Center expansion of liver transplants using donation after circulatory death organs is associated with reduced overall waitlist mortality

INTRODUCTION

Waitlist outcomes in liver transplantation (LT) for individual recipients are improved by use of allografts procured through donation after circulatory death (DCD). However, the impact of increased DCD acceptance on overall center outcomes is unknown.

METHODS

Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, 88 centers performing an average of ≥10 LTs/year between 1/2004 and 12/2019 were compared by percent DCD use quartile and categorized into four phenotypes according to temporal usage trends. Overall center median Model for End-stage Liver Disease at LT (MMaT), waitlist mortality, and waiting time were evaluated.

RESULTS

The overall DCD rate was 6.1% (N = 4906/80,709), ranging from 0% to 25.5%. Centers in the top DCD use quartile had lower MMaT (24 vs. 26; p < .001) and shorter overall waiting times (median 66 days vs. 90 days; p < .001) compared to bottom quartile centers. MMaT increased less over time at centers with increasing DCD use and was lower than at centers with declining DCD use (27 vs. 32; p = .017). Overall waitlist mortality between 2016 and 2019 was lower at increasing DCD use centers (17.8% vs. 22.5%, p = .034), yet did not affect 1-year mortality (p = .747).

CONCLUSIONS

The improved waitlist outcomes at centers with expanded DCD use extend beyond DCD recipients alone without negative consequences to overall post-LT center metrics.

Utilization and outcomes of rescue hepatectomy among U.S. liver retransplant candidates

INTRODUCTION

The frequency and outcomes of anhepatic patients listed for transplantation in the United States have not been studied. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) records anhepatic status for patients listed as Status 1A for hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) or primary non-function (PNF).

METHODS

Using the UNOS database from 2005 to 2020, demographics and waitlist outcomes of anhepatic candidates relisted as Status 1A for HAT or PNF were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 1364 adult Status 1A patients relisted for PNF or HAT across 120 distinct transplant centres, 75 (5.5%) patients were anhepatic and 1289 (94.5%) were non-anhepatic. A substantial number of centres (n = 51) had experience with ≥1 anhepatic patient relisted for either PNF or HAT, with individual centre rates ranging from 0% to 11.4%. Waitlist mortality was more than twice as high for anhepatic patients: 42.5% versus 17.0% non-anhepatic patients (p < .001). The post-transplant outcomes of anhepatic patients were markedly inferior to non-anhepatic patients. For example, 41.9% of anhepatic patients died during the index admission versus 23.4% of the non-anhepatic group (p = .006). Patient survival for the anhepatic and non-anhepatic groups was 48.3% versus 66.2% at 1-year and 29.3% versus 46.2% at 5-years, respectively (log-rank test for overall survival p = .014).

CONCLUSIONS

Rescue hepatectomy after initial liver transplantation is not only associated with high waitlist mortality, but also markedly worse post-transplant outcomes. With less than half of anhepatic patients surviving to the first year post-LT, further research is warranted to better delineate which patients should be considered for rescue hepatectomy.

Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other infections in solid organ transplant recipients and household members using wearable devices

The increasing global prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and the resulting COVID-19 disease pandemic pose significant concerns for clinical management of solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR). Wearable devices that can measure physiologic changes in biometrics including heart rate, heart rate variability, body temperature, respiratory, activity (such as steps taken per day) and sleep patterns, and blood oxygen saturation show utility for the early detection of infection before clinical presentation of symptoms. Recent algorithms developed using preliminary wearable datasets show that SARS-CoV-2 is detectable before clinical symptoms in >80% of adults. Early detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and other pathogens in SOTR, and their household members, could facilitate early interventions such as self-isolation and early clinical management of relevant infection(s). Ongoing studies testing the utility of wearable devices such as smartwatches for early detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other infections in the general population are reviewed here, along with the practical challenges to implementing these processes at scale in pediatric and adult SOTR, and their household members. The resources and logistics, including transplant-specific analyses pipelines to account for confounders such as polypharmacy and comorbidities, required in studies of pediatric and adult SOTR for the robust early detection of SARS-CoV-2, and other infections are also reviewed.

Similar Quality of Life After Conventional and Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) have demonstrated benefits compared to open transthoracic or 3-hole esophagectomy. PROs including quality of life (QoL) and fear of recurrence (FoR) comparing open transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) and transhiatal robotic-assisted MIE (Th-RAMIE) have been limited.

METHODS

At a single, high-volume academic center, patients undergoing THE and Th-RAMIE with gastric conduit for clinical stage I-III esophageal cancer from 2013 to 2018 were evaluated. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire in Esophageal Cancer (QLQ-OES18), and FoR survey were administered preoperatively, and at 1, 6- and 12-months post-operatively. Linear mixed-effects models were used for QoL and FoR score comparisons. Perioperative outcomes were also compared.

RESULTS

309 patients (212 THE and 97 Th-RAMIE) were included. The Th-RAMIE cohort had a significantly higher number of lymph nodes harvested (14 ±0.8 vs. 11.2 ±0.4; p = 0.01), shorter length of stay (days, 10.0 ± 6.7 vs. 12.1 ±7.0; p = 0.03), lower rates of postoperative ileus (5% vs. 15%; p = 0.02), and had fewer opioids prescribed at discharge (71% vs. 85%; p = 0.03). After adjustment, there were no significant differences in QLQ-C30, QLQ-OES18, and FoR scores between groups out to 1 year following surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no clear patient-reported benefits of Th-RAMIE over THE for esophageal cancer. However, Th-RAMIE conferred a number of perioperative benefits.

Higher Long-term Quality of Life Metrics After Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Lobectomy Compared With Robotic-Assisted Lobectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) lung lobectomy has emerged as an alternative approach to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Patient-reported outcomes comparing these approaches have been limited.

METHODS

At a single, high-volume academic center, patients undergoing VATS and RATS lobectomies for stage I and II non-small cell lung cancer from 2014 to 2018 were evaluated. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life of Cancer Patients Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and Quality of Life Questionnaire in Lung Cancer (QLQ-LC13), along with the Fear of Recurrence (FoR) survey, were administered preoperatively and at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Raw scores underwent linear transformation (0-100 scale). Linear mixed-effects models were used for quality of life and FoR score comparisons.

RESULTS

The study included 219 patients (139 VATS and 80 RATS). RATS patients had longer (P < .05) operative times and a higher incidence (P < .05) of postoperative myocardial infarction compared to VATS patients. VATS patients reported higher (P < .05) QLQ-C30 summary scores postoperatively and at 12 months, including higher (P < .05) Social Functioning and Cognitive scores, and less (P < .05) appetite loss. VATS patients reported decreased (P < .05) QLQ-LC13 symptom summary scores at 6 months postoperatively, including decreased (P < .05) dyspnea, neuropathy, and pain compared with RATS patients. VATS patients also reported lower (P < .05) FoR summary scores at 6 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

VATS patients report improvement in select quality of life and FoR measures after lobectomy. Further study comparing these 2 approaches is required.

Variable Benefits of Antibody Induction by Kidney Allograft Type

BACKGROUND

Kidneys from acute renal failure (ARF), expanded criteria donors (ECD), and donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors are often discarded due to concerns for delayed graft function (DGF) and graft failure. Induction immunosuppression may be used to minimize these risks, but practices vary widely. Furthermore, little is known regarding national outcomes of transplant recipients receiving induction immunosuppression for receipt of high-risk kidneys.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a center-level retrospective study, deceased donor transplants (115,485) from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from January 2003 to June 2016 were evaluated. Patients who received induction immunosuppression, including lymphocyte immune globulin, muromonab CD-3, IL-1 receptor antagonist, anti-thymocyte globulin, daclizumab, basiliximab, alemtuzumab, and rituximab, were included. Associations of center-level induction use with acute rejection in the first post-transplant year, graft failure, and patient mortality were evaluated using multivariable Cox and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among all kidneys, increasing percentage of center-level induction was associated with lower risk of graft failure, acute rejection, and patient mortality. In recipients of ARF kidneys, the beneficial association of induction on graft failure and acute rejection was greater than in those that received non-ARF kidneys. Marginally greater benefit of induction was seen for acute rejection in ECD compared to standard criteria donor (SCD) recipients and for graft failure in DCD compared to donors after brain death (DBD). No benefit of induction was detected for patient and graft survival in ECD recipients, acute rejection in DCD recipients, and patient survival in DGF recipients. No difference in the benefit of induction was detected in any other comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

While seemingly beneficial for recipients of all kidneys, induction has more robust associations with lower graft failure and acute rejection probability for recipients of ARF kidneys. Given the lack of observed benefit for ECD recipients, induction policies should be carefully considered in these patients.

Comparative analysis of isoform-specific and non-selective histone deacetylase inhibitors in attenuating the intestinal damage after hemorrhagic shock

BACKGROUND

Isoform-specific histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACIs) MC1568 and ACY1083 are comparable to the non-selective HDACI valproic acid (VPA) in improving survival in rodents undergoing lethal hemorrhage. However, the organ-specific properties of isoform-specific HDACIs have not been fully evaluated. Also, whether they can act synergistically is not known. We hypothesized that isoform-specific HDACIs are superior to VPA in attenuating intestinal injury and act synergistically when coadministered.

METHODS

Sprague Dawley rats were hemorrhaged (40% of total blood volume) and randomized to receive (n=4 per group) (1) MC1568 (5 mg/kg), (2) ACY1083 (30 mg/kg), (3) MC1568+ACY1083 (combination: 5 mg/kg + 30 mg/kg, respectively), (4) VPA (250 mg/kg), or (5) normal saline (NS; vehicle; 250 μL). Animals were observed for 3 hours, after which blood samples were collected and samples of the ileum were harvested. Expression of interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), and cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant 1 (CINC-1) was assessed in the tissues using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Intestinal cleaved caspase 3 (c-caspase 3) levels were assessed as a marker of apoptosis, and histologic sections of the ileum were examined for signs of bowel injury. Levels of IL-1β and TNF-α were also measured in the serum as global markers of inflammation.

RESULTS

Treatments with MC1568, ACY1083, MC1568+ACY1083, and VPA were associated with decreased IL-1β levels in the intestine and serum compared with NS. IL-1β and TNF-α levels were significantly lower in the ACY1083 group compared with the VPA group. CINC-1 levels were significantly lower in the isoform-specific HDACI groups compared with the NS; however, no significant differences were seen with VPA. All treatment groups had a lower expression of intestinal c-caspase 3 compared with NS. Furthermore, MC1568 and ACY1083 groups had lower apoptosis compared with the VPA group. Bowel injury scores were significantly lower in the isoform-specific HDACI groups compared with the NS group; however, the attenuation in the VPA-treated animals did not reach statistical significance.

DISCUSSION

Isoform-specific HDACIs provide superior intestinal protection compared with VPA in a rodent model of hemorrhagic shock.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Preclinical study.

The impact of intraoperative fluid management during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy on donor and recipient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative fluid management during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) may have a significant effect on donor and recipient outcomes. We sought to quantify variability in fluid management and investigate its impact on donor and recipient outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent LDN from July 2011 to January 2016 with paired kidney recipients at a single center was performed. Patients were divided into tertiles of intraoperative fluid management (standard, high, and aggressive). Donor and recipient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 413 paired kidney donors and recipients were identified. Intraoperative fluid management (mL/h) was highly variable with no correlation to donor weight (kg) (R = 0.017). The aggressive fluid management group had significantly lower recipient creatinine levels on postoperative day 1. However, no significant differences were noted in creatinine levels out to 6 months between groups. No significant differences were noted in recipient postoperative complications, graft loss, and death. There was a significant increase (P < 0.01) in the number of total donor complications in the aggressive fluid management group.

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive fluid management during LDN does not improve recipient outcomes and may worsen donor outcomes compared to standard fluid management.