Calderon, Esteban

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers increasingly use machine perfusion (MP). This study evaluates MP’s impact on older DCD livers based on data from the United Network for Data Sharing, covering all first adult DCD liver transplants (2016–2025). The cohort, divided into pre-MP and MP eras (separated by the FDA approval of the first normothermic MP platform in 2021), showed accelerated growth in DCD liver transplants during the MP era. Donors ≥60 rose 7.8-fold, including donors ≥70 (a USA first). By 2025, DCD livers accounted for 43.2%, with 61.35% from donors ≥50. Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) (3.0%–21.7%), NMP (2.3%–35.6%), and sequential NRP-NMP (0.1%–19.2%) increased significantly (p < 0.001). The MP era was associated with a decrease in median waitlist time from 112 to 62 days (p < 0.001). Early graft survival was similar across ages. For ages 50–59, 1- and 3-year survivals were 87.9%/78.4% pre-MP and 90.1%/78.8% in the MP era. For 60–69, survival was 85.0%/80.6% pre-MP and 90.0%/71.3% in the MP era. DCD LTs for ≥70 were limited to the MP era with 87.8% 1-year survival. Multivariable Cox regression showed that static cold storage (HR = 1.19), donor age 50–69 versus 18–49, and recipient age (HR = 1.04) increased the risk of graft loss after adjustment. MP is associated with an increased number of older DCD liver transplants and acceptable early graft survival.

Background The hernia defects that develop in liver transplant recipients tend to be complex. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of data to guide post-transplant hernia management. Our goal was to evaluate the outcomes following laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) in liver transplant recipients. Methods A retrospective review of a prospectively kept database of liver transplant patients at a single tertiary healthcare facility was completed. All patients between 2007 and 2020 who underwent LVHR for a hernia at their transplant incision site were included. The primary outcome studied was hernia recurrence. Secondary outcomes included time-to-hernia repair, complications, and length of stay (LOS). Results There were 89 patients who met inclusion criteria. 82% were male, mean age was 60 years, and mean body mass index was 30.2 kg/m 2 . 94.4% were on tacrolimus and 36% on mycophenolate mofetil. Median time-to-hernia repair was 16 months with a mean mesh size of 743 cm 2 and length of stay of 3.7 days. None required conversion to an open operation. Postoperative complications included ileus (20.2%), acute kidney injury (11.2%), pneumonia (6.7%), and bleeding requiring re-operation (1.1%). Hernia-related complications included chronic suture site pain (1.1%), seroma requiring intervention (3.3%), surgical site infection (3.3%), nonoperative mesh infection (1.1%), and mesh infection requiring explantation (1.1%). Median follow-up was 23 months. Hernia recurrence occurred in 4.5% and no predictive variables for recurrence were identified. Conclusions Although the hernia defects that develop in liver transplant recipients are complex and their comorbidities significant, LVHR can safely and effectively repair these defects with low rates of recurrence and complications.

Background. With donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT), the goal of the recipient implantation procedure is to minimize surgical complexity to avoid a tenuous environment for an already marginal graft. The presence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) at the time of LT adds surgical complexity, yet‚ to date, no studies have investigated the utilization of DCD liver grafts for patients with PVT. Methods. All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic-Florida, Mayo Clinic-Arizona, and Mayo Clinic-Rochester from 2006 to 2020 were reviewed (N = 771). Patients with PVT at the time of transplant were graded using Yerdel classification. A 1:3 propensity match between patients with PVT and those without PVT was performed. Results. A total of 91 (11.8%) patients with PVT undergoing DCD LT were identified. Grade I PVT was present in 62.6% of patients, grade II PVT in 27.5%, grade III in 8.8%, and grade 4 in 1.1%. At the time of LT, thromboendovenectomy was performed in 89 cases (97.8%). There was no difference in the rates of early allograft dysfunction (43.2% versus 52.4%; P = 0.13) or primary nonfunction (1.1% versus 1.1%; P = 0.41) between the DCD PVT and DCD without PVT groups, respectively. The rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was not significantly different between the DCD PVT (11.0%) and DCD without PVT groups (10.6%; P = 0.92). Graft (P = 0.58) and patient survival (P = 0.08) were similar between the 2 groups. Graft survival at 1-, 3-, and 5-y was 89.9%, 84.5%, and 79.3% in the DCD PVT group. Conclusions. In appropriately selected recipients with grades I–II PVT, DCD liver grafts can be utilized safely with excellent outcomes.

AbstractBackgroundCenters discard high kidney donor profile index (KDPI) allografts, potentially related to delayed graft function and prolonged hospital use by kidney transplant recipients (KTR). We sought to determine whether high KDPI KTRs have excess health care utilization.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study from a high‐volume center analyzing KTRs from January 3, 2011 to April 12, 2015 (n = 652). We measured differences in hospital use, emergency visits, and outpatient visits within the first 90 days between low (≤85%) versus high KDPI (>85%) KTRs, as well as long‐term graft function and patient survival.ResultsHigh (n = 107) and low KDPI (n = 545) KTRs had similar length of stay (median = 3 days, P = .66), and readmission rates at 7, 30, and 90 days after surgery (all, P > .05). High KDPI kidneys were not associated with excess utilization of the hospital, emergency services, outpatient transplant clinics, or ambulatory infusion visits on univariate or multivariate analysis (all, P > .05). Low KDPI KTRs had significantly better eGFR at 2 years (Low vs. High KDPI: 60.35 vs. 41.54 ml/min, P < .001), but similar 3‐year patient and graft survival (both, P > .09).ConclusionsHigh and low KDPI KTRs demonstrated similar 90‐day risk‐adjusted health care utilization, which should encourage use of high KDPI kidneys.

AbstractBackgroundOpioids are associated with negative transplant outcomes. We sought to identify patient and center effects on over‐prescribing of opioids (> 200 OME (oral morphine equivalents)).Study designClinical and opioid prescription data (2014–2017) were collected from three academic transplant centers for kidney (KT), liver (LT), and simultaneous liver‐kidney transplant (SLK) patients. Multivariable models were used to identify predictors of opioid over‐prescribing at discharge and the occurrence of refill prescriptions at 90 days.ResultsThree‐thousand seven‐hundred and two patients underwent transplant in the cohort (KT: n = 2358, LT: n = 1221, SLK: n = 123). More than 80% of recipients were over‐prescribed opioids at discharge (Median OME (mOME) = 300 (IQR 225–375). LT and SLK had the largest prescription size (LT mOME 338 (IQR 300–450); SLK mOME 338 (IQR 225–450) and refill rate (LT: 64%, SLK 59%) (all, P < .001). Multivariable analysis indicated that transplant center was a significant predictor of opioid over‐prescription after KT and LT (all, P < .001); older age (in KT) and length of stay (LOS) (in LT) were protective factors (both, P < .05). Refill occurrence was associated with initial prescription size and was reduced by older age and initial LOS (all, P < .05).ConclusionsThe wide variation in opioid prescribing patterns has implications for transplant practice innovation, guideline development, and further study.

Objective: To understand whether reduced lengths of stay after kidney transplantation were associated with excess health care utilization in the first 90 days or long-term graft and patient survival outcomes. Background: Reducing length of stay after kidney transplant has an unknown effect on post-transplant health care utilization. We studied this association in a cohort of 1001 consecutive kidney transplants. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 2011–2015 data from a prospectively-maintained kidney transplant database from a single center. Results: A total of 1001 patients underwent kidney transplant, and were dismissed from the hospital in 3 groups: Early [≤2 days] (19.8%), Normal [3–7 days] (79.4%) and Late [>7 days] (3.8%). 34.8% of patients had living donor transplants (Early 51%, Normal 31.4%, Late 18.4%, P < 0.001). Early patients had lower delayed graft function rates (Early 19.2%, Normal 32%, Late73.7%, P = 0.001). By the hospital dismissal group, there were no differences in readmissions or emergency room visits at 30 or 90 days. Glomerular filtration rate at 12 months and rates of biopsy-proven acute rejection were also similar between groups. The timing of hospital dismissal was not associated with the risk-adjusted likelihood of readmission. Early and Normal patients had similar graft and patient survival. Late dismissal patients, who had higher rates of cardiovascular complications, had significantly higher late mortality versus Normal dismissal patients in unadjusted and risk-adjusted models. Conclusion: Dismissing patients from the hospital 2 days after kidney transplant is safe, feasible, and improves value. It is not associated with excess health care utilization or worse short or long-term transplant outcomes.

Objectives We compared risk-adjusted short- and long-term outcomes between standard pancreaticoduodenectomy (SPD) and a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD). Methods The National Cancer Database was queried for the years 2004 to 2014 to identify patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head undergoing SPD and PPD. Margin status, lymph node yield, length of stay (LOS), 30- and 90-day mortality, and overall survival were compared. Results A total of 11,172 patients were identified, of whom 9332 (83.5%) underwent SPD and 1840 (16.5%) PPPD. There was no difference in patient age, sex, stage, tumor grade, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy treatment between the 2 groups. Total number of regional lymph nodes was examined, and surgical margin status and overall survival were also comparable. However, patients undergoing PPPD had a shorter LOS (11.3 vs 12.3 days, P < 0.001), lower 30-day mortality (2.5% vs 3.7%, P = 0.02), and 90-day mortality (5.5% vs 6.9%, P = 0.03). On multivariate analyses, patients undergoing SPD were at higher risk for 30-day mortality compared with PPPD (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.07–2.13). Conclusions Standard pancreaticoduodenectomy and PPPD are oncologically equivalent, yet PPPD is associated with a reduction in postoperative mortality and shorter LOS.

BACKGROUND: Primary colorectal lymphoma is rare, representing 0.2% to 0.6% of all colorectal cancers. Because of its low incidence and histologic variety, no treatment guidelines exist. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to report the experience of primary colorectal lymphoma in an institutional and a national cohort. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted with institutional data composed of 3 tertiary referral centers and national data. PATIENTS: Patients with primary colorectal lymphoma were identified within the Mayo Clinic (1990–2016) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1990–2014). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were overall and 5-year survival. RESULTS: For the institutional cohort (N = 82), 5-year survival was 79.9%. Five-year survival was higher for rectal (88.4%) than for colon tumors (77.2%; p = 0.004). On multivariable analysis, age <50 years was associated with higher overall survival ( p = 0.04). Left-sided colon masses and aggressive histological subtypes were associated with worse survival (0.04 and 0.03). No effect of treatment modality on survival was noted. For the national cohort (N = 2942), 5-year survival was 58.4%. Five-year survival for rectal tumors was 61.0% and 57.8% for colon tumors. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with improved survival were age <70 y, ( p < 0.0001), female sex ( p = 0.005), right-sided masses ( p = 0.02), and diagnoses after 2000 compared with 1990–1999 ( p < 0.0001). Aggressive pathology ( p < 0.0001) and stage III or stage IV presentation compared with stage I ( p = 0.02 and p < 0.0001) were associated with worse survival. LIMITATIONS: The institutional cohort was limited by sample size to describe treatment effect on survival. A major limitation of the national cohort was the ability to describe treatment modalities other than surgery, including chemotherapy and/or no additional treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Poorer survival was noted in elderly patients and in those with aggressive pathology. An overall survival advantage was seen in women in the national cohort. Currently, optimal strategies should follow a patient-centered multidisciplinary approach. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A807. LINFOMA COLORECTAL PRIMARIO: EXPERIENCIA INSTITUCIONAL Y REVISIÓN DE UNA BASE DE DATOS NACIONAL ANTECEDENTES: El linfoma colorectal primario es poco frecuente, representando del 0.2% al 0.6% de todos los cánceres colorectales. Debido a su baja incidencia y variedad histológica, no existen guías de tratamiento. OBJETIVO: El propósito fue reportar la experiencia en linfoma colorectal primario en una cohorte institucional y una nacional. DISEÑO: Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ESCENARIO: El estudio se realizó con datos institucionales provenientes de 3 centros de referencia terciarios y datos nacionales. PACIENTES: Se identificaron pacientes con linfoma colorectal primario en la base de datos de la Clínica Mayo (1990–2016) y en la base de datos de vigilancia, epidemiología y resultados finales [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (1990–2014)]. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Los resultados primarios fueron la sobrevida general y a 5 años. RESULTADOS: Para la cohorte institucional (N = 82), la sobrevida a 5 años fue de 79.9%. La sobrevida a cinco años fue mayor en tumores rectales (88.4%) que en los de colon (77.2%; p = 0.004). En el análisis multivariable, la edad <50 años se asoció con una mayor sobrevida general (p = 0,04). Las masas de colon izquierdo y los subtipos histológicos agresivos se asociaron con una peor sobrevida (0.04 y 0.03). No se observó ningún efecto según la modalidad de tratamiento en la sobrevida. Para la cohorte nacional (N = 2942), la sobrevida a 5 años fue del 58.4%. La sobrevida a cinco años fue de 61.0% para los tumores rectales y 57.8% para los tumores de colon. En el análisis multivariable, los factores asociados con una mayor sobrevida fueron edad <70 años, (p <0.0001), sexo femenino (p = 0.005), masas derechas (p = 0.02) y los casos diagnósticados después del año 2000 comparados con los de 1990–1999 (p <0.0001). Histopatología agresiva (p <0.0001) y presentación en estadio III o estadio IV en comparación con estadio I (p = 0.02 y p <0.0001) se asociaron con una peor sobrevida. LIMITACIONES: La cohorte institucional estuvo limitada por el tamaño de la muestra para describir el efecto del tratamiento en la sobrevida. Una limitación mayor en la cohorte nacional fue la habilidad para describir modalidades de tratamiento distintas a la cirugía, incluyendo quimioterapia y/o ningún tratamiento adicional. CONCLUSIONES: Una menor sobrevida fue documentada en pacientes de edad avanzada y en aquellos con histopatología agresiva. Se observó ventaja en cuanto a sobrevida general en las mujeres de la cohorte nacional. Actualmente, las estrategias óptimas deben de seguir un abordaje multidisciplinario centrado en cada paciente. Vea el abstract en video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A807.