Search

To develop a scalable metric which quantifies kidney transplant (KT) centers' performance providing equitable access to KT for minority patients, based on the individualized prelisting prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD).Racial and ethnic disparities for access to transplant in patients with ESRD are well described; however, variation in care among KT centers remains unknown. Furthermore, no mechanism exists that quantifies how well a KT center provides equitable access to KT for minority patients with ESRD.From 2013 to 2018, custom datasets from the United States Renal Data System and United Network for Organ Sharing were merged to calculate the Kidney Transplant Equity Index (KTEI), defined as the number of minority patients transplanted at a center relative to the prevalence of minority patients with ESRD in each center's health service area. Markers of socioeconomic status and recipient outcomes were compared between high and low KTEI centers.A total of 249 transplant centers performed 111,959 KTs relative to 475,914 nontransplanted patients with ESRD. High KTEI centers performed more KTs for Black (105.5 vs 24, P0.001), Hispanic (55.5 vs 7, P0.001), and American Indian (1.0 vs 0.0, P0.001) patients than low KTEI centers. In addition, high KTEI centers transplanted more patients with higher unemployment (52 vs 44, P0.001), worse social deprivation (53 vs 46, P0.001), and lower educational attainment (52 vs 43, P0.001). While providing increased access to transplant for minority and low socioeconomic status populations, high KTEI centers had improved patient survival (hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.95).The KTEI is the first metric to quantify minority access to KT incorporating the prelisting ESRD prevalence individualized to transplant centers. KTEIs uncover significant national variation in transplant practices and identify highly equitable centers. This novel metric should be used to disseminate best practices for minority and low socioeconomic patients with ESRD.

Because of underutilization of liver allografts, our center previously showed that hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody-positive/nucleic acid test (NAT)-negative livers when transplanted into HCV nonviremic recipients were safe with a 10% risk of HCV transmission. Herein, we present our single-center prospective experience of using HCV NAT+ liver allografts transplanted into HCV NAT- recipients. An institutional review board-approved matched cohort study was conducted examining post- liver transplantation (LT) outcomes of HCV- patients who received HCV NAT+ organs (treatment group) compared with matched recipients with HCV NAT- organs (matched comparator group) between June 2018 to October 2019. The primary endpoint was success of HCV treatment and elimination of HCV infection. The secondary outcomes included the 30-day and 1-year graft and patient survival as well as perioperative complications. There were 32 recipients enrolled into each group. Because of 1 death in the index admission, 30/31 patients (97%) were given HCV treatment at a median starting time of 47 days (18-140 days) after LT. A total of 19 (63%) patients achieved sustained virological response at week 12 (SVR12). Another 6 patients achieved end-of-treatment response, while 5 remained on therapy and 1 is yet to start treatment. No HCV treatment failure has been noted. There were no differences in 30-day and 1-year graft and patient survival, length of hospital stay, biliary or vascular complications, or cytomegalovirus viremia between the 2 groups. In this interim analysis of a matched cohort study, which is the first and largest study to date, the patients who received the HCV NAT+ organs had similar outcomes regarding graft function, patient survival, and post-LT complications.

Simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLKT) is indicated for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) and concurrent renal insufficiency. En bloc SLKT is an alternative to traditional separate implantations, but studies comparing the two techniques are limited. The en bloc technique maintains renal outflow via donor infrahepatic vena cava and inflow via anastomosis of donor renal artery to donor splenic artery. Comparison of recipients of en bloc (n = 17) vs traditional (n = 17) SLKT between 2013 and 2017 was performed. Recipient demographics and comorbidities were similar. More recipients of traditional SLKT were dialysis dependent (82.4% vs 41.2%, P = .01) with lower baseline pretransplant eGFR (14 vs 18, P = .01). En bloc SLKT was associated with shorter kidney cold ischemia time (341 vs 533 minutes, P < .01) and operative time (374 vs 511 minutes, P < .01). Two en bloc patients underwent reoperation for kidney allograft inflow issues due to kinking and renal steal. Early kidney allograft dysfunction (23.5% in both groups), 1-year kidney graft survival (88.2% vs 82.4%, P = 1.0), and posttransplantation eGFR were similar between groups. In our experience, the en bloc SLKT technique is safe and feasible, with comparable outcomes to the traditional method.

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the 1-year safety and effectiveness of HBV Nucleic Acid Test positive (HBV NAT+) allografts in seronegative kidney transplant (KT) and liver transplant (LT) recipients. Summary background data Despite an ongoing organ shortage, the utilization of HBV NAT+ allografts into seronegative recipients has not been investigated. Methods From January 2017 to October 2020, a prospective cohort study was conducted among consecutive KT and LT recipients at a single institution. Primary endpoints were post-transplant HBV viremia, graft and patient survival. Results With median follow-up of 1-year, there were no HBV-related complications in the 89 HBV NAT+ recipients. Only 9 of 56 KTs (16.1%) and 9 of 33 LTs (27.3%) experienced post-transplant HBV viremia at a median of 185 (KT) and 269 (LT) days postoperatively. Overall, viremic episodes resolved to undetected HBV DNA after a median of 80 days of entecavir therapy in 16 of 18 recipients. Presently, 100% of KT recipients and 93.9% of LT recipients are HBV NAT- with median follow-up of 13 months, whereas 0 KT and 8 LT (24.2%) recipients are HBV surface antigen positive indicating chronic infection. KT and LT patient and allograft survival were not different between HBV NAT+ and HBV NAT- recipients (P > 0.05), whereas HBV NAT+ KT recipients had decreased waitlist time and pretransplant duration on dialysis (P Conclusions This is the largest series describing the transplantation of HBV NAT+ kidney and liver allografts into HBV seronegative recipients without chronic HBV viremia or decreased 1-year patient and graft survival. Increasing the utilization of HBV NAT+ organs in nonviremic recipients can play a role in decreasing the national organ shortage.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seen transplant volume decrease nationwide, resulting in a 2.2-fold increase in waitlist mortality. In particular, solid organ transplant patients are subjected to increased morbidity and mortality from infection. In the face of these challenges, transplant centers need to develop innovative protocols to ensure high-quality care. Methods A multidisciplinary protocol was developed that included the following: virtual selection meetings, coronavirus disease 2019 negative donors, pretransplant symptom screening, rapid testing on presentation, telehealth follow-up, and weekly community outreach town halls. All orthotopic liver transplants completed between January 2018 and August 2020 were included in the study (n = 344). The cohort was stratified from January 2018 to February 2020 as “pre-COVID-19,” and from March 2020 to August 2020 as “COVID-19.” Patient demographics and postoperative outcomes were compared. Results From March 2020 to August 2020, there was a significant decrease in average monthly referrals for orthotopic liver transplantation (29.8 vs 37.1, P = .01). However, listings (11.0 vs 14.3, P = .09) and transplant volume remained unchanged (12.2 vs 10.6, P = .26). Rapid testing was utilized on arrival for transplant, zero patients tested positively preoperatively, and median time from test result until abdominal incision was 4.5 h [interquartile range, 1.2, 9.2]. Simultaneously, telehealth visits increased rapidly, peaking at 85% of all visits. It is important to note that there was no difference in outcomes between cohorts. Conclusion Orthotopic liver transplant can be accomplished safely and effectively in the COVID-19 era without compromising outcomes through increasing utilization of telehealth, rapid COVID-19 testing, and multidisciplinary protocols for managing immunosuppressed patients.

Traditional piggyback implantation has often been used in liver transplant; however, this technique may be hindered by difficult visualization and postoperative incidences of outflow obstruction. Side-to-side cavocavostomy is an alternative approach, but perioperative outcomes associated with this technique remain largely unknown.In July 2017, side-to-side cavocavostomy was adopted as the standard implantation technique at our institution by all surgeons (n = 4). A prospective cohort of patients undergoing liver transplant with side-to-side cavocavostomy after July 2017 until October 2018 was compared with a historical cohort of patients who underwent liver transplant with traditional piggyback previously from January 2016 to October 2018.Of 290 liver transplant patients, 50% (n = 145) underwent side-to-side cavocavostomy, while the remainder underwent traditional piggyback. There were no differences in recipient age, sex, race, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, or donor characteristics between groups. Side-to-side cavocavostomy was associated with decreased mean number intraoperative, red blood cell transfusions (2 vs 5 units), fresh frozen plasma (5 vs 10 units), cell saver (1.0 vs 2.0 L), and rates of temporary abdominal closure (8.3% vs 24.1%) compared with traditional piggyback (all P.05). The side-to-side cavocavostomy group had lesser Rt3s of postoperative transfusion rates of red blood cells (21.4% vs 35.9%; P = .01).Side-to-side cavocavostomy may be superior to traditional piggyback implantation with regard to technical ease and perioperative transfusion requirements. To determine the optimal implantation technique, futures studies should evaluate side-to-side cavocavostomy versus traditional piggyback in a prospective, multicenter, randomized approach.