The aggressive phenotype revisited: utilization of higher-risk liver allografts

The Spread Pattern of New Practice in Liver Transplantation in the United States

BACKGROUND

Introducing new liver transplantation (LT) practices, like unconventional donor use, incurs higher costs, making evaluation of their prognostic justification crucial. This study reexamines the spread pattern of new LT practices and its prognosis across the United States.

METHODS

The study investigated the spread pattern of new practices using the UNOS database (2014-2023). Practices included LT for hepatitis B/C (HBV/HCV) nonviremic recipients with viremic donors, LT for COVID-19-positive recipients, and LT using onsite machine perfusion (OMP). One year post-LT patient and graft survival were also evaluated.

RESULTS

LTs using HBV/HCV donors were common in the East, while LTs for COVID-19 recipients and those using OMP started predominantly in California, Arizona, Texas, and the Northeast. K-means cluster analysis identified three adoption groups: facilities with rapid, slow, and minimal adoption rates. Rapid adoption occurred mainly in high-volume centers, followed by a gradual increase in middle-volume centers, with little increase in low-volume centers. The current spread patterns did not significantly affect patient survival. Specifically, for LTs with HCV donors or COVID-19 recipients, patient and graft survivals in the rapid-increasing group was comparable to others. In LTs involving OMP, the rapid- or slow-increasing groups tended to have better patient survival (p = 0.05) and significantly improved graft survival rates (p = 0.02). Facilities adopting new practices often overlap across different practices.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis revealed three distinct adoption groups across all practices, correlating the adoption aggressiveness with LT volume in centers. Aggressive adoption of new practices did not compromise patient and graft survivals, supporting the current strategy. Understanding historical trends could predict the rise in future LT cases with new practices, aiding in resource distribution.

Heterogeneous donor circles for fair liver transplant allocation

The United States (U.S.) Department of Health and Human Services is interested in increasing geographical equity in access to liver transplant. The geographical disparity in the U.S. is fundamentally an outcome of variation in the organ supply to patient demand (s/d) ratios across the country (which cannot be treated as a single unit due to its size). To design a fairer system, we develop a nonlinear integer programming model that allocates the organ supply in order to maximize the minimum s/d ratios across all transplant centers. We design circular donation regions that are able to address the issues raised in legal challenges to earlier organ distribution frameworks. This allows us to reformulate our model as a set-partitioning problem. Our policy can be viewed as a heterogeneous donor circle policy, where the integer program optimizes the radius of the circle around each donation location. Compared to the current policy, which has fixed radius circles around donation locations, the heterogeneous donor circle policy greatly improves both the worst s/d ratio and the range between the maximum and minimum s/d ratios. We found that with the fixed radius policy of 500 nautical miles (NM), the s/d ratio ranges from 0.37 to 0.84 at transplant centers, while with the heterogeneous circle policy capped at a maximum radius of 500 NM, the s/d ratio ranges from 0.55 to 0.60, closely matching the national s/d ratio average of 0.5983. Our model matches the supply and demand in a more equitable fashion than existing policies and has a significant potential to improve the liver transplantation landscape.

Decreased Utilization Rate of Grafts for Liver Transplantation After Implementation of Acuity Circle-based Allocation

BACKGROUND

The allocation system for livers began using acuity circles (AC) in 2020. In this study, we sought to evaluate the impact of AC policy on the utilization rate for liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

Using the US national registry data between 2018 and 2022, LTs were equally divided into 2 eras: pre-AC (before February 4, 2020) and post-AC (February 4, 2020, and after). Deceased potential liver donors were defined as deceased donors from whom at least 1 organ was procured.

RESULTS

The annual number of deceased potential liver donors increased post-AC (from 10 423 to 12 259), approaching equal to that of new waitlist registrations for LT (n = 12 801). Although the discard risk index of liver grafts was comparable between the pre- and post-AC eras, liver utilization rates in donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors were lower post-AC ( P  < 0.01; 79.8% versus 83.4% and 23.7% versus 26.0%, respectively). Recipient factors, ie, no recipient located, recipient determined unsuitable, or time constraints, were more likely to be reasons for nonutilization after implementation of the AC allocation system compared to the pre-AC era (20.0% versus 12.3% for DBD donors and 50.1% versus 40.8% for DCD donors). Among non-high-volume centers, centers with lower utilization of marginal DBD donors or DCD donors were more likely to decrease LT volume post-AC.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the number of deceased potential liver donors has increased, overall liver utilization among deceased donors has decreased in the post-AC era. To maximize the donor pool for LT, future efforts should target specific reasons for liver nonutilization.

Beyond donation to organ utilization in the UK

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Optimizing deceased donor organ utilization is gaining recognition as a topical and important issue, both in the United Kingdom (UK) and globally. This review discusses pertinent issues in the field of organ utilization, with specific reference to UK data and recent developments within the UK.

RECENT FINDINGS

A multifaceted approach is likely required in order to improve organ utilization. Having a solid evidence-base upon which transplant clinicians and patients on national waiting lists can base decisions regarding organ utilization is imperative in order to bridge gaps in knowledge regarding the optimal use of each donated organ. A better understanding of the risks and benefits of the uses of higher risk organs, along with innovations such as novel machine perfusion technologies, can help clinician decision-making and may ultimately reduce the unnecessary discard of precious deceased donor organs.

SUMMARY

The issues facing the UK with regards to organ utilization are likely to be similar to those in many other developed countries. Discussions around these issues within organ donation and transplantation communities may help facilitate shared learning, lead to improvements in the usage of scarce deceased donor organs, and enable better outcomes for patients waiting for transplants.

Declined Organs for Liver Transplantation: A Right Decision or a Missed Opportunity for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma?

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is the only promising treatment for end-stage liver disease and patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. However, too many organs are rejected for transplantation.

METHODS

We analyzed the factors involved in organ allocation in our transplant center and reviewed all livers that were declined for transplantation. Reasons for declining organs for transplantation were categorized as major extended donor criteria (maEDC), size mismatch and vascular problems, medical reasons and risk of disease transmission, and other reasons. The fate of the declined organs was analyzed.

RESULTS

1086 declined organs were offered 1200 times. A total of 31% of the livers were declined because of maEDC, 35.5% because of size mismatch and vascular problems, 15.8% because of medical reasons and risk of disease transmission, and 20.7% because of other reasons. A total of 40% of the declined organs were allocated and transplanted. A total of 50% of the organs were completely discarded, and significantly more of these grafts had maEDC than grafts that were eventually allocated (37.5% vs. 17.7%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Most organs were declined because of poor organ quality. Donor-recipient matching at time of allocation and organ preservation must be improved by allocating maEDC grafts using individualized algorithms that avoid high-risk donor-recipient combinations and unnecessary organ declination.

Impact of major hepatocellular carcinoma policy changes on liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States

Since its inception in 2002, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)-based allocation has undergone a series of revisions, especially with respect to exception points. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common indication for MELD exceptions, and as a result of higher transplant proportions and lower waitlist mortality, a series of policy changes have been implemented to deprioritize HCC transplants. We examined the impact of HCC exception policy changes on transplant and waitlist mortality rates. We evaluated Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing data on adult patients from January 1, 2005, to June 4, 2021, focusing on waitlist mortality and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) proportions. The data were divided into four policy eras: (1) MELD 22 points at waitlisting with an increase in points every 3 months (i.e., elevator) (January 2005-October 2015), (2) delay and cap at MELD 34 points (October 2015-May 2019), (3) delay and fixed exceptions based on donor service area (DSA) median MELD at transplantation minus three (MMaT-3; May 2019-February 2020), and (4) delay and fixed exceptions based on the MMaT-3 of centers within 250 nautical miles (i.e., acuity circles; February 2020-June 2021). We evaluated (a) changes in the proportions of DDLTs for patients with HCC exceptions within each era nationally and by DSA and (b) waitlist mortality in the three recent policy eras, focusing on mortality in the 6 months after the 6-month delay period. The percentage of adult DDLT with HCC exceptions decreased through the four eras: 22.9% (n = 14,049), 17.9% (n = 4598), 14.3% (n = 851), and 12.4% (n = 1425), respectively. Of the 51 DSAs analyzed, the annual percent change in DDLTs for patients with HCC exceptions was negative (i.e., decreased) in 47 (92.2%). Waitlist mortality remained stable. All HCC policy implementations led to a decrease in the percentage of transplants for HCC without an increase in waitlist mortality. The impact is not uniform across geographic areas.

Offer Acceptance Patterns for Liver Donors Aged 70 and Older

Despite a documented survival benefit, older liver donor (OLD, age ≥70) graft offers are frequently declined, with utilization worsening over the last decade. To understand how offer acceptance varies by center, we studied 1113 eventually transplanted OLD grafts from 2009 to 2017 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data and random-intercept multilevel logistic regression. To understand how center-level acceptance of OLD graft offers might be associated with waitlist and posttransplant outcomes, we studied all adult, actively listed, liver-only candidates and recipients during the study period using Poisson regression (transplant rate), competing risks regression (waitlist mortality), and Cox regression (posttransplant mortality). Among 117 centers, OLD offer acceptance ranged from 0 (23 centers) to 95 acceptances, with a median odds ratio of 2.88. Thus, a candidate may be three times as likely to receive an OLD graft simply by listing at a different center. Centers in the highest quartile (Q4) of OLD acceptance (accepted 39% of OLD offers) accepted more nationally shared organs (Q4 versus Q1: 14.1% versus 0.0%, P < 0.001) and had higher annual liver transplant volume (Q4 versus Q1: 80 versus 21, P < 0.001). After adjustment, nationally shared OLD offers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.20) and offers to centers with higher median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) at transplant (aOR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.87) were less likely to be accepted. OLD offers to centers with higher annual transplant volume were more likely to be accepted (aOR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.14-1.30). Additionally, candidates listed at centers within the highest quartile of OLD graft offer acceptance had higher deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) rates (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.41-1.50), lower waitlist mortality (adjusted subhazard ratio: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.72-0.76), and similar posttransplant survival (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.86-1.01) when compared with those listed at centers in the lowest quartile of OLD graft offer acceptance. The wide variation in OLD offer acceptance supports the need for optimizing the organ offer process and efficiently directing OLD offers to centers more likely to use them.

Temporal Trends in Utilization and Outcomes of DCD Livers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Historically, donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers were frequently discarded because of higher mortality and graft loss after liver transplantation (LT). However, the demand for LT continues to outstrip the supply of "acceptable" organs. Additionally, changes in the donor pool, organ allocation, and clinical management of donors and recipients, and improved clinical protocols might have altered post-DCD-LT outcomes.

METHODS

We studied 5975 recovered DCD livers using US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017, with a comparison group of 78 235 adult donation after brain death (DBD) livers recovered during the same time period. We quantified temporal trends in discard using adjusted multilevel logistic regression and temporal trends in post-LT mortality and graft loss for DCD LT recipients using adjusted Cox regression.

RESULTS

DCD livers were more likely to be discarded than DBD livers across the entire study period, and the relative likelihood of discard increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of discard DCD versus DBD 3.854.455.14 2005-2007, 5.225.876.59 2015-2017) despite improving outcomes after DCD LT. Mortality risk for DCD LTs decreased in each time period (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.720.840.97, aHR 2012-2014 0.480.580.70, aHR 2015-2017 0.340.430.55), as did risk of graft loss (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.690.810.94, aHR 2012-2014 0.450.550.67, aHR 2015-2017 0.360.450.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite dramatic improvements in outcomes of DCD LT recipients, DCD livers remain substantially more likely to be discarded than DBD livers, and this discrepancy has actually increased over time. DCD livers are underutilized and have the potential to expand the donor pool.

Reexamining Risk Aversion: Willingness to Pursue and Utilize Nonideal Donor Livers Among US Donation Service Areas

Background

Livers from "nonideal" but acceptable donors are underutilized; however, organ procurement organization (OPO) metrics do not assess how OPO-specific practices contribute to these trends. In this analysis, we evaluated nonideal liver donor avoidance or risk aversion among OPOs and within US donation service areas (DSAs).

Methods

Adult donors in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry who donated ≥1 organ for transplantation between 2007 and 2019 were included. Nonideal donors were defined by any of the following: age > 70, hepatitis C seropositive, body mass index > 40, donation after circulatory death, or history of malignancy. OPO-specific performance was evaluated based on rates of nonideal donor pursuit and consent attainment. DSA performance (OPO + transplant centers) was evaluated based on rates of nonideal donor pursuit, consent attainment, liver recovery, and transplantation. Lower rates were considered to represent increased donor avoidance or increased risk aversion.

Results

Of 97 911 donors, 31 799 (32.5%) were nonideal. Unadjusted OPO-level rates of nonideal donor pursuit ranged from 88% to 100%. In a 5-tier system of overall risk aversion, tier 5 DSAs (least risk-averse) and tier 1 DSAs (most risk-averse) had the highest and lowest respective rates of non-ideal donor pursuit, consent attainment, liver recovery, and transplantation. On average, recovery rates were over 25% higher among tier 5 versus tier 1 DSAs. If tier 1 DSAs had achieved the same average liver recovery rate as tier 5 DSAs, approximately 2100 additional livers could have been recovered during the study period.

Conclusion

Most OPOs aggressively pursue nonideal liver donors; however, recovery practices vary widely among DSAs. Fair OPO evaluations should consider early donation process stages to best disentangle OPO and center-level practices.

Associations Among Different Domains of Quality Among US Liver Transplant Programs

Importance

US liver transplant programs have traditionally been evaluated on 1-year patient and graft survival. However, there is concern that a narrow focus on recipient outcomes may not incentivize programs to improve in other ways that would benefit patients with end-stage liver disease.

Objective

To determine the correlation among different potential domains of quality for adult liver transplant programs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study was conducted from 2014 to 2019 among adult liver transplant programs included in the United Network for Organ Sharing and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients program-specific reports. Liver transplant programs in the United States completing at least 10 liver transplants per year were included. Data were analyzed from March 2 to August 13, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The potential domains of quality examined included recipient outcomes (1-year graft and patient survival), aggressiveness (ie, marginal graft use, defined as the rate of use of donors with body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared] greater than 40, age older than 65 years, or deceased by cardiac death), and waiting list management (ie, waiting list mortality). The correlation among measures, aggregated at the center level, was evaluated using linear regression to control for mean Model for End Stage Liver Disease-Sodium score at organ allocation. The extent to which programs were able to achieve high quality across multiple domains was also evaluated.

Results

Among 114 transplant programs that performed a total of 44 554 transplants, the mean (SD) 1-year graft and patient survival was 90.3% (3.0%) with a total range of 75.9% to 96.6%. The mean (SD) waiting list mortality rate was 16.7 (6.1) deaths per 100 person-years, with a total range of 6.3 to 53.0 deaths per 100 person years. The mean (SD) marginal graft use rate was 15.8 (8.8) donors per 100 transplants, with a total range of 0 to 49.3 donors. There was no correlation between 1-year graft and patient survival and waiting list mortality (β = -0.053; P = .19) or marginal graft use (β = -0.007; P = .84) after correcting for mean allocation Model for End Stage Liver Disease-Sodium scores. There were 2 transplant programs (1.8%) that performed in the top quartile on all 3 measures, while 4 transplant programs (3.6%) performed in the bottom quartile on all 3 measures.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that among US liver transplant programs, there were no correlations among 1-year recipient outcomes, measures of program aggressiveness, or waiting list management. These findings suggest that a program's performance in one domain may be independent and unrelated to its performance on others and that the understanding of factors contributing to these domains is incomplete.

Pancreas utilization rates in the UK - an 11-year analysis

Utilization of pancreases for transplantation remains inferior to that of other organs. Herein, we analysed UK pancreas discards to identify the reasons for the low utilization rates. Data on all pancreases offered first for solid organ transplantation between 1st January 2005 and 31st December 2015 were extracted from the UK Transplant Registry. The number of organs discarded, reasons and the time point of discard were analysed. A centre specific comparison was also undertaken. 7367 pancreases were offered first for solid organ transplantation. 35% were donors after circulatory death (DCD). 3668 (49.7%) organs were not retrieved. Of the 3699 pancreases retrieved, 38% were initially accepted but subsequently discarded. 2145 (29%) grafts offered were transplanted as simultaneous pancreas-kidney or solitary pancreas. 1177 (55%) were transplanted on the first offer whilst the remaining 968 were transplanted after a median of three offers. 52% DBD pancreases were accepted and transplanted on the first offer compared with 68% DCD grafts. There were significant differences in discard rates between centres (30-80% for DBD and 3-78% for DCD, P < 0.001). A significant number of solid pancreases are discarded. Better graft assessment at retrieval could minimize unnecessary organ travel and discards. Closer links with islet programmes may allow for better utilization of discarded grafts.

Impact of the elimination of the donation service area on United States lung transplant practices and outcomes at high and low competition centers

In November 2017, the donation service area (DSA) was removed as the primary unit of US donor lung allocation. Our primary objective was to evaluate the effect of this change on recipient characteristics, the use of pretransplant extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and on index hospitalization length of stay (LOS) and early posttransplant complications. We also assessed whether these outcomes differed in high and low competition centers, as defined by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. Following DSA removal, there was a 9-day decrease in median waitlist time (P = .001) and an increase in median lung allocation score (40 vs 42, P < .0001) but no difference in the need for pretransplant ECMO (incidence rate ratio = 1.16, P = .12). Median LOS increased from 17 to 19 days in the post-DSA era (P = .01). There was no difference in posttransplant outcomes, including prolonged ventilation, new dialysis, or early survival, in the general cohort or between competition groups. High competition centers saw an 18.5-minute increase in ischemic time compared to low competition centers (P = .04) but did not differentially increase single lung transplants or pretransplant ECMO utilization. Overall, DSA elimination was associated with increased posttransplant LOS but no significant differences in pretransplant ECMO or other posttransplant outcomes. Effects were largely similar at low and high competition centers.

Expedited placement to maximize utilization of marginal organs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Deceased donation represents the largest supply of organs for transplant in the United States. Organs with suboptimal characteristics related to donor disease or recovery-related issues are increasingly discarded at the time of recovery, prompting late allocation to candidates later in the match sequence. Late allocation contributes to organ injury by prolonging cold ischemia, which may further lead to the risk of organ discard, despite the potential to provide benefit to certain transplant candidates.

RECENT FINDINGS

Expedited placement of marginal organs has emerged as a strategy to address the growing problem of organ discard of marginal organs that have been declined late after recovery. In this review, we describe the basis for expedited organ placement, and approaches to facilitating placement of these grafts, drawing examples from kidney and liver donation and transplantation globally.

SUMMARY

There is significant global variation in practice related to late allocation. Multiple policy mechanisms exist to facilitate expedited placement, including simultaneous offers to multiple centers, predesignation of aggressive centers, and increasing organ procurement organization autonomy in late allocation. Optimizing late allocation of deceased donor organs holds significant promise to increase the number of transplants.

Trends in Outcomes for Marginal Allografts in Liver Transplant

IMPORTANCE

Investigating outcomes after marginal allograft transplant is essential in determining appropriate and more aggressive use of these allografts.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the time trends in the outcomes of marginal liver allografts as defined by 6 different sets of criteria.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this case-control, multicenter study, 75 050 patients who received a liver transplant between March 1, 2002, and September 30, 2016, were retrospectively analyzed to last known follow-up (n = 55 395) or death (n = 19 655) using the United Network for Organ Sharing Database. The study period was divided into three 5-year eras: 2002-2006, 2007-2011, and 2012-2016. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used to examine the allograft after transplant with marginal allografts, which were defined as 90th percentile Donor Risk Index allografts (calculated over the entire study period), donor after circulatory death allografts, national share allografts, old age (donors >70 years) allografts, fatty liver allografts, and 90th percentile Discard Risk Index allografts. Statistical analysis was performed from August to December 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Allograft failure after transplant as defined by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database.

RESULTS

Among the 75 050 patients (44 394 men; mean [SD] age, 54.3 [9.9] years) in the study, Donor Risk Index, patient Model for End-stage Liver Disease scores, and balance of risk scores significantly increased over time. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis indicated that 90th percentile Donor Risk Index allograft survival increased across the study period (2002-2006: hazard ratio, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.34-1.49]; 2007-2011: hazard ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.17-1.34]; 2012-2016: hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.98-1.24]). Secondary definitions of marginal allografts (donor after circulatory death, national share, old age donors, fatty liver, and 90th percentile Discard Risk Index) showed similar improvements in allograft survival.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The study's findings encourage the aggressive use of liver allografts and may indicate a need for a redefinition of allograft marginality in liver transplantation.

Wide Variation in the Percentage of Donation After Circulatory Death Donors Across Donor Service Areas: A Potential Target for Improvement

BACKGROUND

Substantial differences exist in the clinical characteristics of donors across the 58 donor service areas (DSAs). Organ procurement organization (OPO) performance metrics incorporate organs donated after circulatory determination of death (DCDD) donors but do not measure potential DCDD donors.

METHODS

Using 2011-2016 United Network for Organ Sharing data, we examined the variability in DCDD donors/all deceased donors (%DCDD) across DSAs. We supplemented United Network for Organ Sharing data with CDC death records and OPO statistics to characterize underlying process and system factors that may correlate with donors and utilization.

RESULTS

Among 52 184 deceased donors, the %DCDD varied widely across DSAs, with a median of 15.1% (interquartile range [9.3%, 20.9%]; range 0.0%-32.0%). The %DCDD had a modest positive correlation with 4 DSA factors: median match model for end-stage liver disease, proportion of white deaths out of total deaths, kidney center competition, and %DCDD livers by a local transplant center (all Spearman coefficients 0.289-0.464), and negative correlation with 1 factor: mean kidney waiting time (Spearman coefficient -0.388). Adjusting for correlated variables in linear regression explained 46.3% of the variability in %DCDD.

CONCLUSIONS

Donor pool demographics, waitlist metrics, center competition, and DCDD utilization explain only a portion of the variability of DCDD donors. This requires further studies and policy changes to encourage consideration of all possible organ donors.

Deceased Brain Dead Donor Liver Transplantation and Utilization in the United States: Nighttime and Weekend Effects

BACKGROUND

Understanding factors that contribute to liver discards and nonusage is urgently needed to improve organ utilization.

METHODS

Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data, we studied a national cohort of all US adult, deceased brain dead donor, isolated livers available for transplantation from 2003 to 2016, including organ-specific and system-wide factors that may affect organ procurement and discard rates.

RESULTS

Of 73 686 available livers, 65 316 (88.64%) were recovered for transplant, of which 6454 (9.88%) were ultimately discarded. Livers that were not procured or, on recovery, discarded were more frequently from older, heavier, hepatitis B virus (HCV)+, and more comorbid donors (P < 0.001). However, even after adjustment for organ quality, the odds of liver nonusage were 11% higher on the weekend (defined as donor procurements with cross-clamping occurring from 5:00 PM Friday until 11:59 AM Sunday) compared with weekdays (P < 0.001). Nonuse rates were also higher at night (P < 0.001), defined as donor procurements with cross-clamping occurring from 5:00 PM to 5:00 AM; however, weekend nights had significantly higher nonuse rates compared with weekday nights (P = 0.005). After Share 35, weekend nonusage rates decreased from 21.77% to 19.51% but were still higher than weekday nonusage rates (P = 0.065). Weekend liver nonusage was higher in all 11 United Network of Organ Sharing regions, with an absolute average of 2.00% fewer available livers being used on the weekend compared with weekdays.

CONCLUSIONS

Although unused livers frequently have unfavorable donor characteristics, there are also systemic and operational factors, including time of day and day of the week a liver becomes available, that impact the chance of liver nonprocurement and discard.

Aggressive utilization of liver allografts: Improved outcomes over time

BACKGROUND

Aggressive acceptance of liver allografts has driven utilization of marginal allografts. Our aim was to assess the impact of the aggressive phenotype on transplant center outcomes over time.

METHODS

We used a cohort of 148 361 candidates from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network for liver transplantation between 2002 and 2016 in 134 centers. Using the Discard Risk Index, we designated high probability discard allografts by the top 10th percentile for likelihood of discard. Aggressive phenotype was defined by usage of high probability discard (HPD) allografts (top 10th percentile). Our analysis of survival on waitlist and graft survival after transplantation included a comprehensive list of center level covariates across three equal time periods (2002-2006, 2007-2011, and 2012-2016).

RESULTS

After adjusting for recipient and center-level factors, aggressive centers had improving graft survival over time. Aggressive vs non-aggressive centers: 2002-2006 HR 1.12 (1.05-1.19), 2007-2011 HR 1.13 (1.05-1.22), 2012-2016 HR 0.99 (0.89-1.10). Aggressive centers had improved waitlist survival compared with non-aggressive centers after adjusting for allograft disparity.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive phenotype had a positive impact on waitlist survival, and graft survival in aggressive centers have improved to benchmark levels over time. These findings serve as justification for aggressive utilization of allografts.

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.

Can reporting more lead to less? The role of metrics in assessing liver transplant program performance

Appropriate metrics for performance analysis is an active topic of debate within the transplant community. This study explores current proposals on metric expansion as well as potential metrics and prospective collaborations that have not received widespread discussion within the transplant community. The premature introduction of additional, nonvalidated metrics risks behaviors that may undermine donor utilization and patient access to transplantation.

A learning curve in using orphan liver allografts for transplantation

Given the critical shortage of donor livers, marginal liver allografts have potential to increase donor supply. We investigate trends and long-term outcomes of liver transplant using national share allografts transplanted after rejection at the local and regional levels. We studied a cohort of 75 050 candidates listed in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network for liver transplantation between 2002 and 2016. We compared patients receiving national share and regional/local share allografts from 2002-2006, 2007-2011, and 2012-2016, performing multivariate Cox regression for graft survival. Recipient and center-level covariates that were not significant (P < .05) were removed. Graft survival of national share allografts improved over time. National share allografts had a 26% increased risk for graft failure in 2002-2006 but no impact on graft survival in 2007-2011 and 2012-2016. The cold ischemia time (CIT) of national share allografts decreased from 10.4 to 8.0 hours. We demonstrate that CIT had significant impact on graft survival using national share allografts (CIT <6 hours: hazard ratio 0.75 and CIT >12 hours: hazard ratio 1.25). Despite a trend toward sicker recipients and poorer quality allografts, graft survival outcomes using national share allografts have improved to benchmark levels. Reduction in cold ischemia time is a possible explanation.

National Variation in Increased Infectious Risk Kidney Offer Acceptance

BACKGROUND

Despite providing survival benefit, increased risk for infectious disease (IRD) kidney offers are declined at 1.5 times the rate of non-IRD kidneys. Elucidating sources of variation in IRD kidney offer acceptance may highlight opportunities to expand use of these life-saving organs.

METHODS

To explore center-level variation in offer acceptance, we studied 6765 transplanted IRD kidneys offered to 187 transplant centers between 2009 and 2017 using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. We used multilevel logistic regression to determine characteristics associated with offer acceptance and to calculate the median odds ratio (MOR) of acceptance (higher MOR indicates greater heterogeneity).

RESULTS

Higher quality kidneys (per 10 units kidney donor profile index; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-0.95), higher yearly volume (per 10 deceased donor kidney transplants; aOR, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.06-1.10), smaller waitlist size (per 100 candidates; aOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98), and fewer transplant centers in the donor service area (per center; aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.91) were associated with greater odds of IRD acceptance. Adjusting for donor and center characteristics, we found wide heterogeneity in IRD offer acceptance (MOR, 1.96). In other words, if listed at a center with more aggressive acceptance practices, a candidate could be 2 times more likely to have an IRD kidney offer accepted.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide national variation in IRD kidney offer acceptance limits access to life-saving kidneys for many transplant candidates.

Center-level trends in utilization of HCV-exposed donors for HCV-uninfected kidney and liver transplant recipients in the United States

Several single-center reports of using HCV-viremic organs for HCV-uninfected (HCV-) recipients were recently published. We sought to characterize national utilization of HCV-exposed donors for HCV- recipients (HCV D+/R-) in kidney transplantation (KT) and liver transplantation (LT). Using SRTR data (April 1, 2015-December 2, 2018) and Gini coefficients, we studied center-level clustering of 1193 HCV D+/R- KTs and LTs. HCV-viremic (NAT+) D+/R- KTs increased from 1/month in 2015 to 22/month in 2018 (LTs: 0/month to 12/month). HCV-aviremic (Ab+/NAT-) D+/R- KTs increased from < 1/month in 2015 to 26/month in 2018 (LTs: <1/month to 8/month). HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic kidneys spent a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 0.7 (0.2-1.6) and 1.6 (0.4-3.5) years on the waitlist versus 1.8 (0.5-4.0) among HCV D-/R-. HCV- recipients of viremic and aviremic livers had median (IQR) MELD scores of 24 (21-30) and 25 (21-32) at transplantation versus 29 (23-36) among HCV D-/R-. 12 KT and 14 LT centers performed 81% and 76% of all viremic HCV D+/R- transplants; 11 KT and 13 LT centers performed 76% and 69% of all aviremic HCV D+/R- transplants. There have been marked increases in HCV D+/R- transplantation, although few centers are driving this practice; centers should continue to weigh the risks and benefits of HCV D+/R- transplantation.

Agree on much, except it is time for change

The imbalance between supply and demand of organs for transplant will not be fully solved by changes to the allocation system. Improved organ donation and utilization must be accomplished through critical reassessment of organ procurement organization (OPO) performance as a partnership between transplant centers, OPOs, and community hospitals. The continued discussion on changes to the organ distribution system should be based on patient-centeredness, enhanced transparency, improved models, and metrics. Focusing too heavily on geography without consideration for the other factors at play risks oversimplification of this complex issue.

Geographic disparities in liver supply/demand ratio within fixed-distance and fixed-population circles

Recent OPTN proposals to address geographic disparity in liver allocation have involved circular boundaries: the policy selected 12/17 allocated to 150-mile circles in addition to DSAs/regions, and the policy selected 12/18 allocated to 150-mile circles eliminating DSA/region boundaries. However, methods to reduce geographic disparity remain controversial, within the OPTN and the transplant community. To inform ongoing discussions, we studied center-level supply/demand ratios using SRTR data (07/2013-06/2017) for 27 334 transplanted deceased donor livers and 44 652 incident waitlist candidates. Supply was the number of donors from an allocation unit (DSA or circle), allocated proportionally (by waitlist size) to the centers drawing on these donors. We measured geographic disparity as variance in log-transformed supply/demand ratio, comparing allocation based on DSAs, fixed-distance circles (150- or 400-mile radius), and fixed-population (12- or 50-million) circles. The recently proposed 150-mile radius circles (variance = 0.11, P = .9) or 12-million-population circles (variance = 0.08, P = .1) did not reduce the geographic disparity compared to DSA-based allocation (variance = 0.11). However, geographic disparity decreased substantially to 0.02 in both larger fixed-distance (400-mile, P < .001) and larger fixed-population (50-million, P < .001) circles (P = .9 comparing fixed distance and fixed population). For allocation circles to reduce geographic disparities, they must be larger than a 150-mile radius; additionally, fixed-population circles are not superior to fixed-distance circles.

Maximizing Utilization in Pancreas Transplantation: Phenotypic Characteristics Differentiating Aggressive From Nonaggressive Transplant Centers

BACKGROUND

Maximizing pancreas utilization requires a balance between judicious donor selection and transplant center aggressiveness. We sought to determine how such aggressiveness affects transplant outcomes.

METHODS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we studied 28 487 deceased-donor adult pancreas transplants. Donor and recipient demographic factors indicative of aggressiveness were used to score center aggressiveness. We compared outcomes of low (> 1 SD below mean), medium (± 1 SD from mean), and high (> 1 SD above mean) aggressiveness centers using bivariate and multivariable regressions.

RESULTS

Donor and recipient aggressiveness demonstrated a roughly linear relationship (R = 0.20). Center volume correlated moderately with donor (rs = 0.433) and recipient (rs = 0.270) aggressiveness. In bivariate analysis, there was little impact of donor selection aggressiveness on graft survival. Further, for simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplants, centers with greater recipient aggressiveness selection had better graft survival. High-volume centers had better graft survival than low-volume centers. In multivariable analysis, donor aggressiveness did not have an effect on graft survival, whereas graft survival for medium (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66, 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.53-0.83) and high (HR, 0.67; CI, 0.51-0.86) recipient aggressiveness performed better than low-aggressiveness centers. There was a clear volume effect, with high-volume centers (>20 transplants/year; HR, 0.69; CI, 0.61-0.79) performing better than low-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Center practice patterns using higher-risk donors and recipients did not negatively affect outcomes. This effect is likely mediated through efficiencies gained with the increased transplant volumes at these centers.

Quality measurement and improvement in liver transplantation

There is growing interest in the quality of health care delivery in liver transplantation. Multiple stakeholders, including patients, transplant providers and their hospitals, payers, and regulatory bodies have an interest in measuring and monitoring quality in the liver transplant process, and understanding differences in quality across centres. This article aims to provide an overview of quality measurement and regulatory issues in liver transplantation performed within the United States. We review how broader definitions of health care quality should be applied to liver transplant care models. We outline the status quo including the current regulatory agencies, public reporting mechanisms, and requirements around quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) activities. Additionally, we further discuss unintended consequences and opportunities for growth in quality measurement. Quality measurement and the integration of quality improvement strategies into liver transplant programmes hold significant promise, but multiple challenges to successful implementation must be addressed to optimise value.

Intraregional model for end-stage liver disease score variation in liver transplantation: Disparity in our own backyard

Variation in average Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at liver transplantation (LT) by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) regions is well documented. The present study aimed to investigate MELD variation at the interregional, intraregional, and intra-donation service area (DSA) levels. Patients undergoing LT between 2015 and 2016 were obtained from the UNOS standard analysis and research file. The distribution of allocation MELD score including median, skew, and kurtosis was examined for all transplant programs. Intraregional median allocation MELD varied significantly within all 11 UNOS regions. The largest variation between programs was seen in region 5 (MELD 24.0 versus 38.5) and region 3 (MELD 20.5 versus 32.0). Regions 1, 5, and 9 had the largest proportion of programs with a highly negative skewed MELD score (50%, 57%, and 57%, respectively), whereas regions 3, 6, 10, and 11 did not have any programs with a highly negative skew. MELD score distribution was also examined in programs located in the same DSA, where no barriers exist and theoretically no significant difference in allocation should be observed. The largest DSA variation in median allocation MELD score was seen in NYRT-OP1 LiveOnNY (MELD score variation 11), AZOB-OP1 Donor Network of Arizona (MELD score variation 11), MAOB-OP1 New England Organ Bank (MELD score variation 9), and TXGC-OP1 LifeGift Organ Donation Ctr (MELD score variation 9). In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that this MELD disparity is not only present at the interregional level but can be seen within regions and even within DSAs between programs located as close as several city blocks away. Although organ availability likely accounts for a component of this disparity, the present study suggests that transplant center behavior may also play a significant role. Liver Transplantation 24 488-496 2018 AASLD.

PROviding Better ACcess To ORgans: A comprehensive overview of organ-access initiatives from the ASTS PROACTOR Task Force

The American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) PROviding better Access To Organs (PROACTOR) Task Force was created to inform ongoing ASTS organ access efforts. Task force members were charged with comprehensively cataloguing current organ access activities and organizing them according to stakeholder type. This white paper summarizes the task force findings and makes recommendations for future ASTS organ access initiatives.

A Donor Age-Based and Graft Volume-Based Analysis for Living Donor Liver Transplantation in Elderly Recipients

Background

Given the expected increase in the number of elderly recipients, details regarding how clinical factors influence the outcome in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for the elderly remain unclear. We examined the survival outcomes according to the results of donor age-based and graft volume–based analyses and assessed the impact of prognostic factors on the survival after LDLT for elderly recipients.

Methods

The 198 adult recipients were classified into 2 groups: an elderly group (n = 70, E group; ≥ 60 years of age) and a younger group (n = 128, Y group; <60 years of age). We analyzed the prognostic factors for the survival in the E group and the survival rate for both groups at several follow-up points and conducted subgroup analyses in the E group by combining the donor age (≥50 vs <50 years) and graft weight (GW)/standard liver volume (SLV) (≥40% vs <40%).

Results

Donor age (hazard ratio [HR], 2.17; P = 0.062) and GW/SLV (HR, 1.80; P = 0.23) tended to have a high HR in the E group. The overall patient survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 78.3%, 73.0%, and 61.0% in the E group, and 82.0%, 75.1%, and 69.2% in the Y group, respectively (P = 0.459). However, the outcomes tended to be worse in recipients of grafts from donors ≥50 years of age than in those with grafts from younger donors with GW/SLV < 40% (P = 0.048).

Conclusions

A worse outcome might be associated with aging of the donor, which leads to impairment of the graft function and liver regeneration. Both the graft volume and donor age should be considered when choosing grafts for LDLT in elderly patients.

Noneligible Donors as a Strategy to Decrease the Organ Shortage

Organ procurement organization (OPO) performance is generally evaluated by the number of organ procurement procedures divided by the number of eligible deaths (donation after brain death [DBD] donors aged <70 years), whereas the number of noneligible deaths (including donation after cardiac death donors and DBD donors aged >70 years) is not tracked. The present study aimed to investigate the variability in the proportion of noneligible liver donors by the 58 donor service areas (DSAs). Patients undergoing liver transplant (LT) between 2011 and 2015 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research file. LTs from noneligible and eligible donors were compared. The proportion of noneligible liver donors by DSA varied significantly, ranging from 0% to 19.6% of total liver grafts used. In transplant programs, the proportion of noneligible liver donors used ranged from 0% to 35.3%. On linear regression there was no correlation between match Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score for programs in a given DSA and proportion of noneligible donors used from the corresponding DSA (p = 0.14). Noneligible donors remain an underutilized resource in many OPOs. Policy changes to begin tracking noneligible donors and learning from OPOs that have high noneligible donor usage are potential strategies to increase awareness and pursuit of these organs.

Outcomes of liver transplantation with liver grafts from pediatric donors used in adult recipients

Although there is an agreement that liver grafts from pediatric donors (PDs) should ideally be used for pediatric patients, there remain situations when these grafts are turned down for pediatric recipients and are then offered to adult recipients. The present study aimed to investigate the outcomes of using these grafts for liver transplantation (LT) in adult patients. Data from all patients undergoing LT between 2002 and 2014 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Analysis and Research file. Adult recipients undergoing LT were divided into 2 groups: those receiving a pediatric liver graft (pediatric-to-adult group) and those receiving a liver graft from adult donors (adult-to-adult group). A separate subgroup analysis comparing the PDs used for adult recipients and those used for pediatric recipients was also performed. Patient and graft survival were not significantly different between pediatric-to-adult and adult-to-adult groups (P = 0.08 and P = 0.21, respectively). Hepatic artery thrombosis as the cause for graft loss was higher in the pediatric-to-adult group (3.6%) than the adult-to-adult group (1.9%; P < 0.001). A subanalysis looking at the pediatric-to-adult group found that patients with a predicted graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) < 0.8 had a higher 90-day graft loss rate than those with a GRWR ≥ 0.8 (39% versus 9%; P < 0.001). PDs used for adult recipients had a higher proportion of donors with elevated aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase (20% vs. 12%; P < 0.001), elevated creatinine (11% vs. 4%; P < 0.001), donation after cardiac death donors (12% vs. 0.9%; P < 0.001), and were hepatitis B virus core positive (1% vs. 0.3%; P = 0.002) than PDs used for pediatric recipients. In conclusion, acceptable patient and graft survival can be achieved with the use of pediatric liver grafts in adult recipients, when these grafts have been determined to be inappropriate for usage in the pediatric population. Liver Transplantation 22 1099-1106 2016 AASLD.

One Size Does Not Fit All--Regional Variation in the Impact of the Share 35 Liver Allocation Policy

Allocation policies for liver transplantation underwent significant changes in June 2013 with the introduction of Share 35. We aimed to examine the effect of Share 35 on regional variation in posttransplant outcomes. We examined two patient groups from the United Network for Organ Sharing dataset; a pre-Share 35 group composed of patients transplanted between June 17, 2012, and June 17, 2013 (n = 5523), and a post-Share group composed of patients transplanted between June 18, 2013, and June 18, 2014 (n = 5815). We used Kaplan-Meier and Cox multivariable analyses to compare survival. There were significant increases in allocation Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, laboratory MELD scores, and proportions of patients in the intensive care unit and on mechanical, ventilated, or organ-perfusion support at transplant post-Share 35. We also observed a significant increase in donor risk index in this group. We found no difference on a national level in survival between patients transplanted pre-Share 35 and post-Share 35 (p = 0.987). Regionally, however, posttransplantation survival was significantly worse in the post-Share 35 patients in regions 4 and 10 (p = 0.008 and p = 0.04), with no significant differences in the remaining regions. These results suggest that Share 35 has been associated with transplanting "sicker patients" with higher MELD scores, and although no difference in survival is observed on a national level, outcomes appear to be concerning in some regions.

Gerrymandering for Justice: Redistricting U.S. Liver Allocation

U.S. organ allocation policy sequesters livers from deceased donors within arbitrary geographic boundaries, frustrating the intent of those who wish to offer the livers to transplant candidates based on medical urgency. We used a zero-one integer program to partition 58 donor service areas into between four and eight sharing districts that minimize the disparity in liver availability among districts. Because the integer program necessarily suppressed clinically significant differences among patients and organs, we tested the optimized district maps with a discrete-event simulation tool that represents liver allocation at a per-person, per-organ level of detail. In April 2014, the liver committee of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) decided in a unanimous vote of 22-0-0 to write a policy proposal based on our eight-district and four-district maps. The OPTN board of directors could implement the policy after the proposal and public-comment period.Redistricting liver allocation would save hundreds of lives over the next five years and would attenuate the serious geographic inequity in liver transplant offers.

Market competition influences renal transplantation risk and outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of market competition on patient mortality and graft failure after kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND

Kidneys are initially allocated within 58 donation service areas (DSAs), which have varying numbers of transplant centers. Market competition is generally considered beneficial.

METHODS

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database was queried and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI), a measure of market competition, was calculated for each DSA from 2003 to 2012. Receipt of low-quality kidneys (Kidney Donor Profile Index ≥ 85) was modeled with multivariable logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards models were created for graft failure and patient mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 127,355 adult renal transplants were performed. DSAs were categorized as 7 no (HHI = 1), 17 low (HHI = 0.52-0.97), 17 medium (HHI = 0.33-0.51), or 17 high (HHI = 0.09-0.32) competition. For deceased donor kidney transplantation, increasing market competition was significantly associated with mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 1.11, P = 0.01], graft failure (HR: 1.18, P = 0.0001), and greater use of low-quality kidneys (odds ratio = 1.39, P < 0.0001). This was not true for living donor kidney transplantation (mortality HR: 0.94, P = 0.48; graft failure HR: 0.99, P = 0.89). Competition was associated with longer waitlists (P = 0.04) but not with the number of transplants per capita in a DSA (P = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing market competition is associated with increased patient mortality and graft failure and the use of riskier kidneys. These results may represent more aggressive transplantation and tolerance of greater risk for patients who otherwise have poor alternatives. Market competition should be better studied to ensure optimal outcomes.

Competition in liver transplantation: helpful or harmful?

Improved outcomes of liver transplantation have led to increases in the numbers of US transplant centers and candidates on the list. The resultant and ever-expanding organ shortage has created competition among centers, especially in regions with multiple liver transplant programs. Multiple reports now document that competition among the country's transplant centers has led to the listing of increasingly high-risk patients and the utilization of more marginal liver allografts. The transplant and medical communities at large should carefully re-evaluate these practices and promote innovative approaches to restoring trust in the allocation of donor organs and confirming that there is nationwide conformity in the guidelines used for evaluating and listing potential candidates for this scarce resource.