Improving safety in organ recovery transportation: Report from the ASTS/UNOS/AST/AOPO transportation safety summit

Despite the passage of a decade since the tragic loss of an organ recovery team from the University of Michigan, there are currently no national standards governing air and ground transportation of organ recovery personnel. Consequently, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, and the United Network for Organ Sharing jointly convened a transportation summit to review and update recommendations for national transportation standards. Expanded air transport quality assurance protocols, including a requirement for two engine turbine‐powered aircraft piloted by two qualified pilots certified through onsite inspections was recommended. Ground transportation providers must ensure adequate safety restraints are available, ambulance avoided if possible, and the use of lights and sirens minimized. Finally, adequate insurance coverage for all team members, including trainees should be provided and should not rely on carrier liability insurance policies. The summit participants have committed the support of their organizations to promote and enact these regulations nationally.     

Multiple listing in lung transplant candidates: A cohort study

Lung transplant candidates can be waitlisted at more than one transplant center, a practice known as multiple listing. The factors associated with multiple listing and whether multiple listing modifies waitlist mortality or likelihood of lung transplant is unknown. US lung transplant waitlist candidates were identified as either single or multiple listed using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Characteristics of single and multiple listed candidates were compared and multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate associations with multiple listing. Multiple listed candidates were matched to single listed candidates using a combination of exact and propensity score matching methods. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the relationship of multiple listing on waitlist mortality and receiving a transplant. Multiple listing occurred in 2.3% of lung transplant waitlist candidates. Younger age, female gender, white race, short stature, high antibody sensitization, college or postcollege education, lower lung allocation score, and a cystic fibrosis diagnosis were independently associated with multiple listing. Multiple listing was associated with an increased likelihood of lung transplant (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.74, 95% CI 2.37 to 3.16) but was not associated with waitlist mortality (aHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44).     

Gender Disparities in Access to Pediatric Renal Transplantation in Europe: Data From the ESPN/ERA‐EDTA Registry

Inequalities between genders in access to transplantation have been demonstrated. We aimed to validate this gender inequality in a large pediatric population and to investigate its causes. This cohort study included 6454 patients starting renal replacement therapy before 18 years old, in 35 countries participating in the European Society for Paediatric Nephrology/European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association Registry. We used cumulative incidence competing risk and proportional hazards frailty models to study the time to receive a transplant and hierarchical logistic regression to investigate access to preemptive transplantation. Girls had a slower access to renal transplantation because of a 23% lower probability of receiving preemptive transplantation. We found a longer follow‐up time before renal replacement therapy in boys compared with girls despite a similar estimated glomerular filtration rate at first appointment. Girls tend to progress faster toward end‐stage renal disease than boys, which may contribute to a shorter time available for pretransplantation workup. Overall, medical factors explained only 70% of the gender difference. In Europe, girls have less access to preemptive transplantation for reasons that are only partially related to medical factors. Nonmedical factors such as patient motivation and parent and physician attitudes toward transplantation and organ donation may contribute to this inequality. Our study should raise awareness for the management of girls with renal diseases.     

Transplant Medicine in China: Need for Transparency and International Scrutiny Remains

Previous publications have described unethical organ procurement procedures in the People's Republic of China. International awareness and condemnation contributed to the announcement abolishing the procurement of organs from executed prisoners starting from January 2015. Eighteen months after the announcement, and aligned with the upcoming International Congress of the Transplantation Society in Hong Kong, this paper revisits the topic and discusses whether the declared reform has indeed been implemented. China has neither addressed nor included in the reform a pledge to end the procurement of organs from prisoners of conscience, nor has the government initiated any legislative amendments. Recent reports have discussed an implausible discrepancy of officially reported steady annual transplant numbers and a steep expansion of the transplant infrastructure in China. This paper expresses the viewpoint that, in the current context, it is not possible to verify the veracity of the announced changes, and it thus remains premature to include China as an ethical partner in the international transplant community. Until we have independent and objective evidence of a complete cessation of unethical organ procurement from prisoners, the medical community has a professional responsibility to maintain the academic embargo on Chinese transplant professionals.     

Family and transplant professionals’ views of organ recovery before circulatory death for imminently dying patients: A qualitative study using semistructured interviews and focus groups

Donation before circulatory death for imminently dying patients has been proposed to address organ scarcity and harms of nondonation. To characterize stakeholder attitudes about organ recovery before circulatory death we conducted semistructured interviews with family members (N = 15) who had experienced a loved one's unsuccessful donation after circulatory death and focus groups with professional stakeholders (surgeons, anesthesiologists, critical care specialists, palliative care specialists, organ procurement personnel, and policymakers, N = 46). We then used qualitative content analysis to characterize these perspectives. Professional stakeholders believed that donation of all organs before circulatory death was unacceptable, morally repulsive, and equivalent to murder; consent for such a procedure would be impermissible. Respondents feared the social costs related to recovery before death were too high. Although beliefs about recovery of all organs were widely shared, some professional stakeholders could accommodate removal of a single kidney before circulatory death. In contrast, family members were typically accepting of donation before circulatory death for a single kidney, and many believed recovery of all organs was permissible because they believed the cause of death was the donor's injury, not organ procurement. These findings suggest that definitions of death and precise rules around organ donation are critical for professional stakeholders, whereas donor families find less relevance in these constructs for determining the acceptability of organ donation. Donation of a single kidney before circulatory death warrants future exploration.     

Coronavirus disease 2019: Utilizing an ethical framework for rationing absolutely scarce health‐care resources in transplant allocation decisions

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is impacting transplant programs around the world, and, as the center of the pandemic shifts to the United States, we have to prepare to make decisions about which patients to transplant during times of constrained resources. In this paper, we discuss how to transition from the traditional justice versus utility consideration in organ allocation to a more nuanced allocation scheme based on ethical values that drive decisions in times of absolute scarcity. We recognize that many decisions are made based on the practical limitations that transplant programs face, especially at the extremes. As programs make the transition from a standard approach to a resource‐constrained approach to transplantation, we utilize a framework for ethical decisions in settings of absolutely scarce resources to help guide programs in deciding which patients to transplant, which donors to accept, how to minimize risk, and how to ensure the best utilization of transplant team members.     

Life expectancy without a transplant for status 1A liver transplant candidates

Status 1A liver transplant candidates are given the highest medical priority for the allocation of deceased donor livers. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) policy requires physicians to certify that a candidate has a life expectancy without a transplant of less than 7 days for that candidate to be given status 1A. Additionally, candidates receiving status 1A must have one of six medical conditions listed in policy. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from all prevalent liver transplant candidates from 2010 to 2020, we used a bias-corrected Kaplan–Meier model to calculate the survival of status 1A candidates and to determine their life expectancy without a transplant. We found that status 1A candidates have a life expectancy without a transplant of 24 (95% CI 20–46) days—over three times longer than what policy requires for status 1A designation. We repeated the analysis for subgroups of status 1A candidates based on the medical conditions that grant status 1A. We found that none of these subgroups met the life expectancy requirement. Harmonizing OPTN policy with observed data would sustain the integrity of the allocation process.     

Changes in offer and acceptance patterns for pediatric kidney transplant candidates under the new Kidney Allocation System

Stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding decreased deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rates for pediatric candidates under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS). To better understand what might be driving this, we studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients kidney offer data for 3642 pediatric (age <18 years) kidney‐only transplant candidates between December 31, 2012 to December 3, 2014 (pre‐KAS) and December 4, 2014 to January 6, 2017 (post‐KAS). We used negative binomial regression and multilevel logistic regression to compare offer and acceptance rates pre‐ and post‐KAS. We stratified by donor age (<18, 18‐34, and 35+ years) and KDPI (<35% and ≥35%) to reflect differing allocation prioritization pre‐KAS and post‐KAS. As might be expected from prioritization changes, post‐KAS candidates were less likely to receive offers for donors 18‐34 years old with KDPI ≥ 35% (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: _0.180.21_0.25, P < .001), and more likely to receive offers for donors 18‐34 years old and KDPI < 35% (aIRR: _1.121.20_1.29, P < .001). However, offer acceptance practices also changed post‐KAS: kidneys from donors 18‐34 years old and KDPI < 35% were 23% less likely to be accepted post‐KAS (adjusted odds ratio: _0.610.77_0.98, P = .03). Using kidneys from donors 18‐34 years old with KDPI < 35% post‐KAS to the same extent they were used pre‐KAS might be an effective strategy to mitigate any decrease in DDKT rates for pediatric candidates.     

Utilization of deceased donors during a pandemic: argument against using SARS‐CoV‐2–positive donors

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has rapidly become an unprecedented pandemic that has impacted society, disrupted hospital functions, strained health care resources, and impacted the lives of transplant professionals. Despite this, organ failure and the need for transplant continues throughout the United States. Considering the perpetual scarcity of deceased donor organs, Kates et al present a viewpoint that advocates for the utilization of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19)–positive donors in selected cases. We present a review of the current literature that details the potential negative consequences of COVID‐19–positive donors. The factors we consider include (1) the risk of blood transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2, (2) involvement of donor organs, (3) lack of effective therapies, (4) exposure of health care and recovery teams, (5) disease transmission and propagation, and (6) hospital resource utilization. While we acknowledge that transplant fulfills the mission of saving lives, it is imperative to consider the consequences not only to our recipients but also to the community and to health care workers, particularly in the absence of effective preventative or curative therapies. For these reasons, we believe the evidence and risks show that COVID‐19 infection should continue to remain a contraindication for donation, as has been the initial response of donation and transplant societies.     

Financial Impact of Liver Sharing and Organ Procurement Organizations' Experience With Share 35: Implications for National Broader Sharing

The Share 35 policy for organ allocation, which was adopted in June 2013, allocates livers regionally for candidates with Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease scores of 35 or greater. The authors analyzed the costs resulting from the increased movement of allografts related to this new policy. Using a sample of nine organ procurement organizations, representing 17% of the US population and 19% of the deceased donors in 2013, data were obtained on import and export costs before Share 35 implementation (June 15, 2012, to June 14, 2013) and after Share 35 implementation (June 15, 2013, to June 14, 2014). Results showed that liver import rates increased 42%, with an increased cost of 51%, while export rates increased 112%, with an increased cost of 127%. When the costs of importing and exporting allografts were combined, the total change in costs for all nine organ procurement organizations was $11 011 321 after Share 35 implementation. Extrapolating these costs nationally resulted in an increased yearly cost of $68 820 756 by population or $55 056 605 by number of organ donors. Any alternative allocation proposal needs to account for the financial implications to the transplant infrastructure.     

A Transplant‐Specific Quality Initiative–Introducing TransQIP: A Joint Effort of the ASTS and ACS

In an attempt to improve surgical quality in the field of transplantation, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) and American Society of Transplant Surgeons have initiated a national quality improvement program in transplantation. This transplant‐specific quality improvement program, called TransQIP, has been built from the ground up by transplant surgeons and captures detailed information on donor and recipient factors as well as transplant‐specific outcomes. It is built upon the existing ACS/National Surgical Quality Improvement Program infrastructure and is designed to capture 100% of liver and kidney transplants performed at participating sites. TransQIP has completed its alpha pilot and will embark upon its beta phase at approximately 30 centers in the spring of 2017. Going forward, we anticipate TransQIP will help satisfy Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requirements for a quality improvement program, surgeon requirements for maintenance of certification, and qualify as a clinical practice improvement activity under the Merit‐Based Incentive Payment System. Most importantly, we believe TransQIP will provide insight into surgical outcomes in transplantation that will allow the field to provide better care to our patients .     

Extinguishing burnout: National analysis of predictors and effects of burnout in abdominal transplant surgery fellows

Burnout among surgeons has been attributed to increased workload and decreased autonomy. Although prior studies have examined burnout among transplant surgeons, no studies have evaluated burnout in abdominal transplant surgery fellows. The objective of our study was to identify predictors of burnout and understand its impact on personal and patient care during fellowship. A survey was sent to all abdominal transplant surgery fellows in an American Society of Transplant Surgeons–accredited fellowship. The response rate was 59.2% (n = 77) and 22.7% (n = 17) of fellows met criteria for burnout. Fellows with lower grit scores were more likely to exhibit burnout compared with fellows with higher scores (3.6 vs 4.0, P = .026). Those with burnout were more likely to work >100 hours per week (58.8% vs 27.6%, P = .023), have severe work-related stress (58.8% vs 22.4%, P = .010), consider quitting fellowship (94.1% vs 20.7%, P < .001), or make a medical error (35.3% vs 5.2%, P = .003). This national analysis of abdominal transplant fellows found that burnout rates are relatively low, but few fellows engage in self-care. Personal and program-related factors attribute to burnout and it has unacceptable effects on patient care. Transplant societies and fellowship programs should develop interventions to give fellows tools to prevent and combat burnout.