Organ Donation and Transplantation Statistics in Belgium for 2012 and 2013

BackgroundThe 2012 and 2013 solid organ transplantation statistics were presented during the annual meeting of the Belgian Transplant Society.MethodsAll data presented were collected from Eurotransplant International Foundation and/or from all individual Belgian transplant centers.ResultsIt was demonstrated that the highest number of deceased donors detected (1310) from which 47.8% were an effective organ donor that corresponded to 29 per million inhabitants (pmi) in 2012 and 27.4 pmi in 2013. Out of 626 effective deceased organ donors, 491 (79%) were donors after brain death (DBD) and 135 (21%) donors after circulatory death (DCD), respectively. The majority (125/135; 93%) of DCD donors were DCD Maastricht category III donors and there were 7 (5%) donations following euthanasia. Family refusal tended to be lower for DCD (10.4%) compared to DBD donors (13.4%). Despite the increasing DCD donation rate, DBD donation remains stable in Belgium. The donor age is still increasing, reaching a median age of 53 years (range 0–90). Spontaneous intracranial bleeding (39.3%) and cranio-cerebral trauma (25%) remained the most frequent reasons of death. The number of living related kidney transplantations (57 in 2012 and 63 in 2013) followed the international trend albeit in Belgium it is still very limited. Nevertheless this activity could explain that the number of patients waiting for kidney transplantation (770) reached an absolute minimum in 2013. Except the reduced waiting list for lung transplantation (from 119 patients in 2011 to 85 in 2013), the waiting list remained stable for the other organs but almost 200 patients still died while on the waiting list.ConclusionsBelgium demonstrated the highest number of effective organ donors that corresponded to 29 per million inhabitants (pmi) in 2012 and 27.4 pmi in 2013. Thus far, and in contrast with other countries, there is no erosion of DBD in the DCD donor organ pool, but it is the important responsibility of all transplant centers and donor hospitals to avoid a substitution from DBD by DCD donors.     

First 3 Years of the Hungarian Lung Transplantation Program

In this article we summarize the results of the first 3 years after launching the Hungarian Lung Transplantation Program.Patients and MethodsThe first lung transplant in Hungary was carried out on December 12, 2015, with the collaboration of the National Institute of Oncology and the Semmelweis University. Up to December 31, 2018, a total of 62 lung transplants were performed. Data were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were listed for lung transplant after the indication was established by the National Lung Transplantation Committee. Donor lungs were procured from brain-dead donors only.ResultsWithin this period our team was involved in 87 lung procurements, 61 of which resulted in bilateral lung transplant and 1 in single-sided transplant. The operative approach was unilateral thoracotomy (n = 1), bilateral thoracotomy (n = 1), or clamshell incision (n = 60) with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. The underlying disease of the recipients was obstructive lung disease (n = 30), lung fibrosis (n = 11), cystic fibrosis (n = 18), primary pulmonary hypertension (n = 2), histiocytosis-X syndrome (n = 1), bronchiectasis (n = 2), lymphangioleiomyomatosis (n = 1), and retransplant because of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (n = 1). The youngest patient was 13 years of age, while the oldest was 65 years. Three patients died in the early postoperative phase. One-year survival was 80%.DiscussionThe number of cases rises steadily in the Hungarian Lung Transplantation Program, which is exceptional compared with the start of other centrums. The incidence of complications and mortality is comparable with those of other experienced centers around the world. Our future goal is to broaden our waiting list, thus increasing the number of lung transplants carried out.     

Cross sectional survey on the concerns and anxiety of patients waiting for organ transplants

Aim: We aimed to gain an understanding of patient concerns while on a transplantation waiting list in areas with long transplant waiting time. Methods: The study population comprised patients with organ failure on the transplant waiting list in Hong Kong. They were invited to complete a questionnaire survey. Demographic data and waiting time were collected. Respondents rated their chance of getting transplanted, their subjective concerns and feelings, level of happiness and support received. Results: A total of 442 patients on the waiting list for kidney, liver, lung and heart‐lung transplants completed the questionnaire survey. The majority of patients (93.0%) were waiting for kidney transplantation. More than half of the respondents (63.3%) had been waiting for more than 3 years. Patients with longer transplant waiting times had lower self‐estimated chance of receiving a transplant (P = 0.004). Self‐estimated chance of getting transplanted was positively associated with the happiness score (P < 0.0001). Issues of most concerns to the patients waiting for organ transplants were: inconvenience of therapy (48.2%), disease progression (47.9%), burden to family (59.5%) and financial difficulties (52.3%). More female patients on the waiting list (50.0% vs 25.7% in male) reported concerns about suffering associated with the illnesses. 21.7% of patients considered the level of support received inadequate. Conclusions: Our patients had long waiting time for transplantation, which is associated with a lower perceived chance of getting a transplant. Attention to more psychosocial support to these patients waiting for organ transplant is important. Promoting and improving organ donation would be the ultimate way to help these patients.     

Comparison of Survival in Recipients of Marginal and Standard Cadaveric Donor Kidneys

BackgroundRenal transplantation is the main treatment for end-stage renal disease and has rapidly increased in number over the past 3 decades, leading to an increasing need for organs. The disparity between organ access and the number of patients on the waiting list has led transplant surgeons to use marginal cadaveric donors. As a consequence, the concept of “marginal cadaveric kidney donor” has been developed.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 120 patients who received kidneys from cadaveric donors between September 2009 and August 2021. The donors were divided into standard and marginal cadaveric donors, and their age, sex, cause of death, criteria of acceptance as marginal donors, and Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) were recordedResultsThe donors included 69 men and 51 women, with a mean age of 52.9 ± 16.8 years. There were 52 standard donors and 68 marginal donors. Graft and donor survival were compared based on the KDPI values of the donors, and were respectively found to be higher in those with a KDPI of 0 to 60 than in those with a KDPI of 81 to 100 (P = .011 and .039, respectively). There was no significant difference between those with a KDPI of 61 to 80 and the other groups.ConclusionsExpanded criteria donor organs, which offer greater survival benefits than hemodialysis, can be used safely to meet the increasing need for donors. Expanded criteria donor organs should thus be considered a valuable alternative in this patient group.     

Increasing the supply of kidneys for transplantation

Kidney transplantation confers a survival advantage for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) when compared to dialysis and improves the quality of life in a cost-effective manner. Currently there are more than 60,000 patients on the U.S. waiting list for kidney transplantation. In 2004, 16,879 kidney transplants, including 880 simultaneous kidney and pancreas transplants, were performed in this country. Recent strategies for increasing the supply of kidneys hold promise, such as systematic programs designed to improve consent rates for deceased donor organ procurement. Efforts to increase donation after cardiac death (DCD) have been highly successful and now account for more than 5% of all deceased organ donors. Transplantation of kidneys from DCD donors yields 1-year graft and patient survival rates equivalent to kidneys from brain-dead donors. Expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys from donors > or = 60 years of age (or donors age 50-59 years with certain comorbidities) confer a survival benefit for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients compared to remaining on dialysis on the waiting list. The number of live donor kidney transplants, both from biologically related and unrelated donors, is increasing. Paired live donor kidney transplants provide yet another transplantation opportunity for ESRD patients with willing but incompatible (by ABO or direct antibody) living donors.     

Management of Liver Transplantation Waiting List for Decompensated Cirrhosis in a Spanish Tertiary Hospital: Differences Between Hepatitis C Virus Recipients and Other Etiologies

BackgroundDecompensated cirrhosis due to hepatitis C virus (HCV) is one of the main indications for liver transplantation (LT) in Spain. Recurrence of HCV after LT is the main cause of graft loss and death in HCV-positive recipients. Advanced donor age determines a more aggressive recurrence of HCV and a shorter survival. In this setting, in our liver unit, grafts from younger donors are allocated to HCV-positive recipients. The aim of this study was a comparative analysis of allocation of grafts in HCV-positive recipients versus other etiologies and the impact on waiting list time, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score progression until LT, need of admission in a hospital, survival until LT.MethodsThis was a retrospective study from the cohort of patients included in the waiting list for LT owing to decompensated cirrhosis in the Hospital Gregorio Marañón from January 2008 to June 2013.ResultsA total of 91 patients were included; 63 patients (69.23%) received LT; 19 (20.88%) retired from the waiting list: 6 because of improvement, 11 (12.08%) because of death. In both groups, the age of recipients was similar (HCV 52 y vs other 53 y; P = .549). HCV patients were included in the waiting list with lower MELD score than other etiologies (HCV 16.1 vs other 19.4; P = .010); nevertheless, MELD score was similar at the time of LT in both groups (HCV 18.9 vs other 19.4; P = .675). Time on waiting list was significantly longer in HCV patients (198 d vs 86 d; P = .002) and they were admitted in hospital more days (30 d vs 12 d; P = .03). Donor age in the HCV group was significantly lower (64.3 y vs 54.7 y; P = .006). The intention-to-treat survival analysis did not show differences between the groups (log rank = 0.504).ConclusionsHCV patients with decompensated cirrhosis receive grafts from younger donors. HCV patients remain waiting longer for an optimal organ and suffer MELD deterioration and more days admitted in hospital. These differences in allocation of grafts did not affect final survival. In our experience, designating younger organs to HCV-positive patients does not penalize neither HCV recipients nor recipients with other etiologies.     

Local Expansion of Donation After Circulatory Death Kidney Transplant Activity Improves Waitlisted Outcomes and Addresses Inequities of Access to Transplantation

In the United Kingdom, donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplant activity has increased rapidly, but marked regional variation persists. We report how increased DCD kidney transplant activity influenced waitlisted outcomes for a single center. Between 2002–2003 and 2011–2012, 430 (54%) DCD and 361 (46%) donation after brain death (DBD) kidney‐only transplants were performed at the Cambridge Transplant Centre, with a higher proportion of DCD donors fulfilling expanded criteria status (41% DCD vs. 32% DBD; p = 0.01). Compared with U.K. outcomes, for which the proportion of DCD:DBD kidney transplants performed is lower (25%; p < 0.0001), listed patients at our center waited less time for transplantation (645 vs. 1045 days; p < 0.0001), and our center had higher transplantation rates and lower numbers of waiting list deaths. This was most apparent for older patients (aged >65 years; waiting time 730 vs. 1357 days nationally; p < 0.001), who received predominantly DCD kidneys from older donors (mean donor age 64 years), whereas younger recipients received equal proportions of living donor, DBD and DCD kidney transplants. Death‐censored kidney graft survival was nevertheless comparable for younger and older recipients, although transplantation conferred a survival benefit from listing for only younger recipients. Local expansion in DCD kidney transplant activity improves survival outcomes for younger patients and addresses inequity of access to transplantation for older recipients.     

Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Organ Donation and Transplantation in São Paulo,Brazil

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected donation and transplantation activities in São Paulo, Brazil, as well as the patients receiving these organs. In this study, information from the database of the São Paulo Organ Allocation System was analyzed and compared 2 periods—before the pandemic and during the pandemic—to identify this effect. The COVID-19 pandemic interfered in the mortality rate and the time on the waiting list for heart, liver, pancreas, lung, and kidney transplants; the number of effective donors; and the use or disposal of available organs from deceased donors. It also reduced the transplant activity with living donors. Regarding the activity of eye tissue transplantation, the time on the waiting list increased and the number of transplant procedures decreased. The kidney transplant program was the most affected in our study. There was an increase in waiting time and mortality in the waiting list for this organ and also a decrease in kidney utilization rates.     

Épidémiologie de la transplantation rénale en France

Kidney transplantation activity in France is among the most important worldwide: in 2011, 2976 transplants have been performed (47.5 per million population), and the number of patients living with a functional graft is estimated around 30,000, representing 44.7% of all patients (n = 67,270) treated for end-stage renal failure. However, the rate of preemptive kidney transplants remains very low, only 3.3% of incident patients starting renal replacement therapy. The analysis of demand showed a progressive increase in recent years, as demonstrated by the registration rate on the kidney transplantation waiting list, increasing by 5% yearly between 2006 and 2010, but with huge differences according to age categories and regional registration areas, reflecting discrepant appreciations in indications for kidney transplantation. The median waiting time between registration and transplantation increased progressively in recent years, reaching 22.3 months with considerable variations according to regional areas and transplantation teams. Kidney transplantation activity, while increasing continuously, is far to cover the rising demand, and inexorably patients accumulate on the waiting list (around 9000 patients were registered by January 2012). This situation is the consequence of insufficient organ procurement activity. The deceased organ procurement rate remained high: 1572 harvested donors in 2011 (24.1 per million population), but the proportion of older donors rose in recent years, to reach the rate of 26% of donors older than 65 years in 2011. The procurement activity of donors after cardiac arrest was reintroduced in 2006, but increased slowly: 65 transplants were performed in 2011 using kidney procured in non heart-beating donors. The living donor kidney transplantation activity has markedly increased recently: 302 living donor transplantations were performed in 2011, representing 10.1% of the kidney transplantations. Facing the predictable increase in the number of candidates, all efforts should be put together, by increasing the living donor transplantation activity and by supporting and promoting the deceased donor procurement activity.     

Improving the Waiting List by Using 75-Year-Old Donors for Recipients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The best treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) associated with liver cirrhosis is liver transplantation and the best results are obtained when the tumors fulfill the Milan criteria. However, although the number of transplants is increasing, the organ deficit is growing, which lengthens time on the waiting list, increasing the risk of tumor progression of and exclusion from the list. The use of elderly donors is a valid option for patients on the transplant waiting list with HCC, reducing time on the waiting list. We report our experience with patients transplanted for HCC associated with hepatic cirrhosis using livers from donors >75 years of age. Our preliminary results supported the use of elderly suboptimal donors making it possible to give priority to these patients. All patients in the series achieved good graft function after a follow-up of 2 years with a 100% disease-free survival rate. More extensive long-term studies are needed to confirm these findings.     

Dual kidney transplants from very old or very young donors: long-term outcomes and complications

The disparity between donors and the demand for organ transplants grows steadily. Annually, 4700 patients die on the kidney transplant waiting list in the United States. To increase utilization of deceased donor organs, we expanded our acceptable criteria to include very old (VO) or very young (VY) donors. We transplanted both such kidneys (dual transplant) into a single recipient and evaluated the long-term outcomes and complications. From July 2001 to December 2005, 16 patients (mean age 68, range 60-78) received dual kidneys from VO (mean age 72, range 60-79) donors and 6 patients (mean age 47, range 27-72) were transplanted from VY (mean age 17 months, range 2-36) donors. Seventy-four percent of these kidneys were imported after rejection by their local center due to low glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and extreme age. One- and 5-year patient survival rates were 100% and 88%, respectively. Death-censored 1- and 5-year graft survival rates for recipient of VO kidneys were 95% and 93%, and 66% and 50% for recipients of VY kidneys, respectively. Five-year graft survival rate for recipients of VO donor kidneys was 93% and was equal to the survival of standard deceased donor (SCD) kidney transplants (87%). The 5-year survival of dual transplants from VO donors was higher than expanded criteria deceased donor (ECD; P = .05). Over a mean follow-up of 66 ± 28 months, rejection rates were 10%, not statistically different than other groups. Of 22 dual transplants, four patients experienced urinary tract infections; three developed incisional subcutaneous seromas, and there were more urinary leaks compared to SCD (13.6% vs 2%, P = .002). The average 1- and 5-year estimated GFR (Cockcroft-Gault) was 57.4 and 54.6 mL/min, respectively. When properly placed in a single patient, such marginal organs are a valuable resource that offer comparable outcomes to SCD transplants and superior outcomes to ECD organs.     

The Role of an Interdisciplinary Transplant Team on Living Donation Kidney Transplantation Program

During the last decades, the disparity between the organ supply and the demand for kidney transplantation in Europe has led to consider living donors as a more acceptable option. In the last 7 years, we have established an interdisciplinary supporting transplant team to increase the rate of living donation. After 2001, the new interdisciplinary transplant team consisted of a transplant surgeon, a nephrologist, a pediatrician, a radiologist, a psychologist, a transplant coordinator, and a transplant nurse. We performed a prospective analysis to examine the effect of implementing this team on our living donation program. Demographic data, the annual number of procedures, the duration of waiting, and the cold ischemia time were evaluated among brain-dead and living donors. From January 2002 until December 2008, the number of patients who were annually on the waiting list increased 42% (from 377 to 536 patients). Consequently, the number of the total kidney transplants increased from 81 to 120 with an annual median of 98 cases. By implementing the interdisciplinary transplant team, a significant increase of living kidney donors was observed: from 18 to 42 cases; median = 27). In the last 7 years, a total number of 796 kidney transplants have been performed: 567 from brain-dead and 229 from living donors. In 2001, the waiting list times for recipients who received grafts from brain-dead versus living donors were 1356 versus 615 days respectively. Compared with 2008, the duration on the waiting list decreased significantly for patients receiving a living donor graft, whereas there was a slight increase for the patients in the brain-dead group: brain death versus living donors: 1407 versus 305 days. The interdisciplinary approach has also reduced the cold ischemia time for the living donor recipients: 3 hours and 42 minutes in 2001 versus 2 hours and 50 minutes in 2008. During the last years, by implementing an interdisciplinary transplant team, supporting living donor procedures has produce a gradual increase in the number of kidney transplants from living donors with a remarkable decrease in waiting and cold ischemia times, the latter presumably influencing graft quality.     

Analysis of the Liver Transplant Waiting List in Our Center

BackgroundLiver transplantation (LT) is an important treatment for acute liver failure and end-stage liver disease. Due to the limited supply of livers, there are still thousands of candidates waiting for transplantation in Turkey. We aimed to analyze LT waiting list access by demographics and etiology, particularly the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which has been prioritized for LT in recent years.Materials and MethodsBetween 2011 and 2018, all patients listed for LT in our center were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic features, etiology of liver disease, waiting time, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and survival data were recorded. Differences between the LT group and deceased patients on the waiting list were evaluated.ResultsDuring this period, 266 patients were included in the LT waiting list. Only 119 patients (44.7%) underwent LT (men, 94; women, 25; mean age, 53 years), whereas 103 (38%) died (men, 60; women, 43; mean age, 53 years) in the waiting period. Seventeen patients were status 1A or 1B and of these, 7 patients died from fulminant hepatic failure. MELD score was significantly higher in deceased group (28 ± 7 vs 25 ± 6; P = .014). The frequency of HCC was significantly higher in LT group (29% vs 11%; P = .002). Overall survival of the patients in the waiting list with and without liver transplantation were 63% and 41%, respectively.ConclusionsHCC is one of the leading etiologies that is considered for cadaveric LT from the waiting list in our center. These patients had slightly lower MELD scores compared to deceased patients with shorter waiting times. We recommend early referral and close monitoring of the patients who are LT candidates.     

Balancing Waitlist Dropout in Pancreas Transplantation

BackgroundThe time a patient spends on the waiting list for a Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney (SPK) transplant depends on several donor and recipient-specific factors. The average wait-list time for SPK in the United States has been about 1 to 3 years, significantly shorter than the average wait time for kidney-only transplantation. A single-center retrospective analysis of SPK waitlisted candidates was performed to determine the implication of wait-list time on dropout from the wait-list due to death or poor health.MethodsWe analyzed all deceased donor Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney wait-listed candidates between Jan 1994 and June 2021. Waitlisted candidates who got transplanted (TG) were compared to those who dropped out from the wait list due to death or poor health (DPHG).ResultsIn the study period, 297 candidates were waitlisted for SPK transplants. Eight candidates were removed, as transplantation was not needed due to improvement in health while on the waiting list. Fourteen wait-listed candidates transferred to another center were also excluded from the study group. Two hundred and thirty wait-listed candidates were transplanted (TG). Forty-five patients were delisted due to death or poor health (DPHG). The mean body mass index of candidates in TG and DPHG were 25.1 and 24.9, respectively. The mean age at dropout in DPHG was 40.7, similar to the mean age at transplant in TG (39.4). The mean age of diabetes onset was slightly lower in TG (17.4) compared to 20.02 in DPHG. The mean days spent by the candidates on the waitlist in DPHG were significantly higher than those in TG (821 days vs 252 days). Eight of the 45 patients (17.7%) in DPHG had 1 or more organ transplants before listing compared to 1 of 230 patients (0.43%) in TG. Despite low wait times for SPK transplants, increased wait times can account for a dropout from the waitlist due to death or poor health. Centers should exercise caution in wait listing SPK candidates with prior organ transplants.     

Crucial Role of Extended Criteria Donors in Deceased Donor Single Kidney Transplantation to Face Chronic Shortage in the Heart of the Mediterranean Basin: A Single-Center Experience

BackgroundThe gap between organ availability and patients on the waiting list for deceased donor kidney transplants has resulted in the wide use of extended criteria donors (ECDs).We aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of single kidney transplantation (KT) performed at our institute with standard criteria donor (SCD) or ECD grafts, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network definition. Patients and methods. Our retrospective analysis studied 115 adult recipients of KT from January 2016 to July 2018, with kidney grafts procured from adult donors after brain or circulatory death, performed at our institute. Among the 2 recipients’ groups, we compared the incidence of early graft loss, delayed graft function, hospitalization, and surgical complications. We compared the evaluation of time to early graft loss with Kaplan-Meier estimators and curves; the hypothesis of no difference in time to graft loss between the 2 groups was tested using the log-rank statistics.ResultsOf the 103 deceased donor kidney transplants during the study period, 129 grafts were used after the regional network sharing allocation. More frequently, ECDs had a greater body mass index than SCDs (25.2 ± 3.9 vs 27.7 ± 5.0, P = .005) and type II diabetes mellitus (0% vs 18%, P = .002). KT recipients who received an ECD graft (73, 63.5%) were older (59.8 ± 9.8 vs 45.2 ± 15.4, P < .001) and presented a higher rate of delayed graft function (56% vs 24%, P = .001). Post-transplant graft loss did not differ among the 2 groups.ConclusionBased on clinical experience in a single transplant center, ECD use for KTs is crucial in facing the organ shortage, without impairing post-deceased donor kidney transplant outcomes.     

Attitude of kidney patients on the transplant waiting list toward related-living donation. A reason for the scarce development of living donation in Spain

INTRODUCTION: Most Spanish transplant centers have on-going living kidney transplant programs. However, such transplants are not increasing as a proportion of the total number of kidney transplants. The objective of this study is to analyze the attitude of kidney patients on the kidney transplant waiting list toward living kidney donation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients studied were selected from those included on the kidney transplant waiting list from November 2003 until September 2005 (n = 221). Attitude toward living donation was evaluated using a psychosocial questionnaire. It was completed in a direct personal interview with an independent health-care worker from the Transplant Unit. Student's t-test and the chi-squared test were applied. RESULTS: Two hundred and fourteen patients completed the questionnaire (97%), of which 35% would accept a related living kidney if it were offered to them, 60% would prefer to wait on the waiting list and the remaining 5% are undecided. Up to 66% (n = 134) of patients report that a member of their family or a friend have offered them an organ for donation. Eighty-nine percentage believe that there is some risk involved in living kidney donation, although it is not a factor that affects whether an organ would be accepted or not (p = 0.767). The psychosocial variables that affect attitude toward accepting a related living kidney are: (i) age: the youngest are those who are most likely to accept (40 vs. 45-yr-old; p = 0.010); (ii) descendents: patients without descendents are more likely to accept a living organ (56% vs. 27%; p < 0.000); (iii) marital status: a greater percentage of single respondents would be prepared to receive this type of transplant compared to the group of married respondents (55% vs. 30%. p = 0.007); and (iv) level of education: those with a higher level of education are more likely to accept a living organ (43% have secondary or university studies vs. 28% who only have primary education; p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: Patients on the waiting list for a kidney transplant do not have a very favorable attitude toward receiving a related-living donor organ, although members of their family have offered them one of their organs. The profile of a patient who would accept a related-living donated kidney is a young, single person, without descendents, and with a high level of education.     

New chances for Hungarian transplantation--preface to the 12th Congress of the Hungarian Transplantation Society

The year 2010 was a milestone in the history of transplantation in Hungary. Hungarian politicians became interested in solving the serious problems facing organ transplantation in our country. The State Secretary announced a program to (1) increase waiting lists, (2) raise donor numbers, (3) establish a lung transplant program, (4) promote education and increase the knowledge base regarding transplantation for the public and the medical profession, and finally, (5) to begin the negotiations for Hungary to join Eurotransplant. Joining Eurotransplant has been a priority of the transplant community. Finally, this year saw the Budapest Transplant Center perform 20% of their transplants from living kidney donors, up from 5% historically.     

Geographic disparities in access to organ transplant in France

BACKGROUND: Allocation of organs is organized on a regional basis in France. We assessed regional differences in access to organ transplant. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used the recipient database and the waiting list database from the year 1994 onward. We estimated median waiting time by region and organ. The probability of receiving a transplant was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Between-region comparisons used the log-rank test, with adjustment for blood type and disease category. RESULTS: At the end of a 4-month follow-up period, 49% of 3,553 patients had received transplants: 64% of 797 benefited from liver transplants, 52% of 549 from heart transplants, and 22% of 2,207 from kidney transplants. Death rates on the waiting lists were 10%, 14%, and 1% for patients selected for liver, heart, and kidney transplant, respectively. Transplantation percentage (all organs) decreased from 63% in the West to 43% in the Paris region and mortality increased from 2% in the West to 7% in the Southeast. All tests of inter-regional differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Factors explaining geographic differences related to the background of transplant teams, activity of organ procurement, and severity of patients on the list.     

Major Variation across Local Transplant Centers in Probability of Kidney Transplant for Wait-Listed Patients

BackgroundGeographic disparities in access to deceased donor kidney transplantation persist in the United States under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) introduced in 2014, and the effect of transplant center practices on the probability of transplantation for wait-listed patients remains unclear.MethodsTo compare probability of transplantation across centers nationally and within donation service areas (DSAs), we conducted a registry study that included all United States incident adult kidney transplant candidates wait listed in 2011 and 2015 (pre-KAS and post-KAS cohorts comprising 32,745 and 34,728 individuals, respectively). For each center, we calculated the probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation within 3 years of wait listing using competing risk regression, with living donor transplantation, death, and waiting list removal as competing events. We examined associations between center-level and DSA-level characteristics and the adjusted probability of transplant.ResultsCandidates received deceased donor kidney transplants within 3 years of wait listing more frequently post-KAS (22%) than pre-KAS (19%). Nationally, the probability of transplant varied 16-fold between centers, ranging from 4.0% to 64.2% in the post-KAS era. Within DSAs, we observed a median 2.3-fold variation between centers, with up to ten-fold and 57.4 percentage point differences. Probability of transplantation was correlated in the post-KAS cohort with center willingness to accept hard-to-place kidneys (r=0.55, P<0.001) and local organ supply (r=0.44, P<0.001).ConclusionsLarge differences in the adjusted probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation persist under KAS, even between centers working with the same local organ supply. Probability of transplantation is significantly associated with organ offer acceptance patterns at transplant centers, underscoring the need for greater understanding of how centers make decisions about organs offered to wait-listed patients and how they relate to disparities in access to transplantation.     

Impact of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation on access to transplantation and patients' survival: an 8-year single-center experience.

While the number of candidates for liver transplantation has increased in the recent years, the pool of cadaveric donor organs has remained constant and the waiting time progressively increases. These facts led us to start a program of adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation in 1998. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of all patients put on the waiting list since 1998. Between January 1, 1998, and January 1, 2005, 505 patients were put on the waiting list in our center, and living donor liver transplantation was considered in 57 cases (11.3%). At the time of evaluation (April 1, 2006), liver transplantation was performed in 377 patients (46 living donor liver transplantations), and 89 patients died on waiting list. On an intention-to-treat basis, the 1-year survival rate from the time of listing was 87.5% in the "living donor" group vs. 76.2% in the "cadaveric donor" group (P < 0.05), whereas the 1-year survival after liver transplantation was similar (92.3% vs. 86.9%). Our living donor liver transplantation program was able to improve the access to liver transplantation by reducing waiting time and the number of deaths on waiting list, despite the fact that these patients were more critically ill (liver failure and/or liver cancer).