Israni, Ajay K.

Background. Gaps in our knowledge of long-term outcomes affect decision making for potential living kidney donors. Methods. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was asked to determine the feasibility of a candidate registry. Results. Ten living kidney donor programs evaluated 2107 consecutive kidney donor candidates; 2099 of 2107 (99.6%) completed evaluations, 1578 of 2099 (75.2%) had a decision, and 790 of 1578 (50.1%) were approved to donate as of March 12, 2020. By logistic regression, candidates most likely to be approved were married or had attended college or technical school; those least likely to be approved had ≥1 of the following characteristics: Black race, history of cigarette smoking, and higher blood pressure, higher triglycerides, or higher urine albumin-to-creatinine ratios. Reasons for 617 candidates not being approved included medical issues other than chronic kidney disease risk (25.3%), chronic kidney disease risk (18.5%), candidate withdrawal (15.2%), recipient reason (13.6%), anatomical risk to the recipient (10.3%), noneconomic psychosocial (10.3%), economic (0.5%), and other reasons (6.4%). Conclusions. These results suggest that a comprehensive living donor registry is both feasible and necessary to assess long-term outcomes that may inform decision making for future living donor candidates. There may be socioeconomic barriers to donation that require more granular identification so that active measures can address inequities. Some candidates who did not donate may be suitable controls for discerning the appropriateness of acceptance decisions and the long-term outcomes attributable to donation. We anticipate that these issues will be better identified with modifications to the data collection and expansion of the registry to all centers over the next several years.

Background. This systematic review was commissioned to identify new variables associated with transplant outcomes that are not currently collected by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). Methods. We identified 81 unique studies including 1 193 410 patients with median follow-up of 36 months posttransplant, reporting 108 unique risk factors. Results. Most risk factors (104) were recipient related; few (4) were donor related. Most risk factors were judged to be practical and feasible to routinely collect. Relative association measures were small to moderate for most risk factors (ranging between 1.0 and 2.0). The strongest relative association measure for a heart transplant outcome with a risk factor was 8.6 (recipient with the previous Fontan operation), for a kidney transplant 2.8 (sickle cell nephropathy as primary cause of end-stage renal disease), for a liver transplant 14.3 (recipient serum ferritin >500 µg/L), and for a lung transplant 6.3 (Burkholderia cepacia complex infection for 1 y or less). OPTN may consider some of these 108 variables for future collection to enhance transplant research and clinical care. Conclusions. Evidence-based approaches can be used to determine variables collected in databases and registries. Several candidate variables have been identified for OPTN.

The current system granting liver transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) additional Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) points is controversial due to geographic disparity and uncertainty regarding optimal prioritization of candidates. The current national policy assigns a MELD exception score of 22 immediately upon listing of eligible patients with HCC. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential effects of delays in granting these exception points on transplant rates for HCC and non‐HCC patients. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data and liver simulated allocation modeling software and modeled (1) a 3‐month delay before granting a MELD exception score of 25, (2) a 6‐month delay before granting a score of 28, and (3) a 9‐month delay before granting a score of 29. Of all candidates waitlisted between January 1 and December 31, 2010 (n = 28,053), 2773 (9.9%) had an HCC MELD exception. For HCC candidates, transplant rates would be 108.7, 65.0, 44.2, and 33.6 per 100 person‐years for the current policy and for 3‐, 6‐, and 9‐month delays, respectively. Corresponding rates would be 30.1, 32.5, 33.9, and 34.8 for non‐HCC candidates. Conclusion: A delay of 6‐9 months would eliminate the geographic variability in the discrepancy between HCC and non‐HCC transplant rates under current policy and may allow for more equal access to transplant for all candidates. (Hepatology 2015;61:1643–1650)