Kumm, Kayla

Importance Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) has been shown to reduce peritransplant complications. Despite increasing NMP use in liver transplant (LT), there is a scarcity of real-world clinical experience data. Objective To compare LT outcomes between donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) allografts preserved with NMP or static cold storage (SCS). Design, Setting, and Participants This single-center, retrospective observational cohort study included all consecutive adult LTs performed between January 2019 and December 2023 at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Data analysis was performed between February 2024 and June 2024. Outcomes of DBD-SCS, DBD-NMP, DCD-SCS, and DCD-NMP transplants were compared. Exposure DBD and DCD livers preserved on NMP or SCS. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were early allograft dysfunction (EAD), intraoperative transfusion, and post-LT hospital resource use, including length of stay (LOS) and readmissions. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury (AKI) and 1-year graft and patient survival. Results A total of 1086 LTs were included in the following 4 groups: DBD-SCS (n = 480), DBD-NMP (n = 63), DCD-SCS (n = 264), and DCD-NMP (n = 279). Among LT recipients, median (IQR) age was 60.0 years (52.0-66.0); 399 LT recipients (36.7%) were female. DCD-NMP had the lowest EAD rate (17.5%), followed by DCD-SCS (50.0%), DBD-NMP (36.8%), and DBD-SCS (27.3%) ( P < .001). DCD-NMP had the lowest intraoperative transfusion requirement compared to all other groups. Hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS were shortest in DCD-NMP (median [IQR] hospital LOS, 5.0 days [4.0-7.0]; P = .01; median [IQR] ICU LOS, 1.5 days [1.2-3.1]; P = .01). One-year cumulative readmission probability was 86% lower for DCD-NMP vs DCD-SCS (95% CI, 0.09-0.22; P < .001) and 53% lower for DBD-NMP vs DBD-SCS (95% CI, 0.26-0.87; P < .001). AKI events were lower in DCD-NMP (31.1%) vs DCD-SCS (47.4%) ( P = .001). Compared to SCS, the NMP group had a 78% overall reduction in graft failure (hazard ratio [HR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10-0.49; P < .001). For those receiving DCD allografts, the risk reduction was even more pronounced, with an 87% decrease in graft failure (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05-0.33; P < .001). NMP was significantly protective from patient mortality vs SCS (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.80; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance In this observational high-volume cohort study, NMP significantly improved LT clinical outcomes and reduced hospital resource use, especially in DCD allografts. NMP may enhance access to LT by addressing the challenges historically linked with DCD liver use.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) kidneys, including those from donors on dialysis, are often underutilized, although there is increasing data available demonstrating good transplant outcomes. To date, data on the duration of donor dialysis and transplant outcomes are limited. STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-center study of deceased donor kidney transplants from 2010 to 2022. The study cohort consisted of recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants from donors with AKI and on dialysis. Three groups were identified based on the predetermined interquartile range of donor dialysis duration: 1 to 2 dialysis days, 3 to 4 dialysis days, and 5 or more dialysis days. RESULTS: During this period, 765 AKI deceased donor transplants were performed, of which 230 were from donors on dialysis. The median dialysis duration was 2 days with a maximum of 13 days. Across the 3 groups, there were no differences in recipient age (p = 0.23) or dialysis vintage (p = 0.70). Donor age (p = 0.86) and kidney donor profile index (p = 0.57) were comparable between the groups. Recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants from donors on dialysis 5 or more days had lower terminal creatinine levels (p = 0.003) and longer cold ischemia times (p = 0.04). Posttransplant, the median length of hospital stay was 3 days for all groups (p = 0.75). There were no differences in delayed graft function occurrence (94.4% vs 86.8% vs 92.1%, p = 0.19), duration of delayed graft function (p = 0.56), or readmissions (p = 0.99). At 1 year posttransplant, the estimated glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.76), patient survival (p = 0.82), or death-censored graft survival (p = 0.28) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes have been observed in AKI deceased donor kidney transplants, including those coming from donors on dialysis. In this small cohort, the duration of donor dialysis did not adversely affect outcomes. Cautious expansion of the donor pool, including donors on dialysis, should be considered given the ongoing organ shortage.

(1) Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) kidneys have high non-utilization rates due to concerns regarding unfavorable outcomes. In this paper, we aimed to review the past, present, and future opinions on AKI kidneys. (2) Methods: A PubMed search was conducted for topics relevant to AKI kidney transplantation. (3) Results: Current short- and long-term data on AKI kidneys have demonstrated good outcomes including favorable graft function and survival. The role of procurement biopsies is controversial, but they have been shown to be beneficial in AKI kidneys by allowing clinicians to differentiate between reversible tubular injury and irreversible cortical necrosis. Machine perfusion has also been applied to AKI kidneys and has been shown to reduce delayed graft function (DGF). The incidence of DGF increases with AKI severity and its management can be challenging. Strategies employed to counteract this have included early initiation of dialysis after kidney transplantation, early targeting of adequate immunosuppression levels to minimize rejection risk, and establishment of outpatient dialysis. (4) Conclusions: Despite good outcomes, there continue to be barriers that impact AKI kidney utilization. Successful strategies have included use of procurement biopsies or machine perfusion and expectant management of DGF. With increasing experience, better use of AKI kidneys can result in additional opportunities to expand the donor pool.

AbstractIntroductionExpedited out‐of‐sequence deceased donor kidney allocation is a strategy to avoid discards after early placement attempts have been unsuccessful. Our study aimed to assess outcomes and characteristics of these transplanted kidneys.MethodsKDPI matching was performed between expedited allocation (EA) and standard allocation (SA) deceased donor kidney transplants performed at our center.ResultsBetween 2018 and 2021, there were 225 EA offers, and 189 (84%) were transplanted. EA recipients were older (p = .007) and had shorter dialysis vintage (p < .0001). EA kidneys were likely to be nationally allocated (p < .001), have AKI (p < .0001) and longer CIT (p < .0001). There were no differences in EA and SA time‐zero kidney biopsies (ci, p = .07; ct, p = .89; cv, p = .95; ah, p = .79). EA kidneys had more DGF (p = .0006), but there were no differences in DGF duration (p = .83), hospital length of stay (p = .43), 1‐ and 2‐year eGFR (p = .16, p = .99), patient (p = .34), or death‐censored graft (p = .66) survival.ConclusionDuring this study period, our center transplanted 189 kidneys through EA following local‐regional declines. These kidneys often came from AKI donors and had more DGF but had similar outcomes to KDPI‐matched SA kidneys. Although it has been suggested that EA has the potential to worsen transplant disparities, transplant center level decisions on organ acceptance contribute to these variations.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading indications for liver transplantation and has been the treatment of choice due to the oncologic benefit for patients with advanced chronic liver disease (AdvCLD) and small tumors for the last 25 years. For HCC patients undergoing liver transplantation, alpha fetoprotein (AFP) has increasingly been applied as an independent predictor for overall survival, disease free recurrence, and waitlist drop out. In addition to static AFP, newer studies evaluating the AFP dynamic response to downstaging therapy show enhanced prognostication compared to static AFP alone. While AFP has been utilized to select HCC patients for transplant, despite years of allocation policy changes, the US allocation system continues to take a uniform approach to HCC patients, without discriminating between those with favorable or unfavorable tumor biology. We aim to review the history of liver allocation for HCC in the US, the utility of AFP in liver transplantation, the implications of weaving AFP as a biomarker into policy. Based on this review, we encourage the US transplant community to revisit its HCC organ allocation model, to incorporate more precise oncologic principles for patient selection, and to adopt AFP dynamics to better stratify waitlist dropout risk.