Faculty Bibliography

Patient and graft survival are similar following whole versus split liver transplants (SLT) among pediatric and adult recipients, yet SLTs are rarely used. We sought to determine the survival benefit associated with accepting a splittable offer for SLT versus declining and waiting for a subsequent offer using 2010-2018 SRTR data on 928 pediatric and 1814 adult LT candidates who were ever offered a splittable graft. We compared eventual mortality, regardless of subsequent transplants, between those who accepted versus declined a splittable liver offer with adjustment for PELD/MELD, diagnosis, and weight among pediatric candidates, and matching for MELD, height, and offer among adult candidates. Among pediatric candidates ≤7kg, splittable offer acceptance versus decline was associated with a 63% reduction in mortality (aHR _0.17 0.37_0.80 , p=0.01; 93.1% versus 84.0% one-year survival post-decision). Within one year of decline for those ≤7kg, 6.4% died and 31.1% received a whole liver transplant. Among pediatric candidates >7kg, there was no significant difference associated with acceptance of a splittable offer (aHR _0.63 1.07_1.82 , p=0.81; 91.7% vs 94.4% one-year survival post-decision). Within one year of decline for those >7kg, 1.8% died and 45.8% received a whole liver. Among adult candidates, splittable offer acceptance was associated with a 43% reduction in mortality (aHR _0.39 0.57_0.83, p=0.005; 92.2% vs 84.4% one-year survival post-decision). Within one year of decline for adult candidates, 7.9% died and 39.3% received a whole liver. Conclusion: Accepting splittable offers for SLT could significantly improve survival for small children and adults on the waitlist.

OBJECTIVES:The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected the provisions of health services to necessary but deprioritised fields, such as transplantation. Many programmes had to ramp-down their activity, which may significantly affect transplant volumes. We aimed to pragmatically analyse measures of transplant activity and compare them by a country's income level and cumulative COVID-19 incidence (CCI). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:From June to September 2020, we surveyed transplant physicians identified as key informants in their programmes. Of the 1267 eligible physicians, 40.5% from 71 countries participated. OUTCOME:Four pragmatic measures of transplant activity. RESULTS:Overall, 46.5% of the programmes from high-income countries anticipate being able to maintain >75% of their transplant volume compared with 31.6% of the programmes from upper-middle-income countries, and with 21.7% from low/lower-middle-income countries (p<0.001). This could be because more programmes in high-income countries reported being able to perform transplantation/s (86.8%%-58.5%-67.9%, p<0.001), maintain prepandemic deceased donor offers (31.0%%-14.2%-26.4%, p<0.01) and avoid a ramp down phase (30.9%%-19.7%-8.3%, p<0.001), respectively. In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for CCI, programmes in upper-middle-income countries (adjusted OR, aOR=0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.81) and low/lower-middle-income countries (aOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.67) had lower odds of being able to maintain >75% of their transplant volume, compared with programmes in high-income countries. Again, this could be attributed to lower-income being associated with 3.3-3.9 higher odds of performing no transplantation/s, 66%-68% lower odds of maintaining prepandemic donor offers and 37%-76% lower odds of avoiding ramp-down of transplantation. Overall, CCI was not associated with these measures. CONCLUSIONS:The impact of the pandemic on transplantation was more in lower-income countries, independent of the COVID-19 burden. Given the lag of 1-2 years in objective data being reported by global registries, our findings may inform practice and policy. Transplant programmes in lower-income countries may need more effort to rebuild disrupted services and recuperate from the pandemic even if their COVID-19 burden was low.