ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In March 2021, the United States implemented a new kidney allocation system (KAS250) for deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT), which eliminated the donation service area-based allocation and replaced it with a system on the basis of distance from donor hospital to transplant center within/outside a radius of 250 nautical miles. The effect of this policy on kidney discards and logistics is unknown. METHODS: We examined discards, donor-recipient characteristics, cold ischemia time (CIT), and delayed graft function (DGF) during the first 9 months of KAS250 compared with a pre-KAS250 cohort from the preceding 2 years. Changes in discards and CIT after the onset of COVID-19 and the implementation of KAS250 were evaluated using an interrupted time-series model. Changes in allocation practices (biopsy, machine perfusion, and virtual cross-match) were also evaluated. RESULTS: Post-KAS250 saw a two-fold increase in kidneys imported from nonlocal organ procurement organizations (OPO) and a higher proportion of recipients with calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) 81%-98% (12% versus 8%; P<0.001) and those with >5 years of pretransplant dialysis (35% versus 33%; P<0.001). CIT increased (mean 2 hours), including among local OPO kidneys. DGF was similar on adjusted analysis. Discards after KAS250 did not immediately change, but we observed a statistically significant increase over time that was independent of donor quality. Machine perfusion use decreased, whereas reliance on virtual cross-match increased, which was associated with shorter CIT. CONCLUSIONS: Early trends after KAS250 show an increase in transplant access to patients with cPRA>80% and those with longer dialysis duration, but this was accompanied by an increase in CIT and a suggestion of worsening kidney discards.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) continues to be the primary modality of liver transplantation in Asia, but it accounts for about 5% of all liver transplantations in the US. ABO incompatibility is the primary reason motivated donors are declined. Although kidney paired exchanges are common, liver paired exchange (LPE) is still evolving in the US. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective review (between January 1, 2019, and July 31, 2021) of our initial experience with LPE. RESULTS: A total of 10 LPEs (20 LDLTs) were performed during the study period. Seven LPEs were initiated by a nondirected O donor. The other 3 pair sets involved 1 ABO compatible and 1 ABO incompatible pair. Transplantations in a pair set were completed within a mean of 4.8 (range 1-14) days of each other. All 20 donors are doing well with no major complications at 12.7 (range 1-20) months. Seventeen of 20 recipients are alive and have good allograft function. One recipient died in the early postoperative period. Two late deaths of patients with functioning allografts were due to COVID-19 (at 8 months) and peritoneal carcinomatosis and gram-negative sepsis (at 9 months). CONCLUSIONS: LPE is feasible in a high-volume LDLT center and is a useful option to increase LDLT by overcoming ABO incompatibility. Nondirected donors can be utilized to initiate an LPE.