Patient, center and geographic characteristics of nationally placed livers

Expanding Liver Transplant Opportunities in Older Patients With Nonconventional Grafts

INTRODUCTION

Broader use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and nonconventional grafts for liver transplant helps reduce disparities in organ availability. Limited data, however, exists on outcomes specific to nonconventional graft utilization in older patients. As such, this study aimed to investigate outcomes specific to conventional and nonconventional graft utilization in recipients > 70 y of age.

METHODS

1-to-3 matching based on recipient sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and donor type was performed on patients ≥70 and <70 y of age who underwent liver transplant alone at Mayo Clinic Arizona between 2015 and 2020. Primary outcomes were posttransplant patient and liver allograft survival for recipients greater than or less than 70 y of age. Secondary outcomes included grafts utilization patterns, hospital length of stay, need for reoperation, biliary complications and disposition at time of hospital discharge.

RESULTS

In this cohort, 36.1% of grafts came from DCD donors, 17.4% were postcross clamp offers, and 20.8% were nationally allocated. Median recipient ages were 59 and 71 y (P < 0.01). Recipients had similar Intensive care unit (P = 0.82) and hospital (P = 0.14) lengths of stay, and there were no differences in patient (P = 0.68) or graft (P = 0.38) survival. When comparing donation after brain death and DCD grafts in those >70 y, there were no differences in patient (P = 0.89) or graft (P = 0.71) survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Excellent outcomes can be achieved in older recipients, even with use of nonconventional grafts. Expanded use of nonconventional grafts can help facilitate transplant opportunities in older patients.

Portopulmonary hypertension practice patterns after liver transplantation

Portopulmonary hypertension (POPH) is a type of pulmonary arterial hypertension occurring exclusively in those with portal hypertensive liver disease. Liver transplantation (LT) can significantly improve outcomes. Current guidelines counsel against immediate adjustments to targeted therapy after LT and suggest routine echocardiography as sufficiently informative to guide therapeutic adjustments. Current practice patterns for adjusting targeted therapy after LT in POPH, and how they compare with guidelines, are not well established. To answer this question, we performed an institutional review board-approved, cross-sectional mixed-methods survey-based study of US POPH providers. Anonymized requests to complete the survey were sent through professional networks between January 20, 2022, and April 20, 2022. Responses were compared between cardiologists and pulmonologists using Fisher's exact tests, at a significance of 0.05. A total of 85 POPH physicians were included in the final analysis (66% pulmonologists and 34% cardiologists). Following LT, the majority of respondents routinely used a combination of standard cardiopulmonary assessment modalities to guide adjustment of targeted therapy following LT. Most respondents (69%) started by adjusting parenteral prostacyclins with small titrations and frequent reassessments within 3 months of LT, but some (19.7%) adjusted targeted therapy immediately after LT. Our results showed that the majority of respondents favored serial integrated cardiopulmonary testing (including routine right heart catheterization) to guide the adjustment of targeted therapy in POPH after LT, and almost one-fifth of respondents weaned therapy immediately after LT. Our study demonstrates heterogeneity in POPH practice patterns after LT, highlights differences between current practice patterns and the most recent guidelines, emphasizes the need for additional research, and supports a team-based approach to standardize care for these high-risk patients and optimize post-LT outcomes.

Decreasing Significance of Early Allograft Dysfunction with Rising Use of Nonconventional Donors

Background and Objectives: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is considered a surrogate marker for adverse post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes. With the increasing use of nonconventional donors, EAD has become a more frequent occurrence. Given this background, we aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of EAD in an updated cohort inclusive of both conventional and nonconventional liver allografts. Materials and Methods: Perioperative and one-year outcomes were assessed for a total of 611 LT recipients with and without EAD from Mayo Clinic Arizona. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: bilirubin > 10 mg/dL on day 7, INR > 1.6 on day 7, or ALT and/or AST > 2000 IU/L within the first 7 days of LT. Results: Within this cohort, 31.8% of grafts (n = 194) came from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, 17.7% (n = 108) were nationally shared, 16.4% (n = 100) were allocated as post-cross clamp, and 8.7% contained moderate steatosis. EAD was observed in 52.2% (n = 321) of grafts in the study cohort (79% in DCD grafts and 40% in DBD grafts). EAD grafts had higher donor risk index (DRI) scores (1.9 vs. 1.6, p < 0.0001), were more likely to come from DCD donors (48% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.0001), were regionally allocated (p = 0.003), and had higher cold ischemia times (median 6.0 vs. 5.5 h, p = 0.001). Primary nonfunction events were rare in both groups (1.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.22). Post-LT acute kidney injury occurred at a similar frequency in recipients with and without EAD (43.6% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.41), and there were no differences in ICU (median 2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.60) or hospital (6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.24) length of stay. For DCD grafts, the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was similar in the two groups (14.9% EAD vs. 17.5% no EAD, p = 0.69). One-year patient survival for grafts with and without EAD was 96.0% and 94.1% (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7−1.8; p = 0.54); one-year graft survival was 92.5% and 92.1% (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7−1.5; p = 0.88). Conclusions: In this cohort, EAD occurred in 52% of grafts. The occurrence of EAD, however, did not portend inferior outcomes. Compared to those without EAD, recipients with EAD had similar post-operative outcomes, as well as one-year patient and graft survival. EAD should be managed supportively and should not be viewed as a deterrent to utilization of non-ideal grafts.

Portopulmonary Hypertension: A Survey of Practice Patterns and Provider Attitudes

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The role of liver transplantation (LT) in the management of portopulmonary hypertension (POPH) is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to better understand provider attitudes and practice patterns regarding the management of patients with POPH and to assess the concordance between clinical practice and current guidelines.

Deceased Pediatric Donor Livers: How Current Policy Drives Allocation and Transplantation

Each year, approximately 60 children, representing 12% of waitlist candidates, die awaiting liver transplantation. The current allocation algorithm for pediatric donor livers prioritizes local/regional adults over national children. We attempted to better understand the impact of the present algorithm on pediatric candidates. We analyzed pediatric donor liver offers from 2010 to 2014. Donors and recipients were classified based on age. We mapped allocation and acceptance patterns and used subgroup analyses to explore the significance of donor service areas (DSAs) with low pediatric transplant volumes. We used Cox proportional hazard regressions to evaluate posttransplantation outcomes: 3,318 pediatric donor livers were transplanted into 3,482 recipients, and 45% (1,569) were adults. Of the 1,569 adults, 25% (390) received a pediatric organ that was never offered to children; 52% (204) of these 390 pediatric organs originated in the 37 DSAs, with ≤25 pediatric liver transplantations; 278 children died or were delisted due to illness during the same time, with higher mortality rates in the 37 DSAs (10% versus 6%, P < 0.01). Compared to adults, pediatric recipients aged <12 years had lower risks of posttransplant mortality (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.81; P < 0.01). Conclusions: We found that 45% of pediatric donor livers were transplanted into adults: 390 adults were transplanted with pediatric organs never offered to children, while 278 children died or were delisted due to illness, which was more apparent in DSAs with low pediatric transplant volumes; we advocate for a change to allocation policies to allow pediatric organs to be offered to national children with status 1B or Model for End-Stage Liver Disease/Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease >15 before being offered to local/regional + circle non-status 1A adults.

Predictors of Waitlist Mortality in Portopulmonary Hypertension

BACKGROUND

The current Organ Procurement Transplantation Network policy grants Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception points to patients with portopulmonary hypertension (POPH), but potentially important factors, such as severity of liver disease and pulmonary hypertension, are not included in the exception score, and may affect survival. The purpose of this study was to identify significant predictors of waitlist mortality in patients with POPH.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database with hemodynamics consistent with POPH (defined as mean pulmonary arterial pressure >25 mm Hg and pulmonary vascular resistance [PVR] ≥240 dynes·s·cm) who were approved for a POPH MELD exception between 2006 and 2014. Using a Cox proportional hazards model, we identified predictors of waitlist mortality (or removal for clinical deterioration).

RESULTS

One hundred ninety adults were included. Age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.08; P = 0.0499), initial native MELD score (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.17; P < 0.001), and initial PVR (HR, 1.12 per 100 dynes·s·cm; 95% CI, 1.02-1.23; P = 0.02) were the only significant univariate predictors of waitlist mortality and remained significant predictors in a multivariate model, which had a c-statistic of 0.71. PVR and mean pulmonary arterial pressure were not significant predictors of posttransplant mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the severity of liver disease and POPH (as assessed by MELD and PVR, respectively) were significantly associated with waitlist, but not posttransplant, mortality in patients with approved MELD exceptions for POPH. Both factors should potentially be included in the POPH MELD exception score to more accurately reflect waitlist mortality risk.

Same policy, different impact: Center-level effects of share 35 liver allocation

Early studies of national data suggest that the Share 35 allocation policy increased liver transplants without compromising posttransplant outcomes. Changes in center-specific volumes and practice patterns in response to the national policy change are not well characterized. Understanding center-level responses to Share 35 is crucial for optimizing the policy and constructing effective future policy revisions. Data from the United Network for Organ Sharing were analyzed to compare center-level volumes of allocation-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (aMELD) ≥ 35 transplants before and after policy implementation. There was significant center-level variation in the number and proportion of aMELD ≥ 35 transplants performed from the pre- to post-Share 35 period; 8 centers accounted for 33.7% of the total national increase in aMELD ≥ 35 transplants performed in the 2.5-year post-Share 35 period, whereas 25 centers accounted for 65.0% of the national increase. This trend correlated with increased listing at these centers of patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥ 35 at the time of initial listing. These centers did not overrepresent the total national volume of liver transplants. Comparison of post-Share 35 aMELD to calculated time-of-transplant (TOT) laboratory MELD scores showed that only 69.6% of patients transplanted with aMELD ≥ 35 maintained a calculated laboratory MELD ≥ 35 at the TOT. In conclusion, Share 35 increased transplantation of aMELD ≥ 35 recipients on a national level, but the policy asymmetrically impacted practice patterns and volumes of a subset of centers. Longer-term data are necessary to assess outcomes at centers with markedly increased volumes of high-MELD transplants after Share 35. Liver Transplantation 23 741-750 2017 AASLD.

Nonstandard Exception Requests Impact Outcomes for Pediatric Liver Transplant Candidates

Nonstandard exceptions requests (NSERs), in which transplant centers appeal on a case-by-case basis for Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease/Mayo End-Stage Liver Disease points, have been highly utilized for pediatric liver transplant candidates. We evaluated whether NSE outcomes are associated with waitlist and posttransplant mortality. United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data on pediatric liver transplant candidates listed in 2009-2014 were analyzed after excluding those granted automatic UNOS exceptions. Of 2581 pediatric waitlist candidates, 44% had an NSE request. Of the 1134 children with NSERs, 93% were approved and 7% were denied. For children 2-18 years at listing, NSER denial increased the risk of waitlist mortality or removal for being too sick (subhazard ratio 2.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-7.07, p = 0.01 in multivariate analysis). For children younger than 2 years, NSER denial did not impact waitlist mortality/removal. Children with NSER approved had reduced risk of graft loss 3 years posttransplant in univariate but not multivariable analysis (odds ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.53-1.01, p = 06). Those with NSER denial had a higher risk of posttransplant death than those with no NSER (hazard ratio 2.43, 95% CI 0.99-5.95, p = 0.05, multivariable analysis), but NSER approval did not impact posttransplant death. Further research on NSER utilization in pediatric liver transplant is needed to optimize organ allocation and outcomes for children.

Liver Allocation to Non-U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Residents: An Ethical Framework for a Last-in-Line Approach

The incidence of non-U.S. citizen non-U.S. resident patients coming to the United States specifically for deceased donor liver transplantation raises compelling ethical questions that require careful consideration. The inclusion of these often financially and/or socially privileged patients in the pool of potential candidates for an absolutely scarce and life-saving liver transplant may exacerbate disparities already existing in deceased donor liver allocation. In addition, their inclusion on organ transplant waiting lists conflicts with recognized ethical principles of justice and reciprocity. Moreover, preliminary data suggest that public awareness of this practice could discourage organ donation, thereby worsening an already profound supply-demand gulf. Finally, U.S. organ allocation policies and statutes are out of step with recently promulgated international transplant guidelines, which prioritize self-sufficiency of organ programs. This article analyzes each of these ethical conflicts within the context of deceased donor liver transplantation and recommends policy changes that align the United States with international practices that discourage this scenario.

Liver transplant center variability in accepting organ offers and its impact on patient survival

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite an allocation system designed to give deceased-donor livers to the sickest patients, many transplantable livers are declined by U.S. transplant centers. It is unknown whether centers vary in their propensities to decline organs for the highest priority patients, and how these decisions directly impact patient outcomes.

METHODS

We analyzed Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) data from 5/1/07-6/17/13, and included all adult liver-alone waitlist candidates offered an organ that was ultimately transplanted. We evaluated acceptance rates of liver offers for the highest ranked patients and their subsequent waitlist mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 23,740 unique organ offers, 8882 (37.4%) were accepted for the first-ranked patient. Despite adjusting for organ quality and recipient severity of illness, transplant centers within and across geographic regions varied strikingly (p<0.001) in the percentage of organ offers they accepted for the highest priority patients. Among all patients ranked first on waitlists, the adjusted center-specific organ acceptance rates ranged from 15.7% to 58.1%. In multivariable models, there was a 27% increased odds of waitlist mortality for every 5% absolute decrease in a center's adjusted organ offer acceptance rate (adjusted OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.20-1.32). However, the absolute difference in median 5-year adjusted graft survival was 4% between livers accepted for the first-ranked patient, compared to those declined and transplanted at a lower position.

CONCLUSION

There is marked variability in center practices regarding accepting livers allocated to the highest priority patients. Center-level decisions to decline organs substantially increased patients' odds of dying on the waitlist without a transplant.

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.

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.

Potential role of the donor in hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation

A subset of liver transplantation (LT) recipients who undergo transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) will develop postoperative recurrence. There has yet to be a thorough investigation of donor factors influencing recurrence. Data regarding adult, primary LT recipients with HCC (n = 5002) who underwent transplantation between January 1, 2006 and September 30, 2010 were extracted from the United Network for Organ Sharing database, and the cumulative incidence of post-LT recurrence by donor factors was subsequently estimated. Among the HCC LT recipients, 324 (6.5%) developed recurrence. An analysis of donor characteristics demonstrated a higher cumulative incidence of recurrence within 4 years of transplantation among recipients with donors ≥ 60 years old (11.8% versus 7.3% with donors < 60 years old, P < 0.001) and with donors from a nonlocal share distribution (10.6% versus 7.4% with donors with a local share distribution, P = 0.004). The latter 2 findings held true in a multivariate analysis: the risk of HCC recurrence increased by 70% for recipients of livers from donors ≥ 60 years old [subhazard ratio (SHR) = 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.31-2.20, P < 0.001] and by 42% for recipients of nonlocal share distribution livers (SHR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.09-1.84, P = 0.009) after adjustments for clinical characteristics. In conclusion, the consideration of certain donor factors may reduce the cumulative incidence of posttransplant HCC recurrence and thus improve long-term survival after LT.

Renal outcomes of simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation compared to liver transplant alone for candidates with renal dysfunction

It is unclear whether a concomitant kidney transplant grants survival benefit to liver transplant (LT) candidates with renal dysfunction (RD). We retrospectively studied LT candidates without RD (n = 714) and LT candidates with RD who underwent either liver transplant alone (RD-LTA; n = 103) or simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (RD-SLKT; n = 68). RD was defined as renal replacement therapy (RRT) requirement or modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD)-glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <25 mL/min/1.73 m(2) . RD-LTAs had worse one-yr post-transplant survival compared to RD-SLKTs (79.6% vs. 91.2%, p = 0.05). However, RD-LTA recipients more often had hepatitis C (60.2% vs. 41.2%, p = 0.004) and more severe liver disease (MELD 37.9 ± 8.1 vs. 32.7 ± 9.1, p = 0.0001). Twenty RD-LTA recipients died in the first post-transplant year. Evaluation of the cause and timing of death relative to native renal recovery revealed that only four RD-LTA recipients might have derived survival benefit from RD-SLKT. Overall, 87% of RD-LTA patients recovered renal function within one month of transplant. One yr after RD-LTA or RD-SLKT, serum creatinine (1.5 ± 1.2 mg/dL vs. 1.4 ± 0.5 mg/dL, p = 0.63) and prevalence of stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD; 5.9% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.11) were comparable. Our series provides little evidence that RD-SLKT would have yielded substantial short-term survival benefit to RD-LTA recipients.

Geographic disparity: the dilemma of lower socioeconomic status, multiple listing, and death on the liver transplant waiting list

Due to the current regionally based allocation system, some patients list for and are transplanted away from home in regions with shorter waits and higher transplant rates. Of 147 included patients, 120 died waiting and 27 received transplants at outside centers during the study (32.5 months). Those transplanted elsewhere had higher median incomes than patients dying on the waitlist ($84 946 vs. $55 250, p = 0.0001). Those with median incomes <$60 244 were more likely to die than those with incomes >$60 244 (94% vs. 70%, RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.14-1.59). Patients with Medicaid were more likely to die waiting than those with other insurance (100% vs. 77%, RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.18-1.44). Our analysis demonstrates that those who died waiting were more likely to have lower incomes and Medicaid compared with those transplanted elsewhere. Even when we controlled for Medicaid status, patients who died waiting had lower incomes compared with those transplanted elsewhere. Increased organ sharing over geographically broader regions, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine in 1999, may reduce incentives for patients to travel to receive a liver and reduce inequities. Current efforts to address this disparity continue to fall short of the Institute of Medicine recommendations, United States Department of Health and Human Services regulations and the Final Rule.

Live liver donors' risk thresholds: risking a life to save a life

BACKGROUND

There is still some controversy regarding the ethical issues involved in live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and there is uncertainty on the range of perioperative morbidity and mortality risks that donors will consider acceptable.

METHODS

This study analysed donors' inclinations towards LDLT using decision analysis techniques based on the probability trade-off (PTO) method. Adult individuals with an emotional or biological relationship with a patient affected by end-stage liver disease were enrolled. Of 122 potential candidates, 100 were included in this study.

RESULTS

The vast majority of participants (93%) supported LDLT. The most important factor influencing participants' decisions was their wish to improve the recipient's chance of living a longer life. Participants chose to become donors if the recipient was required to wait longer than a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of 6 ± 5 months for a cadaveric graft, if the mean ± SD probability of survival was at least 46 ± 30% at 1 month and at least 36 ± 29% at 1 year, and if the recipient's life could be prolonged for a mean ± SD of at least 11 ± 22 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential donors were risk takers and were willing to donate when given the opportunity. They accepted significant risks, especially if they had a close emotional relationship with the recipient.

Multiple listings as a reflection of geographic disparity in liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Geographic disparity in access to liver transplantation (LT) exists. This study sought to examine Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-era multiply listed (ML) LT candidate (ie, candidates who list at 2 or more LT centers to receive a liver transplant).

STUDY DESIGN

Data on adult, primary, non-status 1 LT candidates (n = 59,557) listed from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2011 were extracted from the United Network for Organ Sharing's Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files. Comparisons of ML vs singly listed LT candidates were performed, with additional analysis performed at the donor service area (DSA) and regional level, as well as assessment of the donor population used.

RESULTS

There were 1,358 (2.3%) ML candidates during the 7-year study period. Multiply listed candidates compared with singly listed candidates were more often male, white, blood type O, nondiabetic, college educated, and privately insured. The odds of pursuing ML increased considerably as time on the waitlist increased. Of the ML candidates, 918 (67.6%) went on to receive a liver transplant (ML-LT), 767 (83.6%) at the secondary listing DSA, which was a median of 588 miles (range 229 to 1095 miles) from the primary listing DSA. When compared with the primary listing DSA, the secondary listing DSA had significantly lower match Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores, as well as shorter wait times. Regional analysis demonstrated significantly higher odds for pursuing ML from LT candidates located within regions 1, 5, and 9.

CONCLUSIONS

A small and distinctive cohort of LT candidates pursue ML, indicating willingness and means to travel to receive a liver transplant. Efforts toward equalizing LT access across regional disparities are warranted, and can help obviate the need for ML.

Expedited liver allocation in the United States: a critical analysis

The fate of donor livers allocated via an out-of-sequence expedited placement (EP) pathway has not been previously examined. We determined the originating and receiving United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) regions of all donor livers procured between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2012 and placed out of sequence with UNOS bypass code 863 (EP attempt) or 898 (miscellaneous). We reviewed the early function of these liver grafts and assessed the effect of EP allocation on wait-listed patients at our center. Registrants at our center were eligible to receive 1298 liver offers during the interval studied: 218 (16.8%) of these liver offers bypassed our center and were allocated to other centers and used in patients lower on the match-run list. During the study interval, 560 livers were allocated in the United States by EP. Regions 1, 5, 7, 9, and 10 used the greatest number of EP-placed grafts. Region 1 (New England) used the greatest proportion of all EP livers (33% of all imported EP livers in the United States, P < 0.001 versus all other regions). Graft function data were available for 560 livers placed by EP: 491 (88%) of these grafts were functioning at a mean of 399.5 days after transplantation. In conclusion, the transplantation of livers allocated by means of an expedited refusal code is asymmetric across regions and, in some instances, results in the bypassing of patients with higher wait-list priority but without notification of the bypassed center. Short-term graft function after EP allocation is excellent. Policies governing EP allocation should be created in order to improve access to available organs.

Offer patterns of nationally placed livers by donation service area

We previously reported that national liver distribution is highly concentrated in 6 US centers, and this raises the possibility of expedited placement. Therefore, we evaluated all national offers of nationally placed livers (n=1625) to adult wait-list candidates from February 2005 to January 2010. We developed a model to predict national utilization pathways; pathways exceeding the best-fit linear unbiased predictions by ≥3 standard errors were defined as preferred. All 51 donation service areas (DSAs) placed 1 or more livers nationally, but the percentage per DSA ranged from 1% to 36%. Of 2830 possible national DSA-center pathways, 87% were used. Five hundred eighty livers (36%) were accepted on the first national offer. Four DSAs accounted for 47% of first-national-offer livers, and 44% of these were accepted by a single center. In comparison with first-offer livers using nonpreferred pathways, first offers along a preferred pathway were offered to fewer status 1 candidates (19% versus 61%) and had lower median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores (22 versus 36, P<0.001). In conclusion, DSA placement patterns of national livers vary widely, with 4 DSAs exporting a high proportion of national livers on the first national offer to non-status 1 candidates with MELD scores less than their local transplant MELD scores. Although this practice may facilitate liver placement, it raises the possibility of expedience trumping patient need. Here we propose changes to the national liver distribution system that will help to balance equity, efficiency, and transparency.

Deceased donor risk factors influencing liver transplant outcome

As the pressure for providing liver transplantation to more and more candidates increases, transplant programs have begun to consider deceased donor characteristics that were previously considered unacceptable. With this trend, attention has focused on better defining those donor factors that can impact the outcome of liver transplantation. This review examines deceased donor factors that have been associated with patient or graft survival as well as delayed graft function and other liver transplant results.

Maximizing donor potential: evolving organ procurement organization metrics and optimizing organ distribution and allocation in the United States

1. Comprehend the basis for liver allocation and distribution in the United States. 2. Understand potential solutions to organ inequalities in the United States. 3. Understand the metrics used to assess the performance of organ procurement organizations.