Faculty Bibliography

Organ shortage has led to increased utilization of higher risk liver allografts. In kidneys, aggressive center-level use of one type of higher risk graft clustered with aggressive use of other types. In this study, we explored center-level behavior in liver utilization. We aggregated national liver transplant recipient data between 2005 and 2009 to the center-level, assigning each center an aggressiveness score based on relative utilization of higher risk livers. Aggressive centers had significantly more patients reaching high MELDs (RR 2.19, 2.33 and 2.28 for number of patients reaching MELD>20, MELD>25 and MELD>30, p<0.001), a higher organ shortage ratio (RR 1.51, 1.60 and 1.51 for number of patients reaching MELD>20, MELD>25 and MELD>30 divided by number of organs recovered at the OPO, p<0.04), and were clustered within various geographic regions, particularly regions 2, 3 and 9. Median MELD at transplant was similar between aggressive and nonaggressive centers, but average annual transplant volume was significantly higher at aggressive centers (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.47-3.51, p<0.001). In cluster analysis, there were no obvious phenotypic patterns among centers with intermediate levels of aggressiveness. In conclusion, highwaitlist disease severity, geographic differences in organ availability, and transplant volume are the main factors associated with the aggressive utilization of higher risk livers.

For many devastating injuries and tissue defects where conventional reconstruction is not possible, reconstructive transplantation such as hand and face transplantation has become a viable alternative. This novel approach allows for improved restoration of appearance, anatomy and function not feasible by other available treatment options. However, clinical management of these injuries prior to transplantation frequently requires multiple blood transfusion or skin grafts resulting in the formation of alloantibodies (anti-HLA IgG Abs) and a high degree of sensitization. The role of donor-specific antibodies (DSA) and mechanisms of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in reconstructive transplantation are still largely unknown. Thus there is an imminent need to develop a better understanding of the mechanisms related to DSA and AMR after reconstructive transplantation. In this review, we will define the role of DSA and mechanisms of AMR in reconstructive transplantation and compare them to established measures and treatment concepts in solid organ transplantation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Humoral sensitization to antigens of the human leukocyte antigen and ABO systems remains one of the largest barriers to further expansion in renal transplantation. This barrier translates into prolonged waiting time and a greater likelihood of death. The number of highly sensitized patients on the renal transplant waiting list continues to increase. This review focuses on the options available to these patients and speculates on future directions for incompatible transplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: Desensitization protocols (to remove antibodies), kidney-paired donation (to circumvent antibodies) or a hybrid technique involving a combination of both have broadened the access to transplantation for patients disadvantaged by immunologic barriers. However, the risk of antibody-mediated rejection may be increased and warrants caution. Technical advances in antibody characterization using sensitive bead immunoassays and the C1q assay and therapeutic modalities such as complement inhibitors and proteasome inhibitors have been used to avoid or confront these antibody incompatibilities. SUMMARY: A growing body of knowledge and literature indicates that these diagnostic and therapeutic modalities can facilitate a safer and more successful treatment course for these difficult-to-treat patients. Rigorous investigations into newer interventions will help in broadening the options for these patients and also expand the living donor pool.

With many multicenter consortia and a United Network for Organ Sharing program, participation in kidney paired donation (KPD) has become mainstream in the United States and should be feasible for any center that performs live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Lack of participation in KPD may significantly disadvantage patients with incompatible donors. To explore utilization of this modality, we analyzed adjusted center-specific KPD rates based on casemix of adult LDKT-eligible patients at 207 centers between 2006 and 2011 using SRTR data. From 2006 to 2008, KPD transplants became more evenly distributed across centers, but from 2008 to 2011 the distribution remained unchanged (Gini coefficient = 0.91 for 2006, 0.76 for 2008 and 0.77 for 2011), showing an unfortunate stall in dissemination. At the 10% of centers with the highest KPD rates, 9.9-38.5% of LDKTs occurred through KPD during 2009-2011; if all centers adopted KPD at rates observed in the very high-KPD centers, the number of KPD transplants per year would increase by a factor of 3.2 (from 494 to 1593). Broader implementation of KPD across a wide number of centers is crucial to properly serve transplant candidates with healthy but incompatible live donors.

BACKGROUND: Recipients of ABO-incompatible (ABOi) living-donor kidney transplants often undergo more intense immunosuppression than their ABO-compatible counterparts. It is unknown if this difference leads to higher cancer risk after transplantation. Single-center studies are too small and lack adequate duration of follow-up to answer this question. METHODS: We identified 318 ABOi recipients in the Transplant Cancer Match Study, a national linkage between the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and population-based U.S. cancer registries. Seven cancers (non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, gastric adenocarcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, thyroid cancer, pancreatic cancer, and testicular cancer) were identified among ABOi recipients. We then matched ABOi recipients to ABO-compatible controls by age, gender, race, human leukocyte antigen mismatch, retransplantation, and transplant year. RESULTS: There was no demonstrable association between ABOi and cancer in unadjusted (incidence rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-1.71; P=0.3) or matched control (incidence rate ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-2.23; P=0.5) analyses. CONCLUSION: To the extent that could be determined in this registry study, current desensitization protocols are not associated with increased risk of cancer after transplantation.

BACKGROUND: More than 25% of pediatric kidney transplants are lost within 7 years, necessitating dialysis or retransplantation. Retransplantation practices and the outcomes of repeat transplantations, particularly among those with early graft loss, are not clear. METHODS: We examined retransplantation practice patterns and outcomes in 14,799 pediatric (ages <18 years) patients between 1987 and 2010. Death-censored graft survival was analyzed using extended Cox models and retransplantation using competing risks regression. RESULTS: After the first graft failure, 50.4% underwent retransplantation and 12.1% died within 5 years; after the second graft failure, 36.1% underwent retransplantation and 15.4% died within 5 years. Prior preemptive transplantation and graft loss after 5 years were associated with increased rates of retransplantation. Graft loss before 5 years, older age, non-Caucasian race, public insurance, and increased panel-reactive antibody were associated with decreased rates of retransplantation. First transplants had lower risk of graft loss compared with second (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.80; P<0.001), third (aHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78; P<0.001), and fourth (aHR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.78; P=0.005) transplants. However, among patients receiving two or more transplants (conditioned on having lost a first transplant), second graft median survival was 8.5 years despite a median survival of 4.5 years for the first transplant. Among patients receiving three or more transplants, third graft median survival was 7.7 years despite median survivals of 2.1 and 3.1 years for the first and second transplants. CONCLUSIONS: Among pediatric kidney transplant recipients who experience graft loss, racial and socioeconomic disparities exist with regard to retransplantation, and excellent graft survival can be achieved with retransplantation despite poor survival of previous grafts.

BACKGROUND: ABO incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplantation is an important modality to facilitate living donor transplant for incompatible pairs. To date, reports of the outcomes from this practice in the United States have been limited to single-center studies. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 738 patients who underwent live-donor ABOi kidney transplantation between January 1, 1995, and March 31, 2010. These were compared with matched controls that underwent ABO compatible live-donor kidney transplantation. Subgroup analyses among ABOi recipients were performed according to donor blood type, recipient blood type, and transplant center ABOi volume. RESULTS: When compared with ABO compatible-matched controls, long-term patient survival of ABOi recipients was not significantly different between the cohorts (P=0.2). However, graft loss was significantly higher, particularly in the first 14 days posttransplant (subhazard ratio, 2.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-3.84; P=0.001), with little to no difference beyond day 14 (subhazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.54; P=0.058). In subgroup analyses among ABOi recipients, no differences in survival were seen by donor blood type, recipient blood type, or transplant center ABOi volume. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use and dissemination of ABOi transplantation when a compatible live donor is not available, but caution that the highest period of risk is immediately posttransplant.