Early Changes in Liver Distribution Following Implementation of Share 35

In June 2013, a change to the liver waitlist priority algorithm was implemented. Under Share 35, regional candidates with MELD ≥ 35 receive higher priority than local candidates with MELD < 35. We compared liver distribution and mortality in the first 12 months of Share 35 to an equivalent time period before. Under Share 35, new listings with MELD ≥ 35 increased slightly from 752 (9.2% of listings) to 820 (9.7%, p = 0.3), but the proportion of deceased‐donor liver transplants (DDLTs) allocated to recipients with MELD ≥ 35 increased from 23.1% to 30.1% (p < 0.001). The proportion of regional shares increased from 18.9% to 30.4% (p < 0.001). Sharing of exports was less clustered among a handful of centers (Gini coefficient decreased from 0.49 to 0.34), but there was no evidence of change in CIT (p = 0.8). Total adult DDLT volume increased from 4133 to 4369, and adjusted odds of discard decreased by 14% (p = 0.03). Waitlist mortality decreased by 30% among patients with baseline MELD > 30 (SHR = 0.70, p < 0.001) with no change for patients with lower baseline MELD (p = 0.9). Posttransplant length‐of‐stay (p = 0.2) and posttransplant mortality (p = 0.9) remained unchanged. In the first 12 months, Share 35 was associated with more transplants, fewer discards, and lower waitlist mortality, but not at the expense of CIT or early posttransplant outcomes.     

Trends and Patterns in Reporting of Patient Safety Situations in Transplantation

Analysis and dissemination of transplant patient safety data are essential to understanding key issues facing the transplant community and fostering a “culture of safety.” The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network's (OPTN) Operations and Safety Committee de‐identified safety situations reported through several mechanisms, including the OPTN's online patient safety portal, through which the number of reported cases has risen sharply. From 2012 to 2013, 438 events were received through either the online portal or other reporting pathways, and about half were self‐reports. Communication breakdowns (22.8%) and testing issues (16.0%) were the most common types. Events included preventable errors that led to organ discard as well as near misses. Among events reported by Organ Procurement Organization (OPOs), half came from just 10 of the 58 institutions, while half of events reported by transplant centers came from just 21 of 250 institutions. Thirteen (23%) OPOs and 155 (62%) transplant centers reported no events, suggesting substantial underreporting of safety‐related errors to the national database. This is the first comprehensive, published report of the OPTN's safety efforts. Our goals are to raise awareness of safety data recently reported to the OPTN, encourage additional reporting, and spur systems improvements to mitigate future risk.     

A Lifetime of Allograft Function with Kidneys from Older Donors

Strategies to increase expanded criteria donor (ECD) transplantation are needed. We quantified the extent to which ECD kidneys provide recipients with a lifetime of allograft function by determining the difference between patient survival and death-censored allograft survival (graft survival). Initial analyses compared 5-year outcomes in the Eurotransplant Senior Program (European) and the United States Renal Data System. Among European recipients ≥65 years, patient survival exceeded graft survival, and ECD recipients returned to dialysis for an average of 5.2 months after transplant failure. Among United States recipients ≥60 years, graft survival exceeded patient survival. Although patient survival in elderly recipients in the United States was low (49% at 5 years), the average difference in patient survival at 10 years in elderly recipients in the United States with an ECD versus non-ECD transplant was only 7 months. The probability of patient survival with a functioning allograft at 5 years was higher with ECD transplantation within 1 year after activation to the waiting list than with delayed non-ECD transplantation ≥3 years after activation to the waiting list. Subsequent analyses demonstrated that ECD transplants do not provide a lifetime of allograft function in recipients <50 years in the United States. These findings should encourage ECD transplantation in patients ≥60 years, demonstrate that rapid ECD transplantation is superior to delayed non-ECD transplantation, and challenge the policy in the United States of allowing patients <50 years to receive an ECD transplant.     

Factors associated with completion of patient surveys 1 year after bariatric surgery

BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PRO) obtained from follow-up survey data are essential to understanding the longitudinal effects of bariatric surgery. However, capturing data among patients who are well beyond the recovery period of surgery remains a challenge, and little is known about what factors may influence follow-up rates for PRO.ObjectivesTo assess the effect of hospital practices and surgical outcomes on patient survey completion rates at 1 year after bariatric surgery.SettingProspective, statewide, bariatric-specific clinical registry.MethodsPatients at hospitals participating in the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative are surveyed annually to obtain information on weight loss, medication use, satisfaction, body image, and quality of life following bariatric surgery. Hospital program coordinators were surveyed in June 2017 about their practices for ensuring survey completion among their patients. Hospitals were ranked based on 1-year patient survey completion rates between 2011 and 2015. Multivariable regression analyses were used to identify associations between hospital practices, as well as 30-day outcomes, on hospital survey completion rankings.ResultsOverall, patient survey completion rates at 1 year improved from 2011 (33.9% ± 14.5%) to 2015 (51.0% ± 13.0%), although there was wide variability between hospitals (21.1% versus 77.3% in 2015). Hospitals in the bottom quartile for survey completion rates had higher adjusted rates of 30-day severe complications (2.6% versus 1.7%, respectively; P = .0481), readmissions (5.0% versus 3.9%, respectively; P = .0157), and reoperations (1.5% versus .7%, respectively; P = .0216) than those in the top quartile. While most hospital practices did not significantly impact survey completion at 1 year, physically handing out surveys during clinic visits was independently associated with higher completion rates (odds ratio, 13.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.99?93.03; P =.0078).ConclusionsHospitals vary considerably in completion rates of patient surveys at 1 year after bariatric surgery, and lower rates were associated with hospitals that had higher complication rates. Hospitals with the highest completion rates were more likely to physically hand surveys to patients during clinic visits. Given the value of PRO on longitudinal outcomes of bariatric surgery, improving data collection across multiple hospital systems is imperative.     

Liver transplantation from active COVID-19 donors: A lifesaving opportunity worth grasping?

COVID-19 pandemic dramatically impacted transplantation landscape. Scientific societies recommend against the use of donors with active SARS-CoV-2 infection. Italian Transplant Authority recommended to test recipients/donors for SARS-CoV-2-RNA immediately before liver transplant (LT) and, starting from November 2020, grafts from deceased donors with active SARS-CoV-2 infection were allowed to be considered for urgent-need transplant candidates with active/resolved COVID-19. We present the results of the first 10 LTs with active COVID-19 donors within an Italian multicenter series. Only two recipients had a positive molecular test at LT and one of them remained positive up to 21 days post-LT. None of the other eight recipients was found to be SARS-CoV-2 positive during follow-up. IgG against SARS-CoV-2 at LT were positive in 80% (8/10) of recipients, and 71% (5/7) showed neutralizing antibodies, expression of protective immunity related to recent COVID-19. In addition, testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA on donors’ liver biopsy at transplantation was negative in 100% (9/9), suggesting a very low risk of transmission with LT. Immunosuppression regimen remained unchanged, according to standard protocol. Despite the small number of cases, these data suggest that transplanting livers from donors with active COVID-19 in informed candidates with SARS-CoV-2 immunity, might contribute to safely increase the donor pool.

     

Best practices to optimize utilization of the National Living Donor Assistance Center for the financial assistance of living organ donors

Living organ donors face direct costs when donating an organ, including transportation, lodging, meals, and lost wages. For those most in need, the National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC) provides reimbursement to defray travel and subsistence costs associated with living donor evaluation, surgery, and follow‐up. While this program currently supports 9% of all US living donors, there is tremendous variability in its utilization across US transplant centers, which may limit patient access to living donor transplantation. Based on feedback from the transplant community, NLDAC convened a Best Practices Workshop on August 2, 2018, in Arlington, VA, to identify strategies to optimize transplant program utilization of this valuable resource. Attendees included team members from transplant centers that are high NLDAC users; the NLDAC program team; and Advisory Group members. After a robust review of NLDAC data and engagement in group discussions, the workgroup identified concrete best practices for administrative and transplant center leadership involvement; for individuals filing NLDAC applications at transplant centers; and to improve patient education about potential financial barriers to living organ donation. Multiple opportunities were identified for intervention to increase transplant programs’ NLDAC utilization and reduce financial burdens inhibiting expansion of living donor transplantation in the United States.