Faculty Bibliography

Accurate assessment of the impact of donor quality on liver transplant (LT) costs has been limited by the lack of a large, multicenter study of detailed clinical and economic data. A novel, retrospective database linking information from the University HealthSystem Consortium and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network registry was analyzed using multivariate regression to determine the relationship between donor quality (assessed through the Donor Risk Index [DRI]), recipient illness severity, and total inpatient costs (transplant and all readmissions) for 1 year following LT. Cost data were available for 9059 LT recipients. Increasing MELD score, higher DRI, simultaneous liver-kidney transplant, female sex, and prior liver transplant were associated with increasing cost of LT (P < 0.05). MELD and DRI interact to synergistically increase the cost of LT (P < 0.05). Donors in the highest DRI quartile added close to $12,000 to the cost of transplantation and nearly $22,000 to posttransplant costs in comparison to the lowest risk donors. Among the individual components of the DRI, donation after cardiac death (increased costs by $20,769 versus brain dead donors) had the greatest impact on transplant costs. Overall, 1-year costs were increased in older donors, minority donors, nationally shared organs, and those with cold ischemic times of 7-13 hours (P < 0.05 for all). In conclusion, donor quality, as measured by the DRI, is an independent predictor of LT costs in the perioperative and postoperative periods. Centers in highly competitive regions that perform transplantation on higher MELD patients with high DRI livers may be particularly affected by the synergistic impact of these factors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:High infectious risk donors (HRDs) fall into a behavioral category thought to increase risk of infectious transmission through transplantation; despite controversy surrounding their use, they comprise almost 9% of donors in which at least one organ is recovered. This review seeks to describe national patterns in utilization, attitudes toward HRDs, and strategies to minimize and quantify infectious risks. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:HRD organs are discarded at a higher rate than non-HRDs, and many surgeons have decreased the use of HRDs in response to a recent widely publicized case of HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission. Special informed consent use can mitigate legal risk and might increase provider comfort with HRD utilization. Nucleic acid testing (NAT) mitigates infectious risk by decreasing the window period, particularly for HCV in which the risk of undetected window period infection decreases by an order of magnitude. Estimated risk of undetected window period HIV infection varies by HRD behavior category (range 0.035-4.9 per 10,000 donors when NAT is used), HCV risk is higher (range 0.027-32.4 per 10.000). SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:Given long waiting times and high waitlist mortality, organs from HRDs can be used to expand the organ supply. Estimates of HRD infectious risk can be used to guide patient and provider decision making.

With an increasing number of individuals with end-stage organ disease and the increasing success of organ transplantation, the demand for transplants has steadily increased. This growth has led to a greater need to utilize organs from as many donors as possible. As selection criteria have become less stringent to accommodate increasing demand, transplant outcomes are more strongly influenced by recipient and donor factors; thus, finding the right organ for the right recipient is more important than ever. The Ninth Annual American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) State-of-the-Art Winter Symposium, entitled "The Right Organ for the Right Recipient," addressed the matching of donor organs to appropriate recipients. Representative dilemmas in the matching of donor organs with recipients were discussed. These included the following: matching by donor and recipient risk characteristics; use of organs with risk for disease transmission; biologic incompatibility; use of organs from donors after cardiac death; the justification for combined organ transplants like liver-kidney and kidney-pancreas; and the role of allocation in facilitating the matching of donors and recipients. Regardless of the particular issue, decisions about donor-recipient matching should be evidence-based, practical, and made with the goal of maximizing organ utilization while still protecting individual patient interests.

In light of continued uncertainty regarding postkidney donation medical, psychosocial and socioeconomic outcomes for traditional living donors and especially for donors meeting more relaxed acceptance criteria, a meeting was held in September 2010 to (1) review limitations of existing data on outcomes of living kidney donors; (2) assess and define the need for long-term follow-up of living kidney donors; (3) identify the potential system requirements, infrastructure and costs of long-term follow-up for living kidney donor outcomes in the United States and (4) explore practical options for future development and funding of United States living kidney donor data collection, metrics and endpoints. Conference participants included prior kidney donors, physicians, surgeons, medical ethicists, social scientists, donor coordinators, social workers, independent donor advocates and representatives of payer organizations and the federal government. The findings and recommendations generated at this meeting are presented.

Living donor kidney exchange, also referred to as kidney paired donation (KPD), is a relatively new transplant modality that is growing by leaps and bounds in the U.S. From its first realization as an exchange of kidneys between two incompatible donor/recipient pairs, KPD has expanded to include compatible pairs, nondirected donors, three-way and larger exchanges, and living/deceased donor exchanges. Innovations both clinical (transporting organs instead of donors, and improved HLA screening) and mathematical (simulation to test policies, optimization to find better and more matches) have made this modality even more useful and accessible. There are several independent multi-center paired donation registries and many more single-center registries operating in the U.S., but incompatible pairs are most likely to match when they participate in the largest possible paired exchange pool; a single, unified KPD program in the United States would likely best serve patients in search of matches.

Pre-emptive kidney transplantation is considered the best available renal replacement therapy, but no guidelines exist to direct its timing during CKD progression. We used a national cohort of 19,471 first-time pre-emptive kidney transplant recipients between 1995-2009 to evaluate patterns and implications of transplant timing. Mean estimated GFR (eGFR) at the time of pre-emptive transplant increased significantly over time, from 9.2 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in 1995 to 13.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in 2009 (P<0.001). Patients with eGFR ≥ 15 ml/min/1.73 m(2) represented an increasing proportion of pre-emptive transplant recipients, from 9% in 1995 to 35% in 2009; the trend for patients with eGFR ≥ 10 was similar (30% to 72%). We did not detect statistically significant differences in patient survival or death-censored graft survival between strata of eGFR at the time of transplant, either in the full cohort or in subgroup analyses of patients who might theoretically benefit from earlier pre-emptive transplantation. In summary, pre-emptive kidney transplantation is occurring at increasing levels of native kidney function. Earlier transplantation does not appear to associate with patient or graft survival, suggesting that earlier pre-emptive transplantation may subject donors and recipients to premature operative risk and waste the native kidney function of recipients.