The Right Organ for the Right Recipient: the Ninth Annual American Society of Transplant Surgeons' State-of-the-Art Winter Symposium

Transplantation of Restored Kidneys From Unrelated Donors After Resection of Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From 10 Patients

PURPOSE

To relieve the chronic shortage of donor kidneys, we conducted a prospective kidney transplantation trial using kidneys removed from 10 unrelated patients (51 to 79 years of age) who had undergone nephrectomy for small renal cell carcinoma (1.5 to 3.9 cm) of low-to-moderate complexity based on RENAL (radius, exophytic/endophytic properties, nearness of tumor to the collecting system or sinus in millimeters, anterior/posterior location relative to polar lines) nephrometry (objective description helpful for operative indication and planning).

METHODS

Donors were selected from among 15 patients who opted to undergo nephrectomy for small renal cell carcinoma. A total of 76 dialysis patients 34 to 85 years of age who agreed to undergo restored kidney transplantation were recruited as transplant candidates.

RESULTS

In stage 1 (5 cases), high-risk patients were selected without human leukocyte antigen testing, and accelerated acute rejection occurred in 4 of 5 recipients. This trial was subsequently extended with human leukocyte antigen testing, and an additional 5 patients were enrolled in stage 2. Eight recipients, including 4 recipients with a history of renal transplantation, experienced rejection; 1 patient resumed dialysis 35 months after transplantation. The most recent serum creatinine levels ranged from 1.10 to 3.19 mg/dL in the 9 recipients with functioning grafts and from 0.84 to 4.68 mg/dL in the 10 donors. No tumor recurrence was noted at 32 to 58 months after surgery in either the recipients or the donors.

CONCLUSIONS

Restored kidney transplantation using kidneys with a small renal tumor seems suitable for carefully selected high-risk recipients and, in particular, elderly kidneys can also function well. Avoiding cancer transmission, fair recipient selection, close follow-up, and a well-organized tracking system warrant further study.

Changes in liver acceptance patterns after implementation of Share 35

The Share 35 policy was implemented June 2013. We sought to evaluate liver offer acceptance patterns of centers under this policy. We compared three 1-year eras (1, 2, and 3) before and 1 era (4) after the implementation date of the Share 35 policy (June 18, 2013). We evaluated all offers for liver-only recipients including only those offers for livers that were ultimately transplanted. Logistic regression was used to develop a liver acceptance model. In era 3, there were 4809 offers for Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score ≥ 35 patients with 1071 acceptances (22.3%) and 10,141 offers and 1652 acceptances (16.3%) in era 4 (P < 0.001). In era 3, there were 42,954 offers for MELD score < 35 patients with 4181 acceptances (9.7%) and 44,137 offers and 3882 acceptances (8.8%) in era 4 (P < 0.001). The lower acceptance rate persisted across all United Network for Organ Sharing regions and was significantly less in regions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Mean donor risk index was the same (1.3) for all eras for MELD scores ≥ 35 acceptances and the same (1.4) for MELD score < 35 acceptances. Refusal reasons did not vary throughout the eras. The adjusted odds ratio of accepting a liver for a MELD score of 35 + compared to a MELD score < 35 patient was 1.289 before the policy and 0.960 after policy implementation. In conclusion, the Share 35 policy has resulted in more offers to patients with MELD scores ≥ 35. Overall acceptance rates were significantly less compared to the same patient group before the policy implementation. Centers are less likely to accept a liver for a patient with a MELD score of 35 + after the policy change. Decreased donor acceptance rates could reflect more programmatic selectivity and ongoing donor and recipient matching.

Expanding the role of pharmacists and pharmacy students in the promotion of organ donation awareness

The gap between supply and demand for available organs has resulted in numerous deaths of patients on the transplant waiting list each year. Given the substantial public health impact of the organ shortage crisis, efforts have been focused on the use of educational interventions aimed both at the public and health care professionals to spread awareness of the disparity in organ supply and demand and ultimately improve organ donation rates. Transplant pharmacists are fundamental members of transplant multidisciplinary teams and are expected to promote organ and tissue awareness in an effort to decrease the morbidity and mortality of patients on the transplant waiting list. The role of pharmacists and pharmacy students in the promotion of organ donation awareness is expanding.

Recipient-donor age matching in liver transplantation: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether donor age was a predictor of outcomes in liver transplantation, representing an independent risk factor as well as its impact related to recipient age-matching.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected data from 221 adult liver transplantations performed from January 2006 to September 2009.

RESULTS

Compared with recipients who received grafts from donors <60 years old, transplantation from older donors was associated with significantly higher rates of graft rejection (9.5% vs 3.5%; P = .05) and worse graft survival (P = .021). When comparing recipient and graft survivals according to age matching, we observed significantly worse values for age-mismatched (P values .029 and .037, respectively) versus age-matched patients. After adjusting for covariates in a multivariate model, age mismatch was an independent risk factor for patient death (hazard ratio [HR] 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-4.17; P = .027) and graft loss (HR 3.86, 95% CI 1.02-15.47; P = .046).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest to that optimized donor allocation takes into account both donor and recipient ages maximize survival of liver-transplanted patients.

Donor-recipient matching: myths and realities

Liver transplant outcomes keep improving, with refinements of surgical technique, immunosuppression and post-transplant care. However, these excellent results and the limited number of organs available have led to an increasing number of potential recipients with end-stage liver disease worldwide. Deaths on waiting lists have led liver transplant teams maximize every organ offered and used in terms of pre and post-transplant benefit. Donor-recipient (D-R) matching could be defined as the technique to check D-R pairs adequately associated by the presence of the constituents of some patterns from donor and patient variables. D-R matching has been strongly analysed and policies in donor allocation have tried to maximize organ utilization whilst still protecting individual interests. However, D-R matching has been written through trial and error and the development of each new score has been followed by strong discrepancies and controversies. Current allocation systems are based on isolated or combined donor or recipient characteristics. This review intends to analyze current knowledge about D-R matching methods, focusing on three main categories: patient-based policies, donor-based policies and combined donor-recipient systems. All of them lay on three mainstays that support three different concepts of D-R matching: prioritarianism (favouring the worst-off), utilitarianism (maximising total benefit) and social benefit (cost-effectiveness). All of them, with their pros and cons, offer an exciting controversial topic to be discussed. All of them together define D-R matching today, turning into myth what we considered a reality in the past.

Renal Dysfunction in Liver Transplant Candidates: Evaluation, Classification and Management in Contemporary Practice

Renal dysfunction is a common comorbidity in patients with liver failure and is a well-established predictor of both morbidity and mortality among patients awaiting liver transplantation. The etiology of renal failure in patients with cirrhosis can be functional, structural, or represent a combination of potentially reversible physiologic changes and permanent histologic damage. Diagnostic criteria for acute and chronic kidney disease have been established, but cirrhosis poses challenges for accurate assessment of renal function with conventional clinical methods such as serum creatinine and creatinine-based estimating equations. Renal biopsies can have an important role for defining permanent structural damage as part of the pre-transplant evaluation of patients with liver disease; however, coagulopathy, portal hypertension and ascites increase the risk of biopsy-associated complications in cirrhotic patients. While renal dysfunction due to hepatorenal physiology is potentially reversible after liver transplantation, simultaneous kidney liver transplantation and kidney after liver transplant can also improve outcomes in a subset of patients with irreversible renal injury.