Safety and use of late-turndown liver allografts to increase rate of transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The demand for liver transplants (LT) in the United States far surpasses the availability of allografts. New allocation schemes have resulted in occasional difficulties with allograft placement and increased intraoperative turndowns. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes related to use of late-turndown liver allografts. METHODS: A review of prospectively collected data of LTs at a single center from July 2019 to July 2023 was performed. Late-turndown placement was defined as an open offer 6 h prior to donation, intraoperative turndown by primary center, or post-cross-clamp turndown. RESULTS: Of 565 LTs, 25.1% (n = 142) received a late-turndown liver allograft. There were no significant differences in recipient age, gender, BMI, or race (all p > 0.05), but MELD was lower for the late-turndown LT recipient group (median 15 vs 21, p < 0.001). No difference in 30-day, 6-month, or 1-year survival was noted on logistic regression, and no difference in patient or graft survival was noted on Cox proportional hazard regression. Late-turndown utilization increased during the study from 17.2% to 25.8%, and median waitlist time decreased from 77 days in 2019 to 18 days in 2023 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Use of late-turndown livers has increased and can increase transplant rates without compromising post-transplant outcomes with appropriate selection.

Long-term follow-up of temporary abdominal closure in complex abdomens during liver transplant.

BACKGROUND: Temporary abdominal closure is commonly employed in liver transplantation when patient factors make primary fascial closure challenging. However, there is minimal data evaluating long-term survival and patient outcomes after temporary abdominal closure. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective review of patients undergoing liver transplantation from January 2013 through December 2017 was performed with a 5-year follow-up. Patients were characterized as either requiring temporary abdominal closure or immediate primary fascial closure at the time of liver transplantation. RESULTS: Of 422 patients who underwent 436 liver transplantations, 17.2% (n = 75) required temporary abdominal closure, whereas 82.8% (n = 361) underwent primary fascial closure. Patients requiring temporary abdominal closure had higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores preoperatively (27 [22-36] vs 23 [20-28], P = .0002), had higher rates of dialysis preoperatively (28.0% vs 12.5%, P = .0007), and were more likely to be hospitalized within 90 days of liver transplantation (64.0% vs 47.5%, P = .0093). On univariable analysis, survival at 1 year was different between the groups (90.9% surviving at 1 year for primary fascial closure versus 82.7% for temporary abdominal closure, P = .0356); however, there was no significant difference in survival at 5 years (83.7% vs 76.0%, P = .11). On multivariable analysis, there was no difference in survival after adjusting for multiple factors. Patients requiring temporary abdominal closure were more likely to have longer hospital stays (median 16 days [9.75-29.5] vs 8 days [6-14], P < .0001), more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (45.3% vs 32.2%, P = .03), and less likely to be discharged home (36.5% vs 74.2%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Temporary abdominal closure after liver transplantation appears safe and has similar outcomes to primary fascial closure, though it is used more commonly in complex patients.

The Kidney Transplant Equity Index: Improving Racial and Ethnic Minority Access to Transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a scalable metric which quantifies kidney transplant (KT) centers' performance providing equitable access to KT for minority patients, based on the individualized prelisting prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities for access to transplant in patients with ESRD are well described; however, variation in care among KT centers remains unknown. Furthermore, no mechanism exists that quantifies how well a KT center provides equitable access to KT for minority patients with ESRD. METHODS: From 2013 to 2018, custom datasets from the United States Renal Data System and United Network for Organ Sharing were merged to calculate the Kidney Transplant Equity Index (KTEI), defined as the number of minority patients transplanted at a center relative to the prevalence of minority patients with ESRD in each center's health service area. Markers of socioeconomic status and recipient outcomes were compared between high and low KTEI centers. RESULTS: A total of 249 transplant centers performed 111,959 KTs relative to 475,914 nontransplanted patients with ESRD. High KTEI centers performed more KTs for Black (105.5 vs 24, P <0.001), Hispanic (55.5 vs 7, P <0.001), and American Indian (1.0 vs 0.0, P <0.001) patients than low KTEI centers. In addition, high KTEI centers transplanted more patients with higher unemployment (52 vs 44, P <0.001), worse social deprivation (53 vs 46, P <0.001), and lower educational attainment (52 vs 43, P <0.001). While providing increased access to transplant for minority and low socioeconomic status populations, high KTEI centers had improved patient survival (hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: The KTEI is the first metric to quantify minority access to KT incorporating the prelisting ESRD prevalence individualized to transplant centers. KTEIs uncover significant national variation in transplant practices and identify highly equitable centers. This novel metric should be used to disseminate best practices for minority and low socioeconomic patients with ESRD.

Expanding the Donor Pool: First Use of Hepatitis B Virus Nat Positive Solid Organ Allografts Into Seronegative Recipients.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the 1-year safety and effectiveness of HBV Nucleic Acid Test positive (HBV NAT+) allografts in seronegative kidney transplant (KT) and liver transplant (LT) recipients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Despite an ongoing organ shortage, the utilization of HBV NAT+ allografts into seronegative recipients has not been investigated. METHODS: From January 2017 to October 2020, a prospective cohort study was conducted among consecutive KT and LT recipients at a single institution. Primary endpoints were post-transplant HBV viremia, graft and patient survival. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 1-year, there were no HBV-related complications in the 89 HBV NAT+ recipients. Only 9 of 56 KTs (16.1%) and 9 of 33 LTs (27.3%) experienced post-transplant HBV viremia at a median of 185 (KT) and 269 (LT) days postoperatively. Overall, viremic episodes resolved to undetected HBV DNA after a median of 80 days of entecavir therapy in 16 of 18 recipients. Presently, 100% of KT recipients and 93.9% of LT recipients are HBV NAT- with median follow-up of 13 months, whereas 0 KT and 8 LT (24.2%) recipients are HBV surface antigen positive indicating chronic infection. KT and LT patient and allograft survival were not different between HBV NAT+ and HBV NAT- recipients (P > 0.05), whereas HBV NAT+ KT recipients had decreased waitlist time and pretransplant duration on dialysis (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series describing the transplantation of HBV NAT+ kidney and liver allografts into HBV seronegative recipients without chronic HBV viremia or decreased 1-year patient and graft survival. Increasing the utilization of HBV NAT+ organs in nonviremic recipients can play a role in decreasing the national organ shortage.

Impact of side-to-side cavocavostomy versus traditional piggyback implantation in liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Traditional piggyback implantation has often been used in liver transplant; however, this technique may be hindered by difficult visualization and postoperative incidences of outflow obstruction. Side-to-side cavocavostomy is an alternative approach, but perioperative outcomes associated with this technique remain largely unknown. METHODS: In July 2017, side-to-side cavocavostomy was adopted as the standard implantation technique at our institution by all surgeons (n = 4). A prospective cohort of patients undergoing liver transplant with side-to-side cavocavostomy after July 2017 until October 2018 was compared with a historical cohort of patients who underwent liver transplant with traditional piggyback previously from January 2016 to October 2018. RESULTS: Of 290 liver transplant patients, 50% (n = 145) underwent side-to-side cavocavostomy, while the remainder underwent traditional piggyback. There were no differences in recipient age, sex, race, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, or donor characteristics between groups. Side-to-side cavocavostomy was associated with decreased mean number intraoperative, red blood cell transfusions (2 vs 5 units), fresh frozen plasma (5 vs 10 units), cell saver (1.0 vs 2.0 L), and rates of temporary abdominal closure (8.3% vs 24.1%) compared with traditional piggyback (all P < .05). The side-to-side cavocavostomy group had lesser Rt3s of postoperative transfusion rates of red blood cells (21.4% vs 35.9%; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Side-to-side cavocavostomy may be superior to traditional piggyback implantation with regard to technical ease and perioperative transfusion requirements. To determine the optimal implantation technique, futures studies should evaluate side-to-side cavocavostomy versus traditional piggyback in a prospective, multicenter, randomized approach.

Perioperative thrombelastography serves as an important assessment tool of transfusion requirements during liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Thrombelastography has become increasingly used in liver transplantation. The implications of thrombelastography at various stages of liver transplantation, however, remain poorly understood. Our goal was to examine thrombelastography-based coagulopathy profiles in liver transplantation and determine whether preoperative thrombelastography is predictive of transfusion requirements perioperatively. METHODS: A retrospective review of 364 liver transplantations from January 2013 to May 2017 at a single institution was performed. Patients were categorized as hypocoagulable or nonhypocoagulable based on their preoperative thrombelastography profile. The primary outcome was intraoperative transfusion requirements. RESULTS: Of patients undergoing liver transplantation, 47% (n = 170) were hypocoagulable and 53% (n = 194) were nonhypocoagulable preoperatively. Hypocoagulable patients had higher transfusion requirements compared to nonhypocoagulable patients, requiring more units of packed red blood cells (7 vs 4, P < .01), fresh frozen plasma (14 vs 8, P < .01), cryoprecipitate (2 vs 1, P < .01), platelets (3 vs 2, P < .01), and cell saver (3 vs 2 L, P < .01). Additionally, these patients were more likely to receive platelets and cryoprecipitate in the first 24 hours following liver transplantation (both P < .05). No differences were found between rates of intensive care unit length of stay, 30-day readmission, or mortality. CONCLUSION: Coagulation abnormalities are common among liver transplantation patients and can be identified using thrombelastography. Identification of a patient's coagulation state preoperatively aids in guiding transfusion during liver transplantation. This work serves to better direct clinicians during major surgery to improve perioperative resource utilization. Future prospective work should aim to identify specific thrombelastography values that may predict transfusion requirements.

Impact of obesity on dialysis and transplant and its management.

Obesity is increasing to unprecedented levels, including in the end-stage kidney disease population, where upwards of 60% of kidney transplant patients are overweight or obese. Obesity poses additional challenges to the care of the dialysis patient, including difficulties in creating vascular access and inserting Tenckhoff catheters, higher rates of catheter malfunction and peritonitis, the need for longer and/or more frequent dialysis (or peritoneal dialysis [PD] exchanges) to achieve adequate clearance, increased metabolic complications particularly with PD, and obesity is a barrier to kidney transplantation. In this article, we review special considerations in performing PD, hemodialysis and transplant in the obese patient, as well as the evidence behind medical and surgical management of obesity in dialysis patients.

Use of Hepatitis C Nucleic Acid Test-Positive Liver Allografts in Hepatitis C Virus Seronegative Recipients.

Because of underutilization of liver allografts, our center previously showed that hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody-positive/nucleic acid test (NAT)-negative livers when transplanted into HCV nonviremic recipients were safe with a 10% risk of HCV transmission. Herein, we present our single-center prospective experience of using HCV NAT+ liver allografts transplanted into HCV NAT- recipients. An institutional review board-approved matched cohort study was conducted examining post- liver transplantation (LT) outcomes of HCV- patients who received HCV NAT+ organs (treatment group) compared with matched recipients with HCV NAT- organs (matched comparator group) between June 2018 to October 2019. The primary endpoint was success of HCV treatment and elimination of HCV infection. The secondary outcomes included the 30-day and 1-year graft and patient survival as well as perioperative complications. There were 32 recipients enrolled into each group. Because of 1 death in the index admission, 30/31 patients (97%) were given HCV treatment at a median starting time of 47 days (18-140 days) after LT. A total of 19 (63%) patients achieved sustained virological response at week 12 (SVR12). Another 6 patients achieved end-of-treatment response, while 5 remained on therapy and 1 is yet to start treatment. No HCV treatment failure has been noted. There were no differences in 30-day and 1-year graft and patient survival, length of hospital stay, biliary or vascular complications, or cytomegalovirus viremia between the 2 groups. In this interim analysis of a matched cohort study, which is the first and largest study to date, the patients who received the HCV NAT+ organs had similar outcomes regarding graft function, patient survival, and post-LT complications.

Changing Education Paradigms: Training Transplant Fellows for High Stake Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: Living kidney donation is a unique operation, as healthy patients are placed at risks inherent with major surgery without physical benefit. The ethical implications associated with any morbidity make it a high-stakes procedure. Fellowships are faced with the dilemma of optimizing fellow training in this demanding procedure while providing safe outcomes to donors. The Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy (LDN) Workshop is a resource that can provide intense instruction to help bridge the training deficit. Our aim was to examine the course's effectiveness in improving fellows' skill and confidence related to implementing LDN into future practice. METHODS: From 2017 to 2018, 36 abdominal transplant surgery fellows participated in a 2-day workshop consisting of live surgery observation, cadaver lab, and didactic sessions. Surveys were completed precourse, postcourse, and at 3-month postcourse follow-up. RESULTS: Preworkshop, 61% of participants reported less than 50% confidence in independent performance of LDN. Following workshop completion, 95% reported improved confidence. At 3-month follow-up, there was a 30% (p < 0.05) increase in median confidence level. Immediately following the course, 67% reported improved ability to analyze kidneys prior to donation, 74% changed the way donor candidates were evaluated, and 67% reported enhanced ability to risk stratify donors. Eighty-five percent felt it strengthened operative techniques with 70% implementing new diagnostic treatments and surgical strategies. Seventy percent of participants felt it improved their communication with colleagues and 67% had enhanced communication with patients. These trends were maintained at 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: These results indicated that the LDN Workshop improves confidence and increases fellows' skillset in a high-stakes procedure. The LDN Workshop is a useful adjunct to fellowship training to optimize successful, efficient, and safe performance of a demanding procedure in a uniquely healthy donor population.

Outcomes of en bloc simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation compared to the traditional technique.

Simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLKT) is indicated for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) and concurrent renal insufficiency. En bloc SLKT is an alternative to traditional separate implantations, but studies comparing the two techniques are limited. The en bloc technique maintains renal outflow via donor infrahepatic vena cava and inflow via anastomosis of donor renal artery to donor splenic artery. Comparison of recipients of en bloc (n = 17) vs traditional (n = 17) SLKT between 2013 and 2017 was performed. Recipient demographics and comorbidities were similar. More recipients of traditional SLKT were dialysis dependent (82.4% vs 41.2%, P = .01) with lower baseline pretransplant eGFR (14 vs 18, P = .01). En bloc SLKT was associated with shorter kidney cold ischemia time (341 vs 533 minutes, P < .01) and operative time (374 vs 511 minutes, P < .01). Two en bloc patients underwent reoperation for kidney allograft inflow issues due to kinking and renal steal. Early kidney allograft dysfunction (23.5% in both groups), 1-year kidney graft survival (88.2% vs 82.4%, P = 1.0), and posttransplantation eGFR were similar between groups. In our experience, the en bloc SLKT technique is safe and feasible, with comparable outcomes to the traditional method.

Clinical Implications of Donor Warm and Cold Ischemia Time in Donor After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation.

The use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts has been constrained by limitations in the duration of donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), donor agonal time (DAT), and cold ischemia time (CIT). The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of longer DWIT, DAT, and CIT on graft survival and other outcomes in DCD liver transplants. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was queried for adult liver transplants from DCD donors between 2009 and 2015. Donor, recipient, and center variables were included in the analysis. During the study period, 2107 patients underwent liver transplant with DCD allografts. In most patients, DWIT and DAT were <30 minutes. DWIT was <30 minutes in 1804 donors, between 30 and 40 minutes in 248, and >40 minutes in 37. There was no difference in graft survival, duration of posttransplant hospital length of stay, and readmission rate between DCD liver transplants from donors with DWIT <30 minutes and DWIT between 30 and 40 minutes. Similar outcomes were noted for DAT. In the multivariate analysis, DAT and DWIT were not associated with graft loss. The predictors associated with graft loss were donor age, donor sharing, CIT, recipient admission to the intensive care unit, recipient ventilator dependence, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and low-volume transplant centers. Any CIT cutoff >4 hours was associated with increased risk for graft loss. Longer CIT was also associated with a longer posttransplant hospital stay, higher rate of primary nonfunction, and hyperbilirubinemia. In conclusion, slightly longer DAT and DWIT (up to 40 minutes) were not associated with graft loss, longer posttransplant hospitalization, or hospital readmissions, whereas longer CIT was associated with worse outcomes after DCD liver transplants.

Use of Hepatitis C Virus Antibody-Positive Donor Livers in Hepatitis C Nonviremic Liver Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Given the shortage of available liver grafts, transplantation (LTx) of hepatitis C virus antibody-positive, nucleic acid test-negative (HCV Ab+/NAT-) livers into nonviremic HCV recipients can expand the donor pool. Having previously described the sentinel experience of HCV Ab+/NAT- allografts in nonviremic recipients, we report the growth and extended follow-up of this program for 55 patients compared with recipients of Public Health Services (PHS) increased-risk donor HCV Ab-/NAT- allografts. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective review of all HCV nonviremic LTx patients receiving HCV Ab+/NAT- organs between March 2016 and August 2018 was performed. All HCV Ab+/NAT- organ recipients underwent HCV testing at 3 months and 1-year post-LTx to determine HCV transmission. RESULTS: Fifty-five HCV nonviremic candidates received HCV Ab+/NAT- organs; 64% male, median age 59 years (range 36 to 69 years) and median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 22.5. Two recipients were excluded due to death before HCV testing. The HCV disease transmission occurred in 5 recipients (9%). Of these, 4 (80%) underwent anti-HCV treatment with eradication of virus. No patient found to be negative at 3 months seroconverted at 1-year follow-up. No patients who received PHS increased-risk donor HCV Ab-/NAT- organs had viremia develop (0 of 57) and there was no difference in graft and renal function, complications, or survival between HCV Ab+/NAT- recipients and PHS increased-risk donor HCV Ab-/NAT- recipients. CONCLUSIONS: We report the largest experience with LTx from HCV Ab+/NAT- donors into 55 seronegative recipients with a HCV transmission rate of 9% with no late conversions at 1 year and no difference in function or graft loss compared with PHS increased-risk donor HCV Ab-/NAT- recipients. Due to availability of safe and effective HCV therapies, the use of such organs should be strongly considered to increase the donor organ pool.

Successful Simultaneous Liver-Kidney Transplantation in the Presence of Multiple High-Titered Class I and II Antidonor HLA Antibodies.

The results of simultaneous liver-kidney transplants in highly sensitized recipients have been controversial in terms of antibody-mediated rejection and kidney allograft outcomes. This case report provides a detailed and sophisticated documentation of histocompatibility and pathologic data in a simultaneous liver-kidney transplant performed in a recipient with multiple high-titered class I and II antidonor HLA antibodies and a strongly positive cytotoxic crossmatch. Patient received induction with steroids, rituximab, and eculizumab without lymphocyte depleting agents. The kidney transplant was delayed by 6 hours after the liver transplant to allow more time to the liver allograft to "absorb" donor-specific antibodies (DSA). Interestingly, the liver allograft did not prevent immediate antibody-mediated injury to the kidney allograft in this highly sensitized recipient. Anti-HLA single antigen bead analysis of liver and kidney allograft biopsy eluates revealed deposition of both class I and II DSA in both liver and kidney transplants during the first 2 weeks after transplant. Afterward, both liver and kidney allograft functions improved and remained normal after a year with progressive reduction in serum DSA values.

Use of Elderly Allografts in Liver Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: The use of liver allografts from elderly donors (≥70 years) has increased because of organ shortage and increased life expectancy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current utilization of elderly donors in United States, recipient selection, and their posttransplant outcomes. METHODS: A linkage between Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and University HealthSystem Consortium databases was performed. Between January 2007 and December 2011, 12,445 liver transplant (LT) recipients were identified and divided into 2 cohorts based on donor age: 70 years or older (n = 540) and younger than 60 years (n = 10,473). RESULTS: Elderly donors accounted for 4.3% of all donors used in the 5-year period. When compared to younger donors, elderly donors were more likely to be women, shared regionally or nationally, and used at higher volume centers. Elderly donor allografts were less likely to be used in recipients with model of end-stage liver disease score higher than 27 (13.2% vs. 23.0%, P < 0.001), hospitalized (16.8% vs. 21.7%, P = 0.03), or on hemodialysis at time of transplant (2.6% vs. 8.2%, P < 0.001). Both recipient groups had similar perioperative mortality, 30-day readmission rates, and short-term patient survival. In the multivariate analysis, including recipient, donor, center and regional factors, donor age 70 years or older was associated with slightly increased risk of graft loss (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.56; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The current trend toward the use of elderly donors in liver transplant recipients with low model of end-stage liver disease scores (<27), without hepatitis C, not hospitalized and not on dialysis, is associated with acceptable perioperative outcomes, patient survival, and slightly worse graft survival.

Independent effect of black recipient race on short-term outcomes after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated worse graft and patient survival for black patients after liver transplantation (LT), but these studies have not accounted properly for recipient, donor, center, or geographic effects. In this study, we evaluated the effect of candidate race on patient and graft survival after LT. METHODS: Using a novel linkage of the databases of the University Health System Consortium and the US Census and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 12,445 patients (43.1% of total) who underwent LT in the United States from 2007 to 2011. Using a mixed-effects, proportional hazards model, we assessed the effect of race on patient and graft survival after controlling for recipient, donor, and center characteristics; region; donor service area; and individual transplant centers. RESULTS: At the time of transplantation, white patients were healthier, had a shorter duration of hospital stay, and a lesser in-hospital mortality compared with black and Hispanic patients. White recipients had a graft and patient survival advantage when compared with blacks, but there was no survival difference observed when compared with Hispanics. After controlling for recipient and donor characteristics, geographic region, donor service area, and the effect of the individual hospital, black recipients were still at an increased risk of both death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15-1.50) and graft failure (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.14-1.44) after LT. CONCLUSION: After controlling for many of the important variables in the transplant process, including the individual hospital, black recipients were at increased risk of both death and graft failure after LT when compared with whites.

Hospital utilization and consequences of readmissions after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Preventable readmissions have become a focal point for controlling cost and improving quality in medicine. The frequency and causes of readmissions after liver transplantation (OLT) at 30 days and 1 year have not been described. We aimed to determine the risk factors, rate, and outcomes of readmissions within the first year after OLT and its potential impact on patient and graft survival. METHODS: Medical records of 239 consecutive patients who underwent OLT from 2007 to 2012 at University of Cincinnati Medical Center were reviewed. Fifteen patients were excluded owing to death (n = 11) or retransplantation (n = 4) within the same hospital stay. Transplant- and non-transplant-related factors were collected during the index admissions and potential readmissions. This database was then linked to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to link donor- and recipient-related data. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four patients (69%) were readmitted within 1 year after OLT, for a total of 413 readmissions (average, 2.7 readmissions per patient) and a median hospital length of stay of 4 days. There were 118 readmissions within the first 30 days in 41% of patients (92/224). Sixty-five percent of patients readmitted within 30 days after discharge (69/92) were hospitalized again at least once within the year. Twenty-nine percent of patients (64/224) were discharged to a rehabilitation center after OLT; if discharged to a rehabilitation center, these patients had a 53% and 81% risk of readmission in 30 days and 1 year, respectively, compared with patients discharged home (36% and 64%, respectively; P = .02). The most common reasons for readmission within the first 30 days after discharge were infection (19.5%), renal insufficiency (9.3%), vomiting/diarrhea (8.5%), and pulmonary edema/effusion (7.6%). The most common reasons for readmission after 1 month were infection (24.8%), acute cellular rejection (8.5%), and biliary complications (7.1%). Risk factors for readmission included presence of diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.6) and albumin <2.5 g/dL at OLT (OR, 2.3; 95%, CI 1.1-5.1). Readmissions within 30 days or 1 year were associated with decreased long-term graft and patient survival. CONCLUSION: Readmissions after OLT represent a significant health care burden, with 41% of patients readmitted within 30 days of discharge and 69% at 1 year. Readmittance is associated with worse long-term outcomes and significantly reduced patient and graft survival. These data confirm that further efforts are needed to predict and circumvent treatable causes for readmission to improve health care costs, quality, and ultimately survival after OLT.

Increasing prevalence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis as an indication for liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: In Ohio, the obesity rate has increased from 21.5% in 2000 to 30.1% in 2012. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is believed to be increasing as an indication for orthotopic liver transplantation. METHODS: We evaluated the diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis as an indication for orthotopic liver transplantation and ensuing outcomes relative to other common hepatic diseases requiring orthotopic liver transplantation in Ohio. We queried 2,356 patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, alcoholic cirrhosis (ETOH), and hepatitis C cirrhosis from the Ohio Solid Organ Transplantation Consortium who were listed for and/or received an orthotopic liver transplant from 2000 to 2012. RESULTS: The proportion of listed patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis increased from 0% to 26% and the proportion of transplanted patients increased from 0% to 23.4%. Compared with patients with hepatitis C and ETOH, patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis were older, and more likely to be white, and have private insurance (P < .05 for each). There was no difference in median waiting time among patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, hepatitis C, and ETOH (P = .18) and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores at orthotopic liver transplantation among patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, hepatitis C (P = .48), and ETOH (P = .27). Patient and graft survival after orthotopic liver transplantation was comparable between patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and ETOH (P = .79 and P = .86, respectively); however, patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis had better patient and graft survival compared with patients with hepatitis C after orthotopic liver transplantation (P < .01 and P = .02, respectively). Additionally, body mass index had no influence on overall or graft survival for patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation. CONCLUSION: This study reflects the growing potential for transplantation in patients with fatty liver disease and suggests the outcomes are equivalent or superior to other common indications for orthotopic liver transplantation.