Search

Background. We compared the performance of the Liver Transplant Risk Score (LTRS) with the survival outcomes following liver transplantation (SOFT), pretransplant SOFT (P-SOFT), Balance of Risk Score (BAR), donor-age and model for end-stage liver disease (D-MELD), and Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Risk Prediction Score (ORPS) for the prediction of 90-d mortality, 1-y mortality, and 5-y survival after first-time liver transplantation (LT). Methods. A retrospective analysis of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was conducted using data collected between 2002 and 2021. Results. A total of 82 696 adult LT recipients with a median age of 56 y were included. The area under the curve for 90-d mortality were 0.61, 0.66, 0.65, 0.61, 0.58, and 0.56 for the LTRS, SOFT, P-SOFT, BAR, D-MELD, and ORPS, respectively (all pairwise comparisons: P < 0.05). The area under the curve for 1-y mortality were 0.60, 0.63, 0.62, 0.59, 0.60, 0.57, and 0.59 for the LTRS, SOFT, P-SOFT, BAR, D-MELD, and ORPS, respectively (all pairwise comparisons: P < 0.05). The c-statistics for 5-y survival were not statistically significant among the models. For 90-d mortality, 1-y mortality, and 5-y survival, the correlation coefficients between the LTRS and P-SOFT (the 2 models requiring only preoperative parameters) were 0.90. 0.91, and 0.81, respectively (P

Background. Enhanced B-cell presentation of donor alloantigen relative to presentation of HLA-mismatched reference alloantigen is associated with acute cellular rejection (ACR), when expressed as a ratio called the antigen presenting index (API) in an exploratory cohort of liver and intestine transplant (LT and IT) recipients. Methods. To test clinical performance, we measured the API using the previously described 6-h assay in 84 LT and 54 IT recipients with median age 3.3 y (0.05–23.96). Recipients experiencing ACR within 60 d after testing were termed rejectors. Results. We first confirmed that B-cell uptake and presentation of alloantigen induced and thus reflected the alloresponse of T-helper cells, which were incubated without and with cytochalasin and primaquine to inhibit antigen uptake and presentation, respectively. Transplant recipients included 76 males and 62 females. Rejectors were tested at median 3.6 d before diagnosis. The API was higher among rejectors compared with nonrejectors (2.2 ± 0.2 versus 0.6 ± 0.04, P value = 1.7E-09). In logistic regression and receiver-operating-characteristic analysis, API ≥1.1 achieved sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for predicting ACR in 99 training set samples. Corresponding metrics ranged from 80% to 88% in 32 independent posttransplant samples, and 73% to 100% in 20 independent pretransplant samples. In time-to-event analysis, API ≥1.1 predicted higher incidence of late donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies after API measurements in LT recipients (P = 0.011) and graft loss in IT recipients (P = 0.008), compared with recipients with API

Background. Unlike other solid organs, no standardized treatment algorithms exist for intestinal transplantation (ITx). We established a consortium of American ITx centers to evaluate current practices. Methods. All American centers performing ITx during the past 3 y were invited to participate. As a consortium, we generated questions to evaluate and collect data from each institution. The data were compiled and analyzed. Results. Ten centers participated, performing 211 ITx during the past 3 y (range, 3–46; mean 21.1). Induction regimens varied widely. Thymoglobulin was the most common, used in the plurality of patients (85/211; 40.3%), but there was no consensus regimen. Similarly, regimens for the treatment of acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, and graft-versus-host disease varied significantly between centers. We also evaluated differences in maintenance immunosuppression protocols, desensitization regimens, mammalian target of rapamycin use, antimetabolite use, and posttransplantation surveillance practices. Maintenance tacrolimus levels, stoma presence, and scoping frequency were not associated with differences in rejection events. Definitive association between treatments and outcomes, including graft and patient survival, was not the intention of this initial collaboration and is prevented by the lack of patient-level data and the presence of confounders. However, we identified trends regarding rejection episodes after various induction strategies that require further investigation in our subsequent collaborations. Conclusions. This initial collaboration reveals the extreme heterogeneity of practices among American ITx centers. Future collaboration will explore patient-level data, stratified by age and transplant type (isolated intestine versus multivisceral), to explore the association between treatment regimens and outcomes.