Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Recent changes in deceased donor organ allocation for livers (Share-35) and kidneys (kidney allocation system) have resulted in broader sharing of organs and increased cold ischemia time (CIT). Broader organ sharing however is not the only cause of increased CIT. METHODS:This was a retrospective registry study of CIT in same-hospital liver transplants (SHLT, n = 4347) and same-hospital kidney transplants (SHKT, n = 9707) between 2004 and 2014. RESULTS:In SHLT, median (interquartile range) CIT was 5.0 (3.5-6.5) hours versus 6.6 (5.1-8.4) hours in other-hospital LT. donation after circulatory death donors, donor biopsy, male recipient, recipient obesity, and previous transplant were associated with increased CIT. Model for End-Stage Liver Disease at transplant of 29+ or status 1a was associated with decreased CIT. SHLT CIT varied by Organ Procurement Organization and transplant-center (P < 0.01), with center median CIT ranging from 2.0 to 7.8 hours across 118 centers. In SHKT, CIT was 13.0 (8.5-19.0) hours versus 16.5 (11.3-22.6) hours in other-hospital KT. Overweight donors, donation after cardiac death donors, right-kidney, donor biopsy, recipient obesity, use of mechanical perfusion, additional KT procedures on the same day, and transplant center annual volume were associated with increased CIT. Older donor age, extended criteria donors, and underweight recipients were associated with decreased CIT. SHKT CIT varied by Organ Procurement Organization and transplant-center (P < 0.001), with center median CIT ranging from 3.3 to 29 hours across 206 centers. Transplant centers with longer SHKT also had longer SHLT (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Same-hospital transplants already have a significant amount of CIT, even without transporting the organ to another hospital.

Transplant candidates who accept a kidney labeled increased risk for disease transmission (IRD) accept a low risk of window period infection, yet those who decline must wait for another offer that might harbor other risks or never even come. To characterize survival benefit of accepting IRD kidneys, we used 2010-2014 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to identify 104 998 adult transplant candidates who were offered IRD kidneys that were eventually accepted by someone; the median (interquartile range) Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) of these kidneys was 30 (16-49). We followed patients from the offer decision until death or end-of-study. After 5 years, only 31.0% of candidates who declined IRDs later received non-IRD deceased donor kidney transplants; the median KDPI of these non-IRD kidneys was 52, compared to 21 of the IRDs they had declined. After a brief risk period in the first 30 days following IRD acceptance (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] accept vs decline: _1.22 2.06_3.49 , P = .008) (absolute mortality 0.8% vs. 0.4%), those who accepted IRDs were at 33% lower risk of death 1-6 months postdecision (aHR _0.50 0.67_0.90 , P = .006), and at 48% lower risk of death beyond 6 months postdecision (aHR _0.46 0.52_0.58 , P < .001). Accepting an IRD kidney was associated with substantial long-term survival benefit; providers should consider this benefit when counseling patients on IRD offer acceptance.

Under Share 35, deceased donor (DD) livers are offered regionally to candidates with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores ≥35 before being offered locally to candidates with MELD scores <35. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from June 2013 to June 2015, we identified 1768 DD livers exported to regional candidates with MELD scores ≥35 who were transplanted at a median MELD score of 39 (interquartile range [IQR] 37-40) with 30-day posttransplant survival of 96%. In total, 1764 (99.8%) exports had an ABO-compatible candidate in the recovering organ procurement organization (OPO), representing 1219 unique reprioritized candidates who would have had priority over the regional candidate under pre-Share 35 allocation. Reprioritized candidates had a median waitlist MELD score of 31 (IQR 27-34) when the liver was exported. Overall, 291 (24%) reprioritized candidates had a comparable MELD score (within 3 points of the regional recipient), and 209 (72%) were eventually transplanted in 11 days (IQR 3-38 days) using a local (50%), regional (50%) or national (<1%) liver; 60 (21%) died, 13 (4.5%) remained on the waitlist and nine (3.1%) were removed for other reasons. Of those eventually transplanted, MELD score did not increase in 57%; it increased by 1-3 points in 37% and by ≥4 points in 5.7% after the export. In three cases, OPOs exchanged regional exports within a 24-h window. The majority of comparable reprioritized candidates were not disadvantaged; however, 21% died after an export.

Redistricting, which means sharing organs in novel districts developed through mathematical optimization, has been proposed to reduce pervasive geographic disparities in access to liver transplantation. The economic impact of redistricting was evaluated with two distinct data sources, Medicare claims and the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC). We estimated total Medicare payments under (i) the current allocation system (Share 35), (ii) full regional sharing, (iii) an eight-district plan, and (iv) a four-district plan for a simulated population of patients listed for liver transplant over 5 years, using the liver simulated allocation model. The model predicted 5-year transplant volumes (Share 35, 29,267; regional sharing, 29,005; eight districts, 29,034; four districts, 28,265) and a reduction in overall mortality, including listed and posttransplant patients, of up to 676 lives. Compared with current allocation, the eight-district plan was estimated to reduce payments for pretransplant care ($1638 million to $1506 million, p < 0.001), transplant episode ($5607 million to $5569 million, p < 0.03) and posttransplant care ($479 million to $488 million, p < 0.001). The eight-district plan was estimated to increase per-patient transportation costs for organs ($8988 to $11,874 per patient, p < 0.001) and UHC estimated hospital costs ($4699 per case). In summary, redistricting appears to be potentially cost saving for the health care system but will increase the cost of performing liver transplants for some transplant centers.