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.

Keeping the lights on: Telehealth, testing, and 6-month outcomes for orthotopic liver transplantation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seen transplant volume decrease nationwide, resulting in a 2.2-fold increase in waitlist mortality. In particular, solid organ transplant patients are subjected to increased morbidity and mortality from infection. In the face of these challenges, transplant centers need to develop innovative protocols to ensure high-quality care. METHODS: A multidisciplinary protocol was developed that included the following: virtual selection meetings, coronavirus disease 2019 negative donors, pretransplant symptom screening, rapid testing on presentation, telehealth follow-up, and weekly community outreach town halls. All orthotopic liver transplants completed between January 2018 and August 2020 were included in the study (n = 344). The cohort was stratified from January 2018 to February 2020 as "pre-COVID-19," and from March 2020 to August 2020 as "COVID-19." Patient demographics and postoperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: From March 2020 to August 2020, there was a significant decrease in average monthly referrals for orthotopic liver transplantation (29.8 vs 37.1, P = .01). However, listings (11.0 vs 14.3, P = .09) and transplant volume remained unchanged (12.2 vs 10.6, P = .26). Rapid testing was utilized on arrival for transplant, zero patients tested positively preoperatively, and median time from test result until abdominal incision was 4.5 h [interquartile range, 1.2, 9.2]. Simultaneously, telehealth visits increased rapidly, peaking at 85% of all visits. It is important to note that there was no difference in outcomes between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Orthotopic liver transplant can be accomplished safely and effectively in the COVID-19 era without compromising outcomes through increasing utilization of telehealth, rapid COVID-19 testing, and multidisciplinary protocols for managing immunosuppressed patients.

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.