Predicting Outcomes on the Liver Transplant Waiting List in the United States: Accounting for Large Regional Variation in Organ Availability and Priority Allocation Points

The landscape of liver transplantation for patients with alcohol-associated liver disease in the United States

Indications for liver transplants have expanded to include patients with alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) over the last decade. Concurrently, the liver allocation policy was updated in February 2020 replacing the Donor Service Area with Acuity Circles (ACs). The aim is to compare the transplantation rate, waitlist outcomes, and posttransplant survival of candidates with ALD to non-ALD and assess differences in that effect after the implementation of the AC policy. Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients data for adult candidates for liver transplant were reviewed from the post-AC era (February 4, 2020-March 1, 2022) and compared with an equivalent length of time before ACs were implemented. The adjusted transplant rates were significantly higher for those with ALD before AC, and this difference increased after AC implementation (transplant rate ratio comparing ALD to non-ALD = 1.20, 1.13, 1.61, and 1.32 for the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease categories 37-40, 33-36, 29-32, and 25-28, respectively, in the post-AC era, p < 0.05 for all). The adjusted likelihood of death/removal from the waitlist was lower for patients with ALD across all lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease categories (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.70, 0.81, 0.84, and 0.70 for the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease categories 25-28, 20-24, 15-19, 6-14, respectively, p < 0.05). Adjusted posttransplant survival was better for those with ALD (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.81, p < 0.05). Waiting list and posttransplant mortality tended to improve more for those with ALD since the implementation of AC but not significantly. ALD is a growing indication for liver transplantation. Although patients with ALD continue to have excellent posttransplant outcomes and lower waitlist mortality, candidates with ALD have higher adjusted transplant rates, and these differences have increased after AC implementation.

Survival after live donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

For individuals with advanced liver disease, equipoise in outcomes between live donor liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) is uncertain.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using data extracted from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Adults who underwent first-time DDLT or LTDL in the United States between 2002 and 2020 were paired using propensity-score matching with 1:10 ratio without replacement. Patient and graft survival were compared using the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score for stratification.

RESULTS

After propensity-score matching, 31 522 DDLT and 3854 LDLT recipients were included. For recipients with MELD scores ≤15, LDLT was associated with superior patient survival (HR = 0.92; 95% c.i. 0.76 to 0.96; P = 0.013). No significant differences in patient survival were observed for MELD scores between 16 and 30. Conversely, for patients with MELD scores >30, LDLT was associated with higher mortality (HR 2.57; 95% c.i. 1.35 to 4.62; P = 0.003). Graft survival was comparable between the two groups for MELD ≤15 and for MELD between 21 and 30. However, for MELD between 16 and 20 (HR = 1.15; 95% c.i. 1.00 to 1.33; P = 0.04) and MELD > 30 (HR = 2.85; 95% c.i. 1.65 to 4.91; P = 0.001), graft survival was considerably shorter after LDLT. Regardless of MELD scores, re-transplantation rate within the first year was significantly higher after LDLT.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large propensity score-matched study using national data, comparable patient survival was found between LDLT and DDLT in recipients with MELD scores between 16 and 30. Conversely, for patients with MELD > 30, LDLT was associated with worse outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of transplant selection for patients with high MELD scores.

Bioengineering liver tissue by repopulation of decellularised scaffolds

Liver transplantation is the only curative therapy for end stage liver disease, but is limited by the organ shortage, and is associated with the adverse consequences of immunosuppression. Repopulation of decellularised whole organ scaffolds with appropriate cells of recipient origin offers a theoretically attractive solution, allowing reliable and timely organ sourcing without the need for immunosuppression. Decellularisation methodologies vary widely but seek to address the conflicting objectives of removing the cellular component of tissues whilst keeping the 3D structure of the extra-cellular matrix intact, as well as retaining the instructive cell fate determining biochemicals contained therein. Liver scaffold recellularisation has progressed from small rodent in vitro studies to large animal in vivo perfusion models, using a wide range of cell types including primary cells, cell lines, foetal stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells. Within these models, a limited but measurable degree of physiologically significant hepatocyte function has been reported with demonstrable ammonia metabolism in vivo. Biliary repopulation and function have been restricted by challenges relating to the culture and propagations of cholangiocytes, though advances in organoid culture may help address this. Hepatic vasculature repopulation has enabled sustainable blood perfusion in vivo, but with cell types that would limit clinical applications, and which have not been shown to have the specific functions of liver sinusoidal endothelial cells. Minority cell groups such as Kupffer cells and stellate cells have not been repopulated. Bioengineering by repopulation of decellularised scaffolds has significantly progressed, but there remain significant experimental challenges to be addressed before therapeutic applications may be envisaged.

Does anybody really know what (the kidney median waiting) time is?

The median waiting time (MWT) to deceased donor kidney transplant is of interest to patients, clinicians, and the media but remains elusive due to both methodological and philosophical challenges. We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data from January 2003 to March 2022 to estimate MWTs using various methods and timescales, applied overall, by era, and by candidate demographics. After rising for a decade, the overall MWT fell to 5.19 years between 2015 and 2018 and declined again to 4.05 years (April 2021 to March 2022), based on the Kaplan-Meier method applied to period-prevalent cohorts. MWTs differed markedly by blood type, donor service area, and pediatric vs adult status, but to a lesser degree by race/ethnicity. Choice of methodology affected the magnitude of these differences. Instead of waiting years for an answer, reliable kidney MWT estimates can be obtained shortly after a policy is implemented using the period-prevalent Kaplan-Meier approach, a theoretical but useful construct for which we found no evidence of bias compared with using incident cohorts. We recommend this method be used complementary to the competing risks approach, under which MWT is often inestimable, to fill the present information void concerning the seemingly simple question of how long it takes to get a kidney transplant in the United States.

Sex is a major effect modifier between body composition and mortality in patients with cirrhosis assessed for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Body composition predicts mortality in patients with cirrhosis. The impact of sex on this association is unknown. We investigated the impact of sex on this association in patients with cirrhosis assessed for liver transplantation.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective cohort study included adults assessed for liver transplantation. Nutritional status was assessed using the Royal Free Hospital-Global Assessment (RFH-GA). Body composition at the third lumbar vertebrae was determined. SarcopeniaSMI was defined as Skeletal Muscle Index <50 cm2 /m2 in males and <39 cm2 /m2 in females. SarcopeniaPMI was defined as the sex-specific 25th percentile of the Psoas Muscle Index. Patients were assessed for the occurrence of liver transplantation and death. Analyses were stratified by sex.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 628 patients, including 199 females and 429 males. Both groups were similar in terms of baseline liver disease severity by Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) (p = .98) and nutritional status (p = .24). SarcopeniaSMI was present in 41% of males compared to 27% of females (p < .001). In the male cohort, when adjusted for age and MELD, sarcopeniaPMI (aHR 1.74, 95% CI 1.08-2.80) and RFH-GA (aHR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03-1.90) remained independent predictors of mortality. Adipose tissue had no impact on outcomes in males. In female patients, adipose tissue (TATI or VATI depending on the multivariable model) was independently associated with mortality, whereas sarcopenia and malnutrition were not.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that male patients were susceptible to low muscle mass, whereas female patients were not. Future research in this patient population should minimize sex-related bias and present data for both groups separately.

Evaluation Within 30 Days of Referral for Liver Transplantation is Associated with Reduced Mortality: A Multicenter Analysis of Patients Referred Within the VA Health System

BACKGROUND

Successful liver transplantation offers the possibility of improved survival among patients with decompensated cirrhosis. However, there is wide variability in access to care and promptness of the transplant evaluation process in the United States.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective study of 1118 patients who underwent evaluation for liver transplantation at the 6 Veterans Affairs' transplant centers from 2013 to 2018. Of these, 832 patients were evaluated within 30 d and 286 > 30 d after referral. We studied the differential effects of the time from referral to evaluation on pretransplant and posttransplant mortality and transplant list dropout and explored predictors of early transplant evaluation.

RESULTS

Patients in the early evaluation group had a shorter adjusted time from referral to listing by 29.5 d (95% confidence interval [CI] -50.4, -8.5, P < 0.006), and referral to transplantation by 115.1 d (95% CI -179.5, -50.7, P < 0.0001). On a multivariable Cox hazard model, evaluation within 30 d of referral was associated with a significantly lower pretransplant mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.54-0.91, P < 0.01), but not associated with transplant list dropout (aHR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65-1.39, P = 0.79) or posttransplant death (aHR 1.88, 95% CI 0.72-4.9, P = 0.20). An early evaluation within 30 d was positively associated with a higher MELD at referral (aHR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, P = 0.006) and negatively associated with distance from the transplant center (aHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-0.99, P = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of patients referred for liver transplantation within 30 d is associated with a reduction in pretransplant mortality.

Designing a Liver Transplant Patient and Family Decision Support Tool for Organ Offer Decisions

BACKGROUND

For liver transplant candidates on the waiting list, deciding to accept a donor organ with known or potential risk factors can be stressful and can lead to declined offers. Current education for patients and family often takes place during transplant evaluations and can be overwhelming and result in low retention and poor understanding of donor quality.

METHODS

In the first phase, we sought to understand provider experiences when counseling patients about donor risks and donor offers. We conducted interviews and focus groups with liver transplant providers at 1 local center and at a national clinician conference. Twenty providers participated: 15 hepatologists and 5 surgeons. The provider feedback was used to create an initial outline of content that is consistent with decision support frameworks. In a second phase, graphic design collaborators created mockups of a patient-friendly tool. We reviewed mockups with 4 transplant coordinators and 9 liver transplant candidates for feedback on clarity and utility to prepare for an organ offer. Patient responses allowed a comparison of perceived readiness to receive an offer call before and after viewing mockups.

RESULTS

We identified themes relating to the offer process, repetition and timing of education, and standardization and tailoring of content. The results indicated a gap in available education after the evaluation session, and information specific to offer decisions is needed. Patient feedback emphasized the need to review the offer process before a real offer.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and providers responded favorably to a patient tool addressing existing gaps in education while waiting for a donor offer. Additional patient, family, and provider feedback will guide the development of an interactive tool to prepare patients and families for an offer decision.

Internal split liver transplants reduce the waiting list time for teenagers with a low calculated Model for End-stage Liver Disease score

BACKGROUND

Split liver transplantation allows for the simultaneous transplantation of two patients, typically a child and an adult, with a single organ. We report our experience with "internal splits" in which 10 pediatric patients from our institution were transplanted with five organs. We hypothesized that this would reduce the WL time for teenagers with a low calculated MELD score.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of those 10 patients was done. Their WL time was compared with local, regional, and national data. P < .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The median age of the five primary recipients to whom the liver was first allocated was 2.3 years (0.7-7.4) (median weight 10.4 kg (8.4-17.7)). They received a segment 2-3 graft. Five "secondary" recipients (median age 17.4 years (16.6-18.9); median weight 66.2 kg (53.7-70.0)) were identified on our WL to receive the trisector graft. At transplant, their median calculated MELD score was 11 (8-20). Their mean WL time (241.6 ± 218.9 days) was significantly shorter than local (480.6 ± 833.6 days), regional (370.4 ± 563.4 days), and national patients (245.6 ± 465.4 days) with MELD ≤ 20 (P = .047). There was no significant difference between their WL time and that of patients with a MELD 8 ≤ x≤31 (equivalent to their median exception score, P = .63). Patient and graft survival was 100% for all 10 patients.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, simultaneous internal split liver transplantation allowed teenagers with a low calculated MELD score to be transplanted faster than patients with a similar score. Promoting the use of internal split liver transplantation could help reduce the pediatric waitlist mortality.

National Trends in Location of Death in Patients With End-Stage Liver Disease

Despite improvement in the care of patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD), mortality is rising. In the United States, patients are increasingly choosing to die at hospice and home, but data in patients with ESLD are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the trends in location of death in patients with ESLD. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging OnLine Data for Epidemiologic Research from 2003 to 2018. Death location was categorized as hospice, home, inpatient facility, nursing home, or other. Comparisons were made between sex, age, ethnicity, race, region, and other causes of death. Comparisons were also made between rates of change (calculated as annual percent change), proportion of deaths in 2018, and multivariable logistic regression. A total of 535,261 deaths were attributed to ESLD-most were male, non-Hispanic, and White. The proportion of deaths at hospice and home increased during the study period from 0.2% to 10.6% and 20.3% to 25.7%, respectively. Whites had the highest proportion of deaths in hospice and home. In multivariable analysis, elderly patients were more likely to die in hospice or home (odds ratio [OR], 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.35), whereas Black patients were less likely (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46-0.73). Compared with other causes of death, ESLD had the second highest proportion of deaths in hospice but lagged behind non-hepatocellular carcinoma malignancy. Deaths in patients with ESLD are increasingly common at hospice and home overall, and although the rates have been increasing among Black patients, they are still less likely to die at hospice or home. Efforts to improve this disparity, promote end-of-life care planning, and enhance access to death at hospice and home are needed.

Impact of Payer Status on Delisting Among Liver Transplant Candidates in the United States

Although socioeconomic disparities persist both pre- and post-transplantation, the impact of payer status has not been studied at the national level. We examined the association between public insurance coverage and waitlist outcomes among candidates listed for liver transplantation (LT) in the United States. All adults (age ≥18 years) listed for LT between 2002 and 2018 in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were included. The primary outcome was waitlist removal because of death or clinical deterioration. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests, respectively. Fine and Gray competing-risks regression was used to estimate the subdistribution hazard ratios (HRs) for risk factors associated with delisting. Of 131,839 patients listed for LT, 61.2% were covered by private insurance, 22.9% by Medicare, and 15.9% by Medicaid. The 1-year cumulative incidence of delisting was 9.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.3%-9.8%) for patients with private insurance, 10.7% (95% CI, 9.9%-11.6%) for Medicare, and 10.7% (95% CI, 9.8%-11.6%) for Medicaid. In multivariable competing-risks analysis, Medicare (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.17-1.24; P < 0.001) and Medicaid (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.16-1.24; P < 0.001) were independently associated with an increased hazard of death or deterioration compared with private insurance. Additional predictors of delisting included Black race and Hispanic ethnicity, whereas college education and employment were associated with a decreased hazard of delisting. In this study, LT candidates with Medicare or Medicaid had a 20% increased risk of delisting because of death or clinical deterioration compared with those with private insurance. As more patients use public insurance to cover the cost of LT, targeted waitlist management protocols may mitigate the increased risk of delisting in this population.

Center Variation in Intention-to-Treat Survival Among Patients Listed for Liver Transplant

In the United States, centers performing liver transplant (LT) are primarily evaluated by patient survival within 1 year after LT, but tight clustering of outcomes allows only a narrow window for evaluation of center variation for quality improvement. Alternate measures more relevant to patients and the transplant community are needed. We examined adults listed for LT in the United States, using data submitted to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Intention-to-treat (ITT) survival was defined as survival within 1 year from listing, regardless of transplant. Mixed effects/frailty models were used to assess center variation in ITT survival. Between January 2010 and December 2016, there were 66,428 new listings at 113 centers. Overall, median 1-year ITT survival was 79.8% (interquartile range [IQR], 76.1%-83.4%), whereas 1-year waiting-list (WL) survival was 75.8% (IQR, 71.2%-79.4%), and 1-year post-LT survival was 90.0% (IQR, 87.9%-91.8%). Higher rates of ITT mortality were correlated with increased WL mortality (correlation, r = 0.76), increased post-LT mortality (r = 0.31), lower volume centers (r = -0.34), and lower transplant rate ratio (r = -0.25). Similar patterns were observed in the subgroup of WL candidates listed with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥25: median 1-year ITT survival was 65.2% (IQR, 60.2%-72.6%), whereas 1-year post-LT survival was 87.5% (IQR, 84.0%-90.9%), and 1-year WL survival was 36.6% (IQR, 27.9%-47.0%). In mixed effects modeling, the transplant center was an independent predictor of ITT survival even after adjustment for age, sex, MELD, and sociodemographic variables. Center variation for ITT survival was larger compared with post-LT survival. The measurement of ITT outcome offers a complementary method to assess center performance. This is a first step toward understanding differences in program quality beyond patient and graft survival after LT.

Engineered Liver Tissue Culture in an In Vitro Tubular Perfusion System

Liver disease and the subsequent loss of liver function is an enormous clinical challenge. A severe shortage of donor liver tissue greatly limits patients' options for a timely transplantation. Tissue engineering approaches offer a promising alternative to organ transplantation by engineering artificial implantable tissues. We have established a platform of cell-laden microbeads as basic building blocks to assemble macroscopic tissues via different mechanisms. This modular fabrication strategy possesses great potential for liver tissue engineering in a bottom-up manner. In this study, we encapsulated human hepatocytes into microbeads presenting a favorable microenvironment consisting of collagen and mesenchymal stem cells, and then we perfused the beads in a three-dimensional printed tubular perfusion bioreactor that promoted oxygen and medium diffusion to the impregnated cells. We noted high cell vitality and retention of parenchymal cell functionality for up to 30 days in this culture system. Our engineering-based approach led to the advancement in tissue size and long-term functionality of an artificial liver tissue in vitro.

Comparing Pretransplant and Posttransplant Outcomes When Choosing a Transplant Center: Focus Groups and a Randomized Survey

BACKGROUND

In response to calls for an increased focus on pretransplant outcomes and other patient-centered metrics in public reports of center outcomes, a mixed methods study evaluated how the content and presentation style of new information influences decision-making. The mixed methods design utilized qualitative and quantitative phases where the strengths of one method help address limitations of the other, and multiple methods facilitate comparing results.

METHODS

First, a series of organ-specific focus groups of kidney, liver, heart, and lung patients helped to develop and refine potential displays of center outcomes and understand patient perceptions. A subsequent randomized survey included adult internet users who viewed a single, randomly-selected variation of 6 potential online information displays. Multinomial regression evaluated the effects of graphical presentations of information on decision-making.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-seven candidates and recipients joined 23 focus groups. Survey responses were analyzed from 975 adults. Qualitative feedback identified patient perceptions of uncertainty in outcome metrics, in particular pretransplant metrics, and suggested a need for clear guidance to interpret the most important metric for organ-specific patient mortality. In the randomized survey, only respondents who viewed a note indicating that transplant rate had the largest impact on survival chose the hospital with the best transplant rate over the hospital with the best posttransplant outcomes (marginal relative risk and 95% confidence interval, 1.161.501.95).

CONCLUSIONS

The presentation of public reports influenced decision-making behavior. The combination of qualitative and quantitative research helped to guide and enhance understanding of the impacts of proposed changes in reported metrics.

Use of Telehealth Expedites Evaluation and Listing of Patients Referred for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Liver transplantation is the only treatment that increases survival times of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Patients who live farther away from a transplant center are disadvantaged. Health care delivery via telehealth is an effective way to manage patients with decompensated cirrhosis remotely. We investigated the effects of telehealth on the liver transplant evaluation process.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 465 patients who underwent evaluation for liver transplantation at the Richmond Veterans Affairs Medical Center from 2005 through 2017. Of these, 232 patients were evaluated via telehealth, and 233 via in-person evaluation. Using regression models, we evaluated the differential effects of telehealth vs usual care on placement on the liver transplant waitlist. We also investigated the effects of telehealth on time from referral to initial evaluation by a transplant hepatologist, liver transplantation, and mortality.

RESULTS

Patients in the telehealth group were evaluated significantly faster than patients evaluated in person, without or with adjustment for potential confounders (21.7 vs 79.5 d; P < .01). Telehealth also was associated with a significantly shorter time on the liver transplant waitlist (138.8 vs 249 d; P < .01). After propensity-matched analysis, telehealth was associated with a reduction in the time from referral to evaluation (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.21; P < .01) and listing (hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40; P < .01), but not to transplantation. In the intent-to-treat analysis of all referred patients, we found no significant difference in pretransplant mortality between patients evaluated via telehealth vs in-person. There was statistically significant interaction between model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)-Na scores and time to evaluation (P = .009) and placement on the transplant waitlist (P = .002), with telehealth offering greater benefits to patients with low MELD-Na scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of telehealth is associated with a substantial reduction in time from referral to initial evaluation by a hepatologist and placement on the liver transplant waitlist, especially for patients with low MELD scores, with no changes in time to transplantation or pretransplant mortality. More studies are needed, particularly outside of the Veterans Administration Health System, to confirm that telehealth is a safe and effective way to expand access for patients undergoing evaluation for liver transplantation.

Ethnic and Age Disparities in Outcomes Among Liver Transplant Waitlist Candidates

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing prevalence of end-stage liver disease in older adults, there is no consensus to determine suitability for liver transplantation (LT) in the elderly. Disparities in LT access exist, with a disproportionately lower percentage of African Americans (AAs) receiving LT. Understanding waitlist outcomes in older adults, specifically AAs, will identify opportunities to improve LT access for this vulnerable population.

METHODS

All adult, liver-only white and AA LT waitlist candidates (January 1, 2003 to October 1, 2015) were identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Age and race categories were defined: younger white (age <60 years), younger AA, older white (age, ≥60 years), and older AA. Outcomes were delisting, transplantation, and mortality and were modeled using Fine and Gray competing risks.

RESULTS

Among 101 805 candidates, 58.4% underwent transplantation, 14.7% died while listed, and 21.4% were delisted. Among those delisted, 36.1% died, whereas 7.4% were subsequently relisted. Both older AAs and older whites were more likely than younger whites to be delisted and to die after delisting. Older whites had higher incidence of waitlist mortality than younger whites (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.13). All AAs and older whites had decreased incidence of LT, compared with younger whites.

CONCLUSIONS

Both older age and AA race were associated with decreased cumulative incidence of transplantation. Independent of race, older candidates had increased incidences of delisting and mortality after delisting than younger whites. Our findings support the need for interventions to ensure medical suitability for LT among older adults and to address disparities in LT access for AAs.

Tool to Aid Patients in Selecting a Liver Transplant Center

Variations in candidate and donor acceptance criteria may influence access and mortality for liver transplantation. We sought to understand how recipient and donor characteristics vary across centers and how patients interpret this information, and we used these data to develop a tool to provide tailored information to candidates seeking a center (www.transplantcentersearch.org). We analyzed liver recipient data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to determine how recipient and donor characteristics (eg, age, Medicaid use, and human immunodeficiency virus status) varied across programs. Data included recipients and donors at each US program between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. The variation in characteristics was plotted with centers stratified by total transplant volume and by volume of each characteristic. A subset of characteristics was plotted to show variation over 3 years. We created mockups of potential reports displaying recipient characteristics alongside pretransplant and posttransplant outcomes and solicited feedback at patient and family interviews and focus groups, which included 39 individuals: 10 pilot interviews with candidates seeking liver transplant at the University of Minnesota-Fairview (UMNF) and 5 focus groups with 13 UMNF candidates, 6 UMNF family members, and 10 national recipients. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis. Several themes emerged: (1) Candidates experience gaps in existing education about center options; (2) patients requested information about how selection criteria might impact access to transplant; and (3) information tailored to a candidate's medical characteristics can inform decisions. Characteristics shown on mockups varied across centers (P < 0.01). Variation was widespread for small and large centers. In conclusion, variation exists in recipient and donor characteristics across centers. Liver transplant patients provide positive feedback upon viewing patient-specific search tools.

Predicting chance of liver transplantation for pediatric wait-list candidates

Information about wait-list time has been reported as one of the single most frequently asked questions by individuals awaiting a transplant but data regarding wait-list time have not been processed in a useful way for pediatric candidates. To predict chance of receiving a DDLT, we identified 6471 pediatric (<18 years), non status-1A, liver-only transplant candidates between 2006 and 2017 from the SRTR. Cox regression with shared frailty for DSA level effect was used to model the association of blood type, weight, allocation PELD and MELD, and DSA with chance of DDLT. Jackknife technique was used for validation. Median (interquartile range) wait-list time was 100 (34-309) days. Non-O Blood type, higher PELD/MELD score at listing, and DSA were associated with increased chance of DDLT, while age 1-5 years and 10-18 years was associated with lower chance of DDLT (P < 0.001 for all variables). Our model accurately predicted chance of transplant (C-statistic = 0.68) and was able to predict DDLT at specific follow-up times (eg, 3 months). This model can serve as the basis for an online tool that would provide useful information for pediatric wait-list candidates.

Geographic Disparity in Deceased Donor Liver Transplant Rates Following Share 35

BACKGROUND

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented Share 35 on June 18, 2013, to broaden deceased donor liver sharing within regional boundaries. We investigated whether increased sharing under Share 35 impacted geographic disparity in deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) across donation service areas (DSAs).

METHODS

Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients June 2009 to June 2017, we identified 86 083 adult liver transplant candidates and retrospectively estimated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)-adjusted DDLT rates using nested multilevel Poisson regression with random intercepts for DSA and transplant program. From the variance in DDLT rates across 49 DSAs and 102 programs, we derived the DSA-level median incidence rate ratio (MIRR) of DDLT rates. MIRR is a robust metric of heterogeneity across each hierarchical level; larger MIRR indicates greater disparity.

RESULTS

MIRR was 2.18 pre-Share 35 and 2.16 post-Share 35. Thus, 2 candidates with the same MELD in 2 different DSAs were expected to have a 2.2-fold difference in DDLT rate driven by geography alone. After accounting for program-level heterogeneity, MIRR was attenuated to 2.10 pre-Share 35 and 1.96 post-Share 35. For candidates with MELD 15-34, MIRR decreased from 2.51 pre- to 2.27 post-Share 35, and for candidates with MELD 35-40, MIRR increased from 1.46 pre- to 1.51 post-Share 35, independent of program-level heterogeneity in DDLT. DSA-level heterogeneity in DDLT rates was greater than program-level heterogeneity pre- and post-Share 35.

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic disparity substantially impacted DDLT rates before and after Share 35, independent of program-level heterogeneity and particularly for candidates with MELD 35-40. Despite broader sharing, geography remains a major determinant of access to DDLT.

Modeling of implementation of the new Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing policy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Aim: To simulate effects of the new Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing policy on the patients' characteristics and post orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) outcome. Materials & methods: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who were listed for OLT 2002-2014. All patients (actual group) versus simulated group with new 6-month delay in assigning Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score exception and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease exception cap of 34 were compared. Results & conclusion: With the new policy, 7,745 (30.4%) of the transplanted patients would have received a delayed transplantation or not be transplanted. The simulated group also showed significantly higher mean overall survival after OLT (p < 0.002) and received more locoreginal treatments (p < 0.001).

Attitudes of Liver Transplant Candidates Toward Organs From Increased-Risk Donors

Increased-risk donor (IRD) organs make up a significant proportion of the deceased organ donor pool but may be declined by patients on the waiting list for various reasons. We conducted a survey of patients awaiting a liver transplant to determine the factors leading to the acceptance of an IRD organ as well as what strategies could increase the rate of acceptance. Adult liver transplant candidates who were outpatients completed a survey of 51 questions on a 5-point Likert scale with categories related to demographics, knowledge of IRDs, and likelihood of acceptance. A total of 150 transplant candidates completed the survey (age 19-80 years). Male patients constituted 67.3%. Many patients (58.7%) had postsecondary education. Only 23.3% of patients had a potential living donor, and 58/144 (40.3%) were not optimistic about receiving an organ in the next 3 months. The overall IRD organ acceptance rate was 41.1%, whereas 26.2% said they would decline an IRD organ. Women were more likely to accept an IRD organ (54.3% versus 34.7%; P = 0.02). Those who had a college education or higher tended to have lower IRD organ acceptability (28.3% versus 47.4%; P = 0.07). Acceptability also increased as the specified transmission risk of human immunodeficiency virus or hepatitis C virus decreased (P < 0.001). Patients were also more likely to accept an IRD organ if they were educated on the benefits of IRD organs (eg, knowledge that an IRD organ was of better quality increased overall acceptance from 41.1% to 63.3%; P < 0.001). Our survey provides insight into liver transplant candidates who would benefit from greater education on IRD organs. Strategies targeting specific educational points are likely to increase acceptability.

More severe deficits in functional status associated with higher mortality among adults awaiting liver transplantation

The impact of functional status on liver transplant (LT) waitlist outcomes is not well studied. Early evidence suggests frailty portends increased mortality. We aim to evaluate the association of functional status with LT waitlist survival and the probability of receiving LT among adults with cirrhosis. Using 2005-2016 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data, we retrospectively assessed the association of functional status, as determined by Karnofsky Performance Status Score (KPSS) with LT waitlist survival and the probability of receiving LT using Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. Among 118 954 patients listed for LT, patients with worse Karnofsky scores, indicating poor functional status, were progressively more likely to receive liver transplantation compared to patients with better scores, with the most functionally disabled group having 68% higher probability of receiving LT (HR 1.68; 95% CI 1.61-1.75, P < 0.001). Worse functional status was associated with increased waitlist mortality, with the most functionally disabled group 97% more likely to die on the waitlist (HR 1.97; 95% CI 1.81-2.16, P < 0.001). In conclusion, among patients awaiting LT, worse functional status was associated with significantly higher waitlist mortality.

Technology of irreversible electroporation and review of its clinical data on liver cancers

INTRODUCTION

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) has developed as a novel percutaneous ablative technique over the past decade and its utility in the treatment of primary and metastatic liver disease has progressed rapidly.

AREAS COVERED

After discussing the principles behind the technology and the practical steps in its use, this article offers a detailed analysis of the recent published work that evaluates its safety and efficacy. The strengths and weaknesses of other ablative techniques, including radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation and cryoablation, are discussed in detail. Other aspects of IRE, including post-treatment clinical follow-up, expected imaging findings, and the most frequently encountered complications, are covered. Finally, the future of IRE is examined as it pertains to advancements in the treatment of hepatic malignancy.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The characteristics of IRE that make this technology uniquely suited for the treatment of liver tumors have allowed it to gain a significant foothold in interventional oncology. Continued development of IRE will lead to further advances in the management of previously untreatable liver cancers.

What patients and members of their support networks ask about transplant program data

Transplant patients often seek specific data and statistics to inform medical decision making; however, for many relevant measures, patient-friendly information is not available. Development of patient-centered resources should be informed by patient needs. This study used qualitative document research methods to review 678 detailed Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) entries and summary counts of 55 362 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) entries to provide a better understanding of what was asked and what requests were most common. Incoming call and email logs maintained by SRTR and UNOS were reviewed for 2010-2015. Patients sought a wide range of information about outcomes, waiting times, program volumes, and willingness to perform transplants in candidates with specific diseases or demographics. Patients and members of their support networks requested explanation of complex information, such as actual-vs-expected outcomes, and of general transplant processes, such as registering on the waiting list or becoming a living donor. They sought transplant program data from SRTR and UNOS, but encountered gaps in the information they wanted and occasionally struggled to interpret some data. These findings were used to identify potential gaps in providing program-specific data and to enhance the SRTR website (www.srtr.org) with more patient-friendly information.