepatitis C cirrhosis (14.9% vs. 31.2%, P < .001). Five-year cumulative mortality among those who accepted versus declined the same OLD offer was 23.4% versus 41.2% (P < .001). Candidates who accepted OLDs experienced an almost twofold reduction in mortality (aHR: 0.45 0.52 0.59 , P < .001) compared to those who declined the same offer, especially among the highest MELD (35-40) candidates (aHR: 0.10 0.24 0.55 , P = .001). Accepting an OLD offer provided substantial long-term survival benefit compared to waiting for a better organ offer, notably among candidates with MELD 35-40. Providers should consider these benefits as they evaluate OLD graft offers., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Importance: In light of the growing population of older adults in the United States, older donors (aged ≥70 years) represent an expansion of the donor pool; however, their organs are underused. Liver grafts from older donors were historically associated with poor outcomes and higher discard rates, but clinical protocols, organ allocation, and the donor pool have changed in the past 15 years., Objective: To evaluate trends in demographics, discard rates, and outcomes among older liver donors and transplant recipients of livers from older donors in a large national cohort., Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 4127 liver grafts from older donors and 3350 liver-only recipients of older donor grafts and 78 990 liver grafts from younger donors (aged 18-69 years) and 64 907 liver-only recipients of younger donor grafts between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2016, in the United States. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, which includes data on all transplant recipients in the United States that are submitted by members of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, was used., Exposures: Year of liver transplant and age of liver donor., Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds of graft discard and posttransplant outcomes of all-cause graft loss and mortality., Results: In this study, 4127 liver grafts from older donors were recovered for liver transplant across the study period (2003-2016); 747 liver grafts from older donors were discarded, and 3350 liver grafts from older donors were used for liver-only recipients. After adjusting for donor characteristics other than age and accounting for Organ Procurement Organization-level variation, liver grafts from older donors were more likely to be discarded compared with liver grafts from younger donors in 2003-2006 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.31), 2007-2009 (aOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 2.17-3.01), 2010-2013 (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.68-2.46), and 2013-2016 (aOR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.96-2.86) (P < .001 for all). Transplants of liver grafts from older donors represented a progressively lower proportion of all adult liver transplants, from 6.0% (n = 258 recipients) in 2003 to 3.2% (n = 211 recipients) in 2016 (P = .001). However, outcomes in recipients of grafts from older donors improved over time, with 40% lower graft loss risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.68; P < .001) and 41% lower mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.68; P < .001) in 2010 through 2016 vs 2003 through 2009; these results were beyond the general temporal improvements in graft loss (interaction P = .03) and mortality risk (interaction P = .04) among recipients of liver grafts from younger donors., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings show that from 2003 to 2016, liver graft loss and mortality among recipients of liver grafts from older donors improved; however, liver graft discard from older donors remained increased and the number of transplants performed with liver grafts from older donors decreased. Expansion of the donor pool through broader use of liver grafts from older donors might be reasonable.

Deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) rates for highly sensitized (HS) candidates increased early after implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) in 2014. However, this may represent a bolus effect, and a granular investigation of the current state of DDKT for HS candidates remains lacking. We studied 270 722 DDKT candidates from the SRTR from 12/4/2011 to 12/3/2014 ("pre-KAS") and 12/4/2014 to 12/3/2017 ("post-KAS"), analyzing DDKT rates for HS candidates using adjusted negative binomial regression. Post-KAS, candidates with the highest levels of sensitization had an increased DDKT rate compared with pre-KAS (cPRA 98% adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: 1.27 1.77 2.46 P = .001, cPRA 99% aIRR: 3.18 4.36 5.98 P < .001, cPRA 99.5-99.9% aIRR: 16.91 24.29 34.89 P < .001, and cPRA 99.9%+ aIRR: 8.79 11.58 15.26 P < .001). To determine whether these changes produced more equitable access to DDKT, we compared DDKT rates of HS to non-HS candidates (cPRA 0-79%). Post-KAS, cPRA, 98% candidates had an equivalent DDKT rate (aIRR: 0.65 0.94 1.36 , P = .8) to non-HS candidates, whereas 99% candidates had a higher DDKT rate (aIRR: 1.19 1.68 2.38 , P = .02). Although cPRA 99.5-99.9% candidates had an increased DDKT rate (aIRR: 2.46 3.50 4.98 , P < .001) compared to non-HS candidates, cPRA 99.9%+ candidates had a significantly lower DDKT rate (aIRR: 0.29 0.40 0.56 , P < .001). KAS has improved access to DDKT for HS candidates, although substantial imbalance exists between cPRA 99.5-99.9% and 99.9%+ candidates., (© 2018 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: The availability of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy might have impacted use of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected (HCV+) deceased donor kidneys for transplantation., Methods: We used 2005 to 2018 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to identify 18 936 candidates willing to accept HCV+ kidneys and 3348 HCV+ recipients of HCV+ kidneys. We compared willingness to accept, utilization, discard, and posttransplant outcomes associated with HCV+ kidneys between 2 treatment eras (interferon [IFN] era, January 1, 2005 to December 5, 2013 vs DAA era, December 6, 2013 to August 2, 2018). Models were adjusted for candidate, recipient, and donor factors where appropriate., Results: In the DAA era, candidates were 2.2 times more likely to list as willing to accept HCV+ kidneys (adjusted odds ratio, 2.072.232.41; P < 0.001), and HCV+ recipients were 1.95 times more likely to have received an HCV+ kidney (adjusted odds ratio, 1.761.952.16; P < 0.001). Median Kidney Donor Profile Index of HCV+ kidneys decreased from 77 (interquartile range [IQR], 59-90) in 2005 to 53 (IQR, 40-67) in 2017. Kidney Donor Profile Index of HCV- kidneys remained unchanged from 45 (IQR, 21-74) to 47 (IQR, 24-73). After adjustment, HCV+ kidneys were 3.7 times more likely to be discarded than HCV- kidneys in the DAA era (adjusted relative rate, 3.363.674.02; P < 0.001); an increase from the IFN era (adjusted relative rate, 2.783.023.27; P < 0.001). HCV+ kidney use was concentrated within a subset of centers; 22.5% of centers performed 75% of all HCV+ kidney transplants in the DAA era. Mortality risk associated with HCV+ kidneys remained unchanged (aHR, 1.071.191.32 in both eras)., Conclusions: Given the elevated risk of death on dialysis facing HCV+ candidates, improving quality of HCV+ kidneys, and DAA availability, broader utilization of HCV+ kidneys is warranted to improve access in this era of organ shortage.

One criticism of kidney paired donation (KPD) is that easy-to-match candidates leave the registry quickly, thus concentrating the pool with hard-to-match sensitized and blood type O candidates. We studied candidate/donor pairs who registered with the National Kidney Registry (NKR), the largest US KPD clearinghouse, from January 2012-June 2016. There were no changes in age, gender, BMI, race, ABO blood type, or panel-reactive antibody (PRA) of newly registering candidates over time, with consistent registration of hard-to-match candidates (59% type O and 38% PRA ≥97%). However, there was no accumulation of type O candidates over time, presumably due to increasing numbers of nondirected type O donors. Although there was an initial accumulation of candidates with PRA ≥97% (from 33% of the pool in 2012% to 43% in 2014, P = .03), the proportion decreased to 17% by June 2016 (P < .001). Some of this is explained by an increase in the proportion of candidates with PRA ≥97% who underwent a deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) after the implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS), from 8% of 2012 registrants to 17% of 2015 registrants (P = .02). In this large KPD clearinghouse, increasing participation of nondirected donors and the KAS have lessened the accumulation of hard-to-match candidates, but highly sensitized candidates remain hard-to-match., (© 2018 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: Allografts from older liver donors (OLDs), 70 years or older are often discarded for fear of inferior outcomes. We previously identified "preferred recipients" who did not suffer the higher risk of graft loss and mortality associated with OLDs. Preferred recipients were first-time, non-status 1 registrants older than 45 years, body mass index less than 35, indication other than hepatitis C, and cold ischemia time less than 8 hours., Methods: We assessed the validity of the preferred recipient construct in a larger, more recent cohort (38 891 patients, 2006-2013). We compared recipients of OLD grafts to recipients of average liver donors (ALDs, age = 40-69) and ideal liver donors (ILDs, age = 18-39) grafts using multilevel Cox regression adjusting for recipient and transplant factors., Results: The use of OLD grafts in preferred recipients has increased from 2006 to 2013 (P = 0.02). Preferred recipients Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores ranged 6 to 40. Preferred recipients had similar 5-year all-cause graft loss (ACGL) with OLD versus ALD and ILD grafts (25.4% vs 24.5% and 21.6%). Conversely, nonpreferred recipients had higher 5-year ACGL with OLD versus ALD and ILD grafts (41.4% vs 32.9% and 25.6%). After adjustment, preferred recipients had similar graft loss with OLD versus ALD grafts (hazard ratio [HR], 0.921.081.27; P = 0.3) and ILD grafts (HR, 0.981.161.39, P = 0.09); however, nonpreferred recipients had higher ACGL risk with OLD grafts versus ALD (HR, 1.281.411.56, P < 0.001) and ILD grafts (HR, 1.501.671.86, P < 0.001). Similar trends are seen with mortality., Conclusions: Because preferred recipients comprise 43.3% (n = 2916) of the current waitlist and span the full range of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores, transplanted OLD allografts could be distributed without added risk of graft loss or mortality.

Transplant candidates who accept a kidney labeled increased risk for disease transmission (IRD) accept a low risk of window period infection, yet those who decline must wait for another offer that might harbor other risks or never even come. To characterize survival benefit of accepting IRD kidneys, we used 2010-2014 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to identify 104 998 adult transplant candidates who were offered IRD kidneys that were eventually accepted by someone; the median (interquartile range) Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) of these kidneys was 30 (16-49). We followed patients from the offer decision until death or end-of-study. After 5 years, only 31.0% of candidates who declined IRDs later received non-IRD deceased donor kidney transplants; the median KDPI of these non-IRD kidneys was 52, compared to 21 of the IRDs they had declined. After a brief risk period in the first 30 days following IRD acceptance (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] accept vs decline: 1.22 2.06 3.49 , P = .008) (absolute mortality 0.8% vs. 0.4%), those who accepted IRDs were at 33% lower risk of death 1-6 months postdecision (aHR  0.50 0.67 0.90 , P = .006), and at 48% lower risk of death beyond 6 months postdecision (aHR 0.46 0.52 0.58 , P < .001). Accepting an IRD kidney was associated with substantial long-term survival benefit; providers should consider this benefit when counseling patients on IRD offer acceptance., (© 2017 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: Previous reports suggest that donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver grafts have increased primary nonfunction (PNF) and cholangiopathy thought to be due to the graft warm ischemia before cold flushing., Study Design: In this single-center, retrospective study, 866 adult liver transplantations were performed at our institution from January 2005 to August 2014. Forty-nine (5.7%) patients received DCD donor grafts. The 49 DCD graft recipients were compared with all recipients of donation after brain death donor (DBD) grafts and to a donor and recipient age- and size-matched cohort., Results: The DCD donors were younger (age 28, range 8 to 60 years) than non-DCD (age 44.3, range 9 to 80 years) (p < 0.0001), with similar recipient age. The mean laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) was lower in DCD recipients (18.7 vs 22.2, p = 0.03). Mean cold and warm ischemia times were similar. Median ICU and hospital stay were 2 days and 7.5 days in both groups (p = 0.37). Median follow-ups were 4.0 and 3.4 years, respectively. Long-term outcomes were similar between groups, with similar 1-, 3- and 5-year patient and graft survivals (p = 0.59). Four (8.5%) recipients developed ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) at 2, 3, 6, and 8 months. Primary nonfunction and hepatic artery thrombosis did not occur in any patient in the DCD group. Acute kidney injury was more common with DCD grafts (16.3% of DCD recipients required dialysis vs 4.1% of DBD recipients, p = 0.01). An increased donor age (>40 years) was shown to increase the risk of IC (p = 0.006)., Conclusions: Careful selection of DCD donors can provide suitable donors, with results of liver transplantation comparable to those with standard brain dead donors., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The shortage of donor organs has led to increasing use of extended criteria donors, including older donors. The upper limit of donor age that produces acceptable outcomes continues to be explored. In liver transplantation, with appropriate selection, graft survival and patient outcomes would be comparable regardless of age., Study Design: We performed a retrospective analysis of 1,036 adult orthotopic liver transplantations (OLT) from a prospectively maintained database performed between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2013. The study focus group was liver transplantations performed using grafts from older (older than 60 years) deceased donors. Deceased donor liver transplantations done during the same time period using grafts from younger donors (younger than 60 years) were analyzed for comparison. Both groups were further divided based on recipient age (less than 60 years and 60 years or older). Donor age was the primary variable. Recipient variables included were demographics, indication for transplantation, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), graft survival, and patient survival. Operative details and postoperative complications were analyzed., Results: Patient demographics and perioperative details were similar between groups. Patient and graft survival rates were similar in the 4 groups. Rates of rejection (p = 0.07), bile leak (p = 0.17), and hepatic artery thrombosis were comparable across all groups (p = 0.84). Hepatitis C virus recurrence was similar across all groups (p = 0.10). Thirty-one young recipients (less than 60 years) received grafts from donors aged 70 or older. Their survival and other complication rates were comparable to those in the young donor to young recipient group., Conclusions: Comparable outcomes in graft and patient survivals were achieved using older donors (60 years or more), regardless of recipient age, without increased rate of complications., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite the fact that suboptimal kidneys have worse outcomes, differences in waiting times and wait-list mortality have led to variations in the use of these kidneys. It is unknown whether aggressive center-level use of one type of suboptimal graft clusters with aggressive use of other types of suboptimal grafts, and what center characteristics are associated with an overall aggressive phenotype. United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data from 2005 to 2009 for adult kidney transplant recipients was aggregated to the center level. An aggressiveness score was assigned to each center based on usage of suboptimal grafts. Deceased-donor transplant volume correlated with aggressiveness in lower volume, but not higher volume centers. Aggressive centers were mostly found in regions 2 and 9. Aggressiveness was associated with wait-list size (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.20-2.34, p = 0.002), organ shortage (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.57-3.37, p < 0.001) and waiting times (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20-2.57, p = 0.004). No centers in single-center OPOs were classified as aggressive. In cluster analysis, the most aggressive centers were aggressive in all metrics and vice versa; however, centers with intermediate aggressiveness had phenotypic patterns in their usage of suboptimal kidneys. In conclusion, wait-list size, waiting times, geographic region and OPO competition seem to be driving factors in center-level aggressiveness., (© 2011 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)