Mathur, Amit K.

Background. In the United States, Hispanic/Latinx patients receive disproportionately fewer living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs) than non-Hispanic White patients. Northwestern Medicine’s culturally targeted Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program (HKTP) was found to increase LDKTs in Hispanic patients at 1 of 2 transplant programs with greater implementation fidelity. Methods. We conducted a budget impact analysis to evaluate HKTP’s impact on program financial profiles from changes in volume of LDKTs and deceased donor kidney transplants (DDKTs) in 2017 to 2019. We estimated HKTP programmatic costs, and kidney transplant (KT) program costs and revenues. We forecasted transplant volumes, HKTP programmatic costs, and KT program costs and revenues for 2022–2024. Results. At both programs, HKTP programmatic costs had <1% impact on total KT program costs, and HKTP programmatic costs comprised <1% of total KT program revenues in 2017–2019. In particular, the total volume of Hispanic KTs and HKTP LDKTs increased at both sites. Annual KT program revenues of HKTP LDKTs and DDKTs increased by 226.9% at site A and by 1042.9% at site B when comparing 2019–2017. Forecasted HKTP LDKT volume showed an increase of 36.4% (site A) and 33.3% (site B) with a subsequent increase in KT program revenues of 42.3% (site A) and 44.3% (site B) among HKTP LDKTs and DDKTs. Conclusions. HKTP programmatic costs and KT evaluation costs are potentially recoverable by reimbursement of organ acquisition costs and offset by increases in total KT program revenues of LDKTs; transplant programs may find implementation of the HKTP financially manageable.

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.

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.

Background and Objectives: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is considered a surrogate marker for adverse post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes. With the increasing use of nonconventional donors, EAD has become a more frequent occurrence. Given this background, we aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of EAD in an updated cohort inclusive of both conventional and nonconventional liver allografts. Materials and Methods: Perioperative and one-year outcomes were assessed for a total of 611 LT recipients with and without EAD from Mayo Clinic Arizona. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: bilirubin > 10 mg/dL on day 7, INR > 1.6 on day 7, or ALT and/or AST > 2000 IU/L within the first 7 days of LT. Results: Within this cohort, 31.8% of grafts (n = 194) came from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, 17.7% (n = 108) were nationally shared, 16.4% (n = 100) were allocated as post-cross clamp, and 8.7% contained moderate steatosis. EAD was observed in 52.2% (n = 321) of grafts in the study cohort (79% in DCD grafts and 40% in DBD grafts). EAD grafts had higher donor risk index (DRI) scores (1.9 vs. 1.6, p < 0.0001), were more likely to come from DCD donors (48% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.0001), were regionally allocated (p = 0.003), and had higher cold ischemia times (median 6.0 vs. 5.5 h, p = 0.001). Primary nonfunction events were rare in both groups (1.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.22). Post-LT acute kidney injury occurred at a similar frequency in recipients with and without EAD (43.6% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.41), and there were no differences in ICU (median 2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.60) or hospital (6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.24) length of stay. For DCD grafts, the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was similar in the two groups (14.9% EAD vs. 17.5% no EAD, p = 0.69). One-year patient survival for grafts with and without EAD was 96.0% and 94.1% (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7–1.8; p = 0.54); one-year graft survival was 92.5% and 92.1% (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7–1.5; p = 0.88). Conclusions: In this cohort, EAD occurred in 52% of grafts. The occurrence of EAD, however, did not portend inferior outcomes. Compared to those without EAD, recipients with EAD had similar post-operative outcomes, as well as one-year patient and graft survival. EAD should be managed supportively and should not be viewed as a deterrent to utilization of non-ideal grafts.

Background. This study aimed to assess the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom in the characteristics and posttransplant survival of patients who received donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts from donors aged >60 y. Methods. Data were collected from the UK Transplant Registry and the United Network for Organ Sharing databases. Cohorts were dichotomized into donor age subgroups (donor >60 y [D >60]; donor ≤60 y [D ≤60]). Study period: January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2015. Results. 1157 DCD LTs were performed in the United Kingdom versus 3394 in the United States. Only 13.8% of US DCD donors were aged >50 y, contrary to 44.3% in the United Kingdom. D >60 were 22.6% in the United Kingdom versus 2.4% in the United States. In the United Kingdom, 64.2% of D >60 clustered in 2 metropolitan centers. In the United States, there was marked inter-regional variation. A total of 78.3% of the US DCD allografts were used locally. One- and 5-y unadjusted DCD graft survival was higher in the United Kingdom versus the United States (87.3% versus 81.4%, and 78.0% versus 71.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). One- and 5-y D >60 graft survival was higher in the United Kingdom (87.3% versus 68.1%, and 77.9% versus 51.4%, United Kingdom versus United States, respectively; P < 0.001). In both groups, grafts from donors ≤30 y had the best survival. Survival was similar for donors aged 41 to 50 versus 51 to 60 in both cohorts. Conclusions. Compared with the United Kingdom, older DCD LT utilization remained low in the United States, with worse D >60 survival. Nonetheless, present data indicate similar survivals for older donors aged ≤60, supporting an extension to the current US DCD age cutoff.

AbstractDual kidney transplantation (DKT), utilizing two adult kidneys from the same donor for one recipient, has been used as a way to expand the available donor pool. These kidneys often come from high Kidney Donor Profile Index donors (KDPI > 85%). Data comparing outcomes between high KDPI DKT and single kidney transplants (SKT) remain limited. We assessed outcomes of 336 high KDPI kidney transplants performed at our center; 11.0% (n = 37) were DKT. Recipients of DKT were older (P = .02) and donors had a higher KDPI score (median 96% vs. 91%, P < .0001). DKT operative time was higher compared to SKT (+1.4 hours, P < .0001). There were no differences in delayed graft function (54.1% vs. 51.5%, P = .77) and hospital length of stay (median 4.0 vs. 3.0 days, P = .21) between DKT and SKT. Grade I Clavien‐Dindo complications occurred in 8.1% of DKT and 13.7% of SKT (P = .008). There were no grade IVa, IVb, or V complications in either group. DKT had more glomerulosclerosis (P = .04), interstitial fibrosis (P = .02), tubular atrophy (P = .01), and arterial thickening (P = .03) on 1‐year protocol biopsies. Estimated glomerular filtration was higher for DKT at 1‐ (P = .004) and 2‐years post‐transplant (P = .01). There were no differences in patient (HR 1.3, 95% CI .5‐3.3, P = .58) or graft (HR 1.1, 95% CI .5‐2.3, P = .83) survival. Good outcomes can be achieved with DKT using high KDPI kidneys with moderate chronic changes. DKT is a good option to help further utilize high KDPI kidneys and minimize discard.