Database comparison of the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL) and the SRTR U.S. Transplant Registry

Improving data quality in observational research studies: Report of the Cure Glomerulonephropathy (CureGN) network

Background

High data quality is of crucial importance to the integrity of research projects. In the conduct of multi-center observational cohort studies with increasing types and quantities of data, maintaining data quality is challenging, with few published guidelines.

Methods

The Cure Glomerulonephropathy (CureGN) Network has established numerous quality control procedures to manage the 70 participating sites in the United States, Canada, and Europe. This effort is supported and guided by the activities of several committees, including Data Quality, Recruitment and Retention, and Central Review, that work in tandem with the Data Coordinating Center to monitor the study. We have implemented coordinator training and feedback channels, data queries of questionable or missing data, and developed performance metrics for recruitment, retention, visit completion, data entry, recording of patient-reported outcomes, collection, shipping and accessing of biological samples and pathology materials, and processing, cataloging and accessing genetic data and materials.

Results

We describe the development of data queries and site Report Cards, and their use in monitoring and encouraging excellence in site performance. We demonstrate improvements in data quality and completeness over 4 years after implementing these activities. We describe quality initiatives addressing specific challenges in collecting and cataloging whole slide images and other kidney pathology data, and novel methods of data quality assessment.

Conclusions

This paper reports the CureGN experience in optimizing data quality and underscores the importance of general and study-specific data quality initiatives to maintain excellence in the research measures of a multi-center observational study.

Grade 1 Acute on Chronic Liver Failure Is a Predictor for Subsequent Grade 3 Failure

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) results in extremely high short-term mortality in patients with underlying cirrhosis. The European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria grade ACLF severity from 1 (least severe) to 3 (most severe) based on organ failures (OFs) that develop after an acute decompensation (AD). However, the implications of surviving low-grade ACLF in terms of risk of subsequent high-grade ACLF are unclear.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with compensated cirrhosis in the Veterans Health Administration database from January 2008 to June 2016. Propensity matching for grade 1 (G1) ACLF, followed by Cox regression, was used to model risk of subsequent grade 3 (G3) ACLF. Stratified analyses of different ADs and OFs were also performed. We identified 4,878 patients with well-matched propensity scores. G1 ACLF events conferred a significantly increased risk of subsequent G3 ACLF relative no previous G1 ACLF (hazard ratio, 8.69; P < 0.001). When stratified by AD, patients with ascites or hepatic encephalopathy were significantly more likely to develop G3 ACLF relative to those with gastrointestinal bleed or infection as an AD (P < 0.001). Risk of G3 ACLF also varied significantly by type of OF characterizing previous G1 ACLF, with liver, coagulation, and circulatory failure posing the highest increased risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who recover from G1 ACLF have substantially increased risk of later developing G3 ACLF as compared to those who never have G1 ACLF. Moreover, reversible decompensations for G1 ACLF have a lower risk of G3 ACLF, and liver-intrinsic OFs confer a much higher risk of G3 ACLF. These findings have implications for prognosis, future surveillance, and triaging early transplant evaluation.

Incidence and Mortality of Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Using Two Definitions in Patients with Compensated Cirrhosis

The term acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is intended to identify patients with chronic liver disease who develop rapid deterioration of liver function and high short-term mortality after an acute insult. The two prominent definitions (European Association for the Study of the Liver [EASL] and Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver [APASL]) differ, and existing literature applies to narrow patient groups. We sought to compare ACLF incidence and mortality among a diverse cohort of patients with compensated cirrhosis, using both definitions. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with incident compensated cirrhosis in the Veterans Health Administration from 2008 to 2016. First ACLF events were identified for each definition. Incidence rates were computed as events per 1,000 person-years, and mortality was calculated at 28 and 90 days. Among 80,383 patients with cirrhosis with 3.35 years median follow-up, 783 developed EASL and APASL ACLF, 4,296 developed EASL ACLF alone, and 574 developed APASL ACLF alone. The incidence rate of APASL ACLF was 5.7 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.4-6.0), and the incidence rate of EASL ACLF was 20.1 (95% CI: 19.5-20.6). The 28-day and 90-day mortalities for APASL ACLF were 41.9% and 56.1%, respectively, and were 37.6% and 50.4% for EASL ACLF. The median bilirubin level at diagnosis of EASL-alone ACLF was 2.0 mg/dL (interquartile range: 1.1-4.0). Patients with hepatitis C or nonalcoholic fatty liver disease had among the lowest ACLF incidence rates but had the highest short-term mortality. Conclusion: There is significant discordance in ACLF events by EASL and APASL criteria. The majority of patients with EASL-alone ACLF have preserved liver function, suggesting the need for more liver-specific ACLF criteria.

Association of Cold Ischemia Time With Acute Renal Transplant Rejection

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation holds much promise as a treatment of choice for patients with end-stage kidney disease. The impact of cold ischemia time (CIT) on acute renal transplant rejection (ARTR) remains to be fully studied in a large cohort of renal transplant patients.

METHODS

From the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database, we analyzed 63 798 deceased donor renal transplants performed between 2000 and 2010. We assessed the association between CIT and ARTR. We also evaluated the association between recipient age and ARTR.

RESULTS

Six thousand eight hundred two (11%) patients were clinically diagnosed with ARTR. Longer CIT was associated with an increased risk of ARTR. After multivariable adjustment, compared with recipients with CIT < 12 hours, the relative risk of ARTR was 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.23) in recipients with CIT ≥ 24 hours. The association of CIT and ARTR was more pronounced in patients undergoing retransplantation: compared with recipients with CIT less than 12 hours, the relative risk of ARTR was 1.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.73) in recipients with CIT of 24 hours or longer. Additionally, older age was associated with a decreased risk of ARTR. Compared with recipients aged 18 to 29 years, the relative risk of ARTR was 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.57) in recipients 60 years or older. Longer CIT was also associated with increased risk of death-censored graft loss. Compared with recipients with CIT less than 12 hours, the hazard ratio of death-censored graft loss was 1.22 (95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.30) in recipients with CIT of 24 hours or longer.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged CIT is associated with an increased risk of ARTR and death-censored graft loss. Older age was associated with a lower risk of ARTR.

Status of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Results from the Adult-To-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

This article reviews the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Cohort Study (A2ALL). The findings show that the number of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplants is consistently increasing. Living donor liver transplantation has an important benefit for patients with acute liver failure, does not compromise donor safety, and has lower rates of acute cellular rejection in biologically related donor and recipient. The conclusions from the A2ALL consortium have been critical in transplant advancement, supporting increased use to help decrease waitlist death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

Acute Rejection Increases Risk of Graft Failure and Death in Recent Liver Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Acute rejection is detrimental to most transplanted solid organs, but is considered to be less of a consequence for transplanted livers. We evaluated risk factors for and outcomes after biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) based on an analysis of a more recent national sample of recipients of liver transplants from living and deceased donors.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) from 2003 through 2014 as the exploratory cohort and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) from 2005 through 2013 as the validation cohort. We examined factors associated with time to first BPAR using multivariable Cox regression or discrete-survival analysis. Competing risks methods were used to compare causes of death and graft failure between recipients of living and deceased donors.

RESULTS

At least 1 BPAR episode occurred in 239 of 890 recipients in A2ALL (26.9%) and 7066 of 45,423 recipients in SRTR (15.6%). In each database, risk of rejection was significantly lower when livers came from biologically related living donors (A2ALL hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.76; and SRTR HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91) and higher in liver transplant recipients with primary biliary cirrhosis, of younger age, or with hepatitis C. In each database, BPAR was associated with significantly higher risks of graft failure and death. The risks were highest in the 12 month post-BPAR period in patients whose first episode occurred more than 1 year after liver transplantation: HRs for graft failure were 6.79 in A2ALL (95% CI, 2.64-17.45) and 4.41 in SRTR (95% CI, 3.71-5.23); HRs for death were 8.81 in A2ALL (95% CI, 3.37-23.04) and 3.94 in SRTR (95% CI, 3.22-4.83). In analyses of cause-specific mortality, associations were observed for liver-related (graft failure) causes of death but not for other causes.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to previous data, acute rejection after liver transplant is associated with significantly increased risk of graft failure, all-cause mortality, and graft failure-related death, regardless of primary liver disease etiology. Living donor liver transplantation from a biologically related donor is associated with decreased risk of rejection.

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis prevalence in pre-transplant patients and its effect on survival and graft loss post-transplant

AIM

To investigate the incidence of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in pre-transplant patients and its effect on post transplant mortality and graft failure.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patient records from the organ procurement and transplant network data set. Patients were identified by the presence of SBP pre-transplant. Univariate post-transplant survival models were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique and multivariate models were constructed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Variables that affected post-transplant graft survival were identified in the SBP population.

RESULTS

Forty-seven thousand eight hundred and eighty patient records were included in the analysis for both groups, and 1966 (4.11%) patients were identified in the data set as having pre-transplant SBP. Patients that had pre-transplant SBP had higher rates of graft loss from recurrent hepatitis C virus (HCV) (3.6% vs 2.0%, P < 0.0001), infections leading to graft loss (1.9% vs 1.3%, P = 0.02), primary non-function (4.3% vs 3.0%, P < 0.0001) and chronic rejection (1.1% vs 0.7%, P = 0.04). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a statistically significant difference in all-cause survival in patients with a history of SBP vs those without (P < 0.0001). Pre-transplant history of SBP was independently predictive of mortality due to recurrent HCV (HR = 1.11, 95%CI: 1.02-1.21, P < 0.017) after liver transplantation.

CONCLUSION

HCV patients prior to the advent of directing acting anti-viral agents had a higher incidence of pre-transplant SBP than other patients on the liver transplant wait list. SBP history pre-transplant resulted in a higher rate of graft loss due to recurrent HCV infection and chronic rejection.

Liver transplant recipients with portal vein thrombosis receiving an organ from a high-risk donor are at an increased risk for graft loss due to hepatic artery thrombosis

We hypothesize that recipients with pretransplant portal vein thrombosis (PVT) receiving organs from high-risk donors (HRD) are at an increased risk of HAT. Data on all liver transplants in the United States from February 2002 to March 2015 were analyzed. Recipients were sorted into two groups: those with PVT and those without. HRDs were defined by donor risk index (DRI) >1.7. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to assess the independent risk factors for HAT with the resultant graft loss ≤90 days from transplantation. A total of 60 404 candidates underwent liver transplantation; of those recipients, 623 (1.0%) had HAT, of which 66.0% (n = 411) received organs from HRDs compared with 49.3% (n = 29 473) in recipients without HAT (P < 0.001); 2250 (3.7%) recipients had pretransplantation PVT and received organs from HRDs. On adjusted multivariable analysis, PVT with a HRD organ was the most significant independent risk factor (OR 3.56, 95% CI 2.52-5.02, P < 0.001) for the development of HAT. Candidates with pretransplant PVT who receive an organ from a HRD are at the highest risk for postoperative HAT independent of other measurable factors. Recipients with pretransplant PVT would benefit from careful donor selection and possibly anticoagulation perioperatively.

Characterization of Missing Data in Clinical Registry Studies

Patterns of missing data are seldom well-characterized in observational research. This study examined the magnitude of, and factors associated with, missing data across multiple observational studies. Missingness was evaluated for demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from a procedure registry (TOPS), a rare disease (cystic fibrosis) registry (Port-CF), and a comparative effectiveness registry (glaucoma, RiGOR). Generalized linear mixed effects models were fit to assess whether patient characteristics or follow-up methods predicted missingness. Data from 156,707 surgical procedures, 32,118 cystic fibrosis patients, and 2373 glaucoma patients were analyzed. Data were rarely missing for demographics, treatments, and outcomes. Missingness for clinical variables varied by registry and measure and depended on whether a variable was required. Within RiGOR, PRO forms were missing more often when collected by e-mail compared with office-based paper data collection. In Port-CF, missingness varied based on insurance status and sex. Strategic consideration of operational approaches affecting missing data should be performed prior to data collection and assessed periodically during study conduct.

Validating Early Post-Transplant Outcomes Reported for Recipients of Deceased Donor Kidney Transplants

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Data reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) are used in kidney transplant research, policy development, and assessment of center quality, but the accuracy of early post-transplant outcome measures is unknown.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

The Deceased Donor Study (DDS) is a prospective cohort study at five transplant centers. Research coordinators manually abstracted data from electronic records for 557 adults who underwent deceased donor kidney transplantation between April of 2010 and November of 2013. We compared the post-transplant outcomes of delayed graft function (DGF; defined as dialysis in the first post-transplant week), acute rejection, and post-transplant serum creatinine reported to the OPTN with data collected for the DDS.

RESULTS

Median kidney donor risk index was 1.22 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.97-1.53). Median recipient age was 55 (IQR, 46-63) years old, 63% were men, and 47% were black; 93% had received dialysis before transplant. Using DDS data as the gold standard, we found that pretransplant dialysis was not reported to the OPTN in only 11 (2%) instances. DGF in OPTN data had a sensitivity of 89% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 84% to 93%) and specificity of 98% (95% CI, 96% to 99%). Surprisingly, the OPTN data accurately identified acute allograft rejection in only 20 of 47 instances (n=488; sensitivity of 43%; 95% CI, 17% to 73%). Across participating centers, sensitivity of acute rejection varied widely from 23% to 100%, whereas specificity was uniformly high (92%-100%). Six-month serum creatinine values in DDS and OPTN data had high concordance (n=490; Lin concordance correlation =0.90; 95% CI, 0.88 to 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

OPTN outcomes for recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants have high validity for DGF and 6-month allograft function but lack sensitivity in detecting rejection. Future studies using OPTN data may consider focusing on allograft function at 6 months as a useful outcome.

Defining long-term outcomes with living donor liver transplantation in North America

OBJECTIVES

To compare long-term survival of living donor liver transplant (LDLT) at experienced transplant centers with outcomes of deceased donor liver transplant and identify key variables impacting patient and graft survival.

BACKGROUND

The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study is a prospective multicenter National Institutes of Health study comparing outcomes of LDLT and deceased donor liver transplant and associated risks.

METHODS

Mortality and graft failure for 1427 liver recipients (963 LDLT) enrolled in the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study who received transplant between January 1, 1998, and January 31, 2014, at 12 North American centers with median follow-up 6.7 years were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models.

RESULTS

Survival probability at 10 years was 70% for LDLT and 64% for deceased donor liver transplant. Unadjusted survival was higher with LDLT (hazard ratio = 0.76, P = 0.02) but attenuated after adjustment (hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.90) as LDLT recipients had lower mean model for end-stage liver disease (15.5 vs 20.4) and fewer received transplant from intensive care unit, were inpatient, on dialysis, were ventilated, or with ascites. Posttransplant intensive care unit days were less for LDLT recipients. For all recipients, female sex and primary sclerosing cholangitis were associated with improved survival, whereas dialysis and older recipient/donor age were associated with worse survival. Higher model for end-stage liver disease score was associated with increased graft failure. Era of transplantation and type of donated lobe did not impact survival in LDLT.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT provides significant long-term transplant benefit, resulting in transplantation at a lower model for end-stage liver disease score, decreased death on waitlist, and excellent posttransplant outcomes. Recipient diagnosis, disease severity, renal failure, and ages of recipient and donor should be considered in decision making regarding timing of transplant and donor options.Clinical Trials ID: NCT00096733.

Clinical registries and quality measurement in surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Surgical clinical registries provide clinical information with the intent of measuring and improving quality. This study aimed to describe how surgical clinical registries have been used to measure surgical quality, the reported findings, and the limitations of registry measurements.

METHODS

Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane were queried for English articles with the terms: "registry AND surgery AND quality." Eligibility criteria were studies explicitly assessing quality measurement with registries as the primary data source. Studies were abstracted to identify registries, define registry structure, uses for quality measurement, and limitations of the measurements used.

RESULTS

A total of 111 studies of 18 registries were identified for data abstraction. Two registries were financed privately, and 5 registries were financed by a governmental organization. Across registries, the most common uses of process measures were for monitoring providers and as platforms for quality improvement initiatives. The most common uses of outcome measures were to improve quality modeling and to identify preoperative risk factors for poor outcomes. Eight studies noted improvements in risk-adjusted mortality with registry participation; one found no change. A major limitation is bias from context and means of data collection threatening internal validity of registry quality measurement. Conversely, the other major limitation is the cost of participation, which threatens the external validity of registry quality measurement.

CONCLUSION

Clinical registries have advanced surgical quality definition, measurement, and modeling as well as having served as platforms for local initiatives for quality improvement. The implication of this finding is that subsidizing registry participation may improve data validity as well as engage providers in quality improvement.

Post-transplant survival is improved for hepatitis C recipients who are RNA negative at time of liver transplantation

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection recurs universally in patients who are viremic at liver transplantation and likely accounts for the diminished post-transplant graft and patient survival. We evaluated whether undetectable HCV RNA pretransplant improves graft and patient survival after transplantation. Cases, defined by HCV listing diagnosis and positive HCV antibody, were selected from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database and further grouped as HCV RNA-positive (n = 4978) or negative (n = 445) based upon pretransplant testing. Controls were non-HCV recipients (n = 2995). RNA-negative cases had significantly better 5-year graft (72% vs. 64%) and patient (79% vs. 69%) survival than RNA-positive cases (P < 0.01 for both), and similar survival as controls (Graft: 72% vs. 74%,

PATIENT

79% vs. 80%; P > 0.05 for both). Nonproportional hazards modeling of RNA-positive cases identified a subgroup with rapid progression leading to early graft loss and death. Multivariable analyses confirmed that a positive HCV RNA prior to transplantation was a significant independent predictor of graft loss and death. In conclusion, HCV patients who have undetectable RNA at the time of liver transplantation experience improved long-term graft and patient outcomes. We speculate that the post-transplant survival of HCV recipients could be improved by safe and tolerable pretransplant antiviral strategies.

Outcomes of living versus deceased donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure in the United States

Clinical outcomes for living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure (ALF) in the United States remain to be determined. To address this gap in knowledge, we examined post-liver transplantation outcomes of adults with ALF undergoing LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) in the United States. We analyzed Organ and Procurement and Transplantation Network data for adults with ALF who were listed for liver transplantation as status 1 or 1A and who underwent LDLT (N = 21) or DDLT (N = 2316) between October 1987 and April 2011. We found no strong evidence that the survival probabilities for adults with ALF who underwent LDLT were inferior to those who underwent DDLT (P = .764). In adults with ALF who underwent LDLT, 1- and 5-year survival probabilities were both 71%; for DDLT these probabilities were 79% and 71%, respectively. In adults with ALF, 1- and 5-year liver graft survival probabilities, respectively, were 62% and 57% for LDLT, and 74% and 66% for DDLT. In these series of adults with ALF who were listed as status 1 or 1A, patient and graft survival rates for LDLT were similar to those for DDLT. Our findings suggest that if deceased donor livers are unavailable, LDLT is an acceptable option in experienced centers for adults with ALF.

Post-liver transplantation sarcopenia in cirrhosis: a prospective evaluation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pre-transplant sarcopenia (reduced skeletal muscle mass) predicts poor outcome in cirrhosis. In contrast, whether muscle mass increases post-orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is not known and was studied prospectively.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent a comprehensive nutritional evaluation in a liver transplant nutrition clinic were included. Core abdominal muscle area was measured on abdominal computed tomography obtained pre- and post-OLT. Age- and gender-based controls were used to define sarcopenia. Measures of body composition pre-transplant were correlated with computed tomography measurements. Predictors and clinical impact of post-OLT change in muscle area were examined. In three subjects post-OLT and three controls, expression of genes regulating skeletal muscle mass were quantified.

RESULTS

During the study period, 53 patients (M:F 41:12; age 56.9 ± 7.5 years) were followed up after OLT for 19.3 ± 9 months. Five patients died and another five had acute graft rejection. Pre-OLT sarcopenia was present in 33 (66.2%). Pre-transplant clinical characteristics including Child's score, MELD score, and nutritional status or post-transplantation immunosuppression regimen did not predict post-transplant change in muscle mass. New onset post-OLT sarcopenia developed in 14 patients. Loss of muscle mass post-OLT increased risk of diabetes mellitus and a trend toward higher mortality. Skeletal muscle expression of myostatin was higher and that of ubiquitin proteasome proteolytic components lower post-OLT than in controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-transplantation sarcopenia is common and could not be attributed to pre-transplant characteristics or the type or duration of post-OLT immunosuppression. Post-transplant sarcopenia contributes to adverse consequences and strategies targeting myostatin may be beneficial.

Live liver donors' risk thresholds: risking a life to save a life

BACKGROUND

There is still some controversy regarding the ethical issues involved in live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and there is uncertainty on the range of perioperative morbidity and mortality risks that donors will consider acceptable.

METHODS

This study analysed donors' inclinations towards LDLT using decision analysis techniques based on the probability trade-off (PTO) method. Adult individuals with an emotional or biological relationship with a patient affected by end-stage liver disease were enrolled. Of 122 potential candidates, 100 were included in this study.

RESULTS

The vast majority of participants (93%) supported LDLT. The most important factor influencing participants' decisions was their wish to improve the recipient's chance of living a longer life. Participants chose to become donors if the recipient was required to wait longer than a mean ± standard deviation (SD) of 6 ± 5 months for a cadaveric graft, if the mean ± SD probability of survival was at least 46 ± 30% at 1 month and at least 36 ± 29% at 1 year, and if the recipient's life could be prolonged for a mean ± SD of at least 11 ± 22 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential donors were risk takers and were willing to donate when given the opportunity. They accepted significant risks, especially if they had a close emotional relationship with the recipient.

Post-liver transplantation sarcopenia in cirrhosis: a prospective evaluation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pre-transplant sarcopenia (reduced skeletal muscle mass) predicts poor outcome in cirrhosis. In contrast, whether muscle mass increases post-orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is not known and was studied prospectively.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent a comprehensive nutritional evaluation in a liver transplant nutrition clinic were included. Core abdominal muscle area was measured on abdominal computed tomography obtained pre- and post-OLT. Age- and gender-based controls were used to define sarcopenia. Measures of body composition pre-transplant were correlated with computed tomography measurements. Predictors and clinical impact of post-OLT change in muscle area were examined. In three subjects post-OLT and three controls, expression of genes regulating skeletal muscle mass were quantified.

RESULTS

During the study period, 53 patients (M:F 41:12; age 56.9 ± 7.5 years) were followed up after OLT for 19.3 ± 9 months. Five patients died and another five had acute graft rejection. Pre-OLT sarcopenia was present in 33 (66.2%). Pre-transplant clinical characteristics including Child's score, MELD score, and nutritional status or post-transplantation immunosuppression regimen did not predict post-transplant change in muscle mass. New onset post-OLT sarcopenia developed in 14 patients. Loss of muscle mass post-OLT increased risk of diabetes mellitus and a trend toward higher mortality. Skeletal muscle expression of myostatin was higher and that of ubiquitin proteasome proteolytic components lower post-OLT than in controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-transplantation sarcopenia is common and could not be attributed to pre-transplant characteristics or the type or duration of post-OLT immunosuppression. Post-transplant sarcopenia contributes to adverse consequences and strategies targeting myostatin may be beneficial.

Association of distance from a transplant center with access to waitlist placement, receipt of liver transplantation, and survival among US veterans

IMPORTANCE

Centralization of specialized health care services such as organ transplantation and bariatric surgery is advocated to improve quality, increase efficiency, and reduce cost. The effect of increased travel on access and outcomes from these services is not fully understood.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between distance from a Veterans Affairs (VA) transplant center (VATC) and access to being waitlisted for liver transplantation, actually having a liver transplant, and mortality.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective study of veterans meeting liver transplantation eligibility criteria from January 1, 2003, until December 31, 2010, using data from the Veterans Health Administration's integrated, national, electronic medical record linked to Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was being waitlisted for transplantation at a VATC. Secondary outcomes included being waitlisted at any transplant center, undergoing a transplantation, and survival.

RESULTS

From 2003-2010, 50,637 veterans were classified as potentially eligible for transplant; 2895 (6%) were waitlisted and 1418 of those were waitlisted (49%) at 1 of the 5 VATCs. Of 3417 veterans receiving care at a VA hospital located within 100 miles from a VATC, 244 (7.1%) were waitlisted at a VATC and 372 (10.9%) at any transplant center (VATC and non-VATCs). Of 47,219 veterans receiving care at a VA hospital located more than 100 miles from a VATC, 1174 (2.5%) were waitlisted at a VATC and 2523 (5.3%) at any transplant center (VATC and non-VATCs). In multivariable models, increasing distance to closest VATC was associated with significantly lower odds of being waitlisted at a VATC (odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.89-0.93] for each doubling in distance) or any transplant center (OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92-0.96] for each doubling in distance). For example, a veteran living 25 miles from a VATC would have a 7.4% (95% CI, 6.6%-8.1%) adjusted probability of being waitlisted, whereas a veteran 100 miles from a VATC would have a 6.2% (95% CI, 5.7%-6.6%) adjusted probability. In adjusted models, increasing distance from a VATC was associated with significantly lower transplantation rates (subhazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98 for each doubling in distance). There was significantly increased mortality among waitlisted veterans from the time of first hepatic decompensation event in multivariable survival models (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04 for each doubling in distance). For example, a waitlisted veteran living 25 miles from a VATC would have a 62.9% (95% CI, 59.1%-66.1%) 5-year adjusted probability of survival from first hepatic decompensation event compared with a 59.8% (95% CI, 56.3%-63.1%) 5-year adjusted probability of survival for a veteran living 100 miles from a VATC.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among VA patients meeting eligibility criteria for liver transplantation, greater distance from a VATC or any transplant center was associated with lower likelihood of being waitlisted, receiving a liver transplant, and greater likelihood of death. The relationship between these findings and centralizing specialized care deserves further investigation.

Validating posttransplant hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence data in the United Network for Organ Sharing database

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database is the most comprehensive collection of liver transplantation data, but the quality of these data with respect to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence has not been well assessed. In this study, we compared observed HCC recurrence rates in the UNOS database to expected rates calculated with a hierarchical model for recurrence adjusted for recipient and tumor characteristics. We used the UNOS Standard Transplant Analysis and Research data set for adult transplant patients with an initial exception for an HCC diagnosis granted between January 1, 2006 and September 30, 2010 who underwent transplantation within the same time window. We developed a risk-adjusted Poisson model with patients as the unit of analysis, random effects for transplant centers, and years of follow-up as an offset to predict expected recurrences for each center. To further investigate the possibility of underreporting, we imputed expected recurrences for non-HCC deaths. In all, 5034 HCC liver transplant recipients were identified, and 6.8% experienced recurrence at a median of 1 year after transplantation. The covariate-adjusted shrinkage estimates of the observed/expected HCC recurrence ratios by transplant center ranged from 0.6 to 1.76 (median = 0.97). The 95% confidence intervals for the shrinkage ratios included unity for every center, and this indicated that none could be unambiguously identified as having lower or higher than expected HCC recurrence rates. Imputing outcomes for patients potentially experiencing unreported recurrence changed the center-specific shrinkage ratios to 0.72 to 1.39 (median = 0.98), with no centers having a shrinkage ratio significantly different from 1. The observed HCC recurrence rate was not significantly lower than the expected rate at any center, and this suggests that no systematic underreporting has occurred. This study validates the OPTN HCC recurrence data and supports their potential for further analysis.

Underreporting of liver transplant waitlist removals due to death or clinical deterioration: results at four major centers

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the accuracy of United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) or Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data among patients listed for liver transplantation. Of particular importance for transplant policy and practice is whether patients' outcomes are coded properly.

METHODS

Using data from four transplant centers, we identified all liver transplant candidates removed from the waitlist from February 27, 2002 to July 24, 2010, with a specific focus the removal code of "other."

RESULTS

Among nontransplanted patients at these centers, 2206 patients were removed for death or clinical deterioration. Of these, 8.6% (189 of 2206) were misclassified; they were assigned the UNOS removal code of "other." Among these 189 misclassified patients, 128 became medically unsuitable, 35 died, and 26 became too sick to transplant. Nearly one-half (46.8%) of misclassified patients were removed due to advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Among true waitlist removals for death, only 35 of 1593 (2.2%) were misclassified. Conversely, of true removals for clinical deterioration, 154 of 612 (25.2%) were misclassified, with significant (P < 0.001) center variation: 4.4% (Baylor), 8.0% (Georgetown), 32.6% (University of Pennsylvania), and 45.0% (Mount Sinai). Extrapolating these data to the entire United States, if "other" patients who truly died or clinically deteriorated were recoded appropriately, there would be an additional 2525 (95% confidence interval, 2046-3102) patients removed from the waitlist due to death (331) or clinical deterioration (2194) since 2002.

DISCUSSION

A substantial proportion of patients truly removed from the waitlist for death or clinical deterioration were misclassified as "other." Thus, analyses using the UNOS or the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database may underestimate the true proportion of patients removed from the waitlist for clinical deterioration.

Liver Transplant Center Performance Profiling: 2005–2011 Reports of the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients

Context

Transplant center performance profiling provides important information for various concerned parties. Comparing a transplant center's performance against the performance of the best-in-class centers may help in understanding the performance thresholds for the underperforming centers.

Objectives

(1) To identify and describe “Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-red-flag” performers and the “best-in-class” performers and (2) to examine the relationships between a center's performance profile and outcomes such as 1-year observed mortality, 1-month observed mortality, 1-year risk-adjusted mortality, and volume.

Methods

The data for analysis was obtained from the published reports on the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) website for adult liver transplant programs compiled for the rolling 2½-year cohorts of patients and included 7 cohorts of liver transplant recipients in the study from January through July 1, 2002, through December 31, 2010. We defined 4 performance profiles: CMS-red-flag, lower-than-expected, higher-than-expected, and best-in-class performers.

Results

The current SRTR methods classify approximately 7% of the adult liver centers as CMS-red-flag performers and 6% of the centers as best-in-class performers in every reported period. Neither of the low-volume centers (<30 liver transplants per 2½-year cohort) was profiled as CMS-red-flag until the 2010 reporting period. The transplant center's profile was significantly associated with the 1-year and 1-month observed mortality rates in every reported cohort ( P < .001).

Conclusion

The CMS-red-flag profile can be characterized with the following: (1) the highest observed 1-year mortality, (2) the highest observed 1-month mortality, (3) a very large difference between the observed and adjusted mortality rates, and (4) the center volume greater than 30 liver transplants per 2½-year cohort. The SRTR methods are not sensitive for performance profiling in the centers that perform fewer than 30 orthotopic liver transplants per 2½-year cohort.

Quality of life, risk assessment, and safety research in liver transplantation: new frontiers in health services and outcomes research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we briefly summarize three fruitful, emerging areas in liver transplantation research, quality of life; risk assessment; and patient safety. Our goal is to highlight recent findings in these areas, with a call for increased integration of social scientists and transplant clinicians to address how best to shape policy and improve outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

After liver transplantation, recipients generally experience clinically significant, sustained improvement in their physical, social and emotional well being. However, a sizeable minority of patients do experience excess morbidity that may benefit from ongoing surveillance and/or intervention. There is growing body of research that describes risks associated with liver transplantation, which can be useful aids to better inform decision making by patients, clinicians, payers, and policy makers. In contrast, there has been a relative lack of empirical data on transplant patient safety vulnerabilities, placing the field of surgery in stark contrast to other high-risk industries, wherein such assessments inform continuous process improvement.

SUMMARY

Health services and outcomes research has grown in importance in the liver transplantation literature, but several important questions remain unanswered that merit programmatic, interdisciplinary research.

Design and methodology of the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study (STCS): a comprehensive prospective nationwide long-term follow-up cohort

In Switzerland, organ procurement is well organized at the national-level but transplant outcomes have not been systematically monitored so far. Therefore, a novel project, the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study (STCS), was established. The STCS is a prospective multicentre study, designed as a dynamic cohort, which enrolls all solid organ recipients at the national level. The features of the STCS are a flexible patient-case system that allows capturing all transplant scenarios and collection of patient-specific and allograft-specific data. Beyond comprehensive clinical data, specific focus is directed at psychosocial and behavioral factors, infectious disease development, and bio-banking. Between May 2008 and end of 2011, the six Swiss transplant centers recruited 1,677 patients involving 1,721 transplantations, and a total of 1,800 organs implanted in 15 different transplantation scenarios. 10 % of all patients underwent re-transplantation and 3% had a second transplantation, either in the past or during follow-up. 34% of all kidney allografts originated from living donation. Until the end of 2011 we observed 4,385 infection episodes in our patient population. The STCS showed operative capabilities to collect high-quality data and to adequately reflect the complexity of the post-transplantation process. The STCS represents a promising novel project for comparative effectiveness research in transplantation medicine.

Program-specific reports: implications and impact on program behavior

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Measuring and monitoring transplant center performance is vital to ongoing quality assessment and performance improvement initiatives geared toward ensuring optimal care for patients with end-stage organ failure. The impact of regulatory oversight on transplant center behavior and programmatic decision-making is complex.

RECENT FINDINGS

Program-specific reports (PSRs) are published by the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and are publically available for use by a variety of stakeholders, including patients, regulators, insurers, and care providers. PSRs have been both groundbreaking and controversial. The principal areas of concern relate to potential unintended consequences of PSRs, limitations in both the data collected by the registry and the currently used statistical methodology employed by the SRTR for risk adjustment, and the subsequent impact on transplant program behavior.

SUMMARY

PSRs, which serve the purposes of fueling ongoing performance improvement initiatives and informing consumers and payers by fostering transparency in the communication of risk, also involve trade-offs because of their unintended use for regulatory oversight and subsequent impact on transplant center behavior. Future research is necessary to improve data integrity and risk-adjustment methodologies which will enhance regulation and preserve access to transplantation among vulnerable patient populations.

How regenerative medicine and tissue engineering may complement the available armamentarium in gastroenterology?

The increasing shortage of donors and the adverse effects of immunosuppression have restricted the impact of solid organ transplantation. Despite the initial promising developments in xenotransplantation, roadblocks still need to be overcome and this form of organ support remains a long way from clinical practice. While hepatocyte transplantation may be effectively correct metabolic defects, it is far less effective in restoring liver function than liver transplantation. Tissue engineering, using extracellular matrix scaffolds with an intact but decellularized vascular network that is repopulated with autologous or allogeneic stem cells and/or adult cells, holds great promise for the treatment of failure of organs within gastrointestinal tract, such as end-stage liver disease, pancreatic insufficiency, bowel failure and type 1 diabetes. Particularly in the liver field, where there is a significant mortality of patients awaiting transplant, human bioengineering may offer a source of readily available organs for transplantation. The use of autologous cells will mitigate the need for long term immunosuppression thus removing a major hurdle in transplantation.

Safety of blood group A2-to-O liver transplantation: an analysis of the United Network of Organ Sharing database

BACKGROUND

ABO-incompatible organ transplantation typically induces hyperacute rejection. A2-to-O liver transplantations have been successful. This study compared overall and graft survival in O recipients of A2 and O grafts based on Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data.

METHODS

Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data were used. The first A2-to-O liver transplantation was entered on March 11, 1990; all previous transplantations were excluded. Between March 11, 1990, and September 3, 2010, 43,335 O recipients underwent transplanation, of whom 358 received A2 grafts.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age, sex, and race between the groups. Recipients of A2 grafts versus O grafts were significantly more likely to be hospitalized at transplantation (45% vs. 38%, P≤0.05) and to have a higher mean (SD) model for end-stage liver disease score (24 [11] vs. 22 [10], P≤0.05). 10% of A2 recipients and 9% of O recipients underwent retransplantation. No significant differences existed in rejection during the transplantation admission and at 12 months: 7% versus 6% and 20% versus 22% for A2 recipients and O recipients, respectively; and there were no significant differences in contributing factors to graft failure or cause of death. At 5 years, overall survival of A2 and O graft recipients was 77% and 74%, respectively (log rank=0.71). At 5 years, graft survival was 66% in both groups (log rank=0.52). Donor blood group was insignificant on Cox regression for overall and graft survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Using Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we present the largest series of A2-to-O liver transplantations and conclude this mismatch option to be safe with similar overall and graft survival. This opens possibilities to further meet the demands of a shrinking organ supply, especially with regard to expanding living-donor options.

[Attitudes among Spanish and Latin American non-medical health professionals to living donor liver transplantation]

INTRODUCTION

Hospital professionals are an opinion group that influences the general population.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze attitudes to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) among non-medical professionals working in Spanish and Latin American hospitals and to determine the variables that influence these attitudes.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A random sample, stratified by department, was selected from non-medical staff in the "International Donor Collaborative Project": there were three hospitals in Spain, five in Mexico and two in Cuba. Attitudes were evaluated through a validated, anonymous, self-administered questionnaire.

RESULTS

There were 951 non-medical professionals: 277 from Spain, 632 from Mexico and 42 from Cuba. A total of 86% (n = 818) were in favor of related living donation and 31% (n = 299) were in favor of unrelated living donation. This attitude was associated with the following: country (Mexico 88%, Cuba 83%, Spain 81%) (p =0.016), female sex (p =0.026), having experience of donation and transplantation (p =0.001), having a favorable attitude to donation (P <0.001), considering the possibility of needing a transplant (P <0.001), being in favor of living kidney donation (P <0.001), being willing to accept a transplant from a living donor if necessary (P <0.001), discussing donation and transplantation with the family and partner (P <0.001), carrying out pro-social activities (P <0.001), believing that one's religion was in favor of donation and transplantation (P<0.001), and not worrying about bodily mutilation after donation (P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Attitudes toward related LDLT among non-medical staff in various Spanish, Mexican and Cuban hospitals are favorable. In 86% of those surveyed, this attitude was not influenced by classical psychosocial factors.

Living donor liver transplantation versus deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Because of the severe organ shortage, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers a timely alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the higher recurrence rate of HCC after LDLT and the indication criteria remain controversial. By conducting a quantitative meta-analysis, we sought to compare the survival outcomes and recurrence rates with LDLT and DDLT for patients with HCC. Comparative studies of LDLT and DDLT for HCC, which were identified by a comprehensive literature search, were included in this study. The evaluated outcomes included patient survival, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and recurrence rates at defined time points. Seven studies with a total of 1310 participants were included in this study. For LDLT and DDLT recipients, we found comparable patient survival rates [1 year, odds ratio (OR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.62-1.73; 3 years, OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.77-1.48; and 5 years, OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.33-1.24] and RFS rates (1 year, OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.54-1.38; 3 years, OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.69-1.58; and 5 years, OR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.70-1.77). Moreover, we found no significant differences in the 1-, 3-, or 5-year recurrence rates between LDLT and DDLT recipients (1 year, OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.36-6.58; 3 years, OR = 2.57, 95% CI = 0.53-12.41; and 5 years, OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.44-3.32). A subgroup analysis revealed similar outcomes for patients with HCC meeting the Milan criteria. These findings demonstrate that for HCC patients (especially those within the Milan criteria), LDLT represents an acceptable option that does not compromise patient survival or increase HCC recurrence in comparison with DDLT.

Report of a consensus conference on transplant program quality and surveillance

Public reports of organ transplant program outcomes by the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients have been both groundbreaking and controversial. The reports are used by regulatory agencies, private insurance providers, transplant centers and patients. Failure to adequately adjust outcomes for risk may cause programs to avoid performing transplants involving suitable but high-risk candidates and donors. At a consensus conference of stakeholders held February 13-15, 2012, the participants recommended that program-specific reports be better designed to address the needs of all users. Additional comorbidity variables should be collected, but innovation should also be protected by excluding patients who are in approved protocols from statistical models that identify underperforming centers. The potential benefits of hierarchical and mixed-effects statistical methods should be studied. Transplant centers should be provided with tools to facilitate quality assessment and performance improvement. Additional statistical methods to assess outcomes at small-volume transplant programs should be developed. More data on waiting list risk and outcomes should be provided. Monitoring and reporting of short-term living donor outcomes should be enhanced. Overall, there was broad consensus that substantial improvement in reporting outcomes of transplant programs in the United States could and should be made in a cost-effective manner.

Cholesterol: recapitulation of its active role during liver regeneration

Liver regeneration is a compensatory hyperplasia produced by several stimuli that promotes proliferation in order to provide recovery of the liver mass and architecture. This process involves complex signalling cascades that receive feedback from autocrine and paracrine pathways, recognized by parenchymal as well as non-parenchymal cells. Nowadays the dynamic role of lipids in biological processes is widely recognized; however, a systematic analysis of their importance during liver regeneration is still missing. Therefore, in this review we address the role of lipids including the bioactive ones such as sphingolipids, but with special emphasis on cholesterol. Cholesterol is not only considered as a structural component but also as a relevant lipid involved in the control of the intermediate metabolism of different liver cell types such as hepatocytes, hepatic stellate cells and Kupffer cells. Cholesterol plays a significant role at the level of specific membrane domains, as well as modulating the expression of sterol-dependent proteins. Moreover, several enzymes related to the catabolism of cholesterol and whose activity is down regulated are related to the protection of liver tissue from toxicity during the process of regeneration. This review puts in perspective the necessity to study and understand the basic mechanisms involving lipids during the process of liver regeneration. On the other hand, the knowledge acquired in this area in the past years, can be considered invaluable in order to provide further insights into processes such as general organogenesis and several liver-related pathologies, including steatosis and fibrosis.

Outcomes of adult living donor liver transplantation: comparison of the Adult-to-adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study and the national experience

The study objectives were to determine whether the findings of the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) reflect the U.S. national experience and to define risk factors for patient mortality and graft loss in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). A2ALL previously identified risk factors for mortality after LDLT, which included early center experience, older recipient age, and longer cold ischemia time. LDLT procedures at 9 A2ALL centers (n = 702) and 67 non-A2ALL centers (n = 1664) from January 1998 through December 2007 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database were analyzed. Potential predictors of time from transplantation to death or graft failure were tested using Cox regression. No significant difference in overall mortality between A2ALL and non-A2ALL centers was found. Higher hazard ratios (HRs) were associated with donor age (HR = 1.13 per 10 years, P = 0.0002), recipient age (HR = 1.20 per 10 years, P = 0.0003), serum creatinine levels (HR = 1.52 per loge unit increase, P < 0.0001), hepatocellular carcinoma (HR = 2.12, P<0.0001) or hepatitis C virus (HR = 1.18, P = 0.026), intensive care unit stay (HR = 2.52, P< 0.0001) or hospitalization (HR = 1.62, P < 0.0001) versus home, earlier center experience (LDLT case number 15: HR = 1.61, P < 0.0001, and a cold ischemia time >4.5 hours (HR = 1.79, P = 0.0006). Except for center experience, risk factor effects between A2ALL and non-A2ALL centers were not significantly different. Variables associated with graft loss were identified and showed similar trends. In conclusion, mortality and graft loss risk factors were similar in A2ALL and non-A2ALL centers. These analyses demonstrate that findings from the A2ALL consortium are relevant to other centers in the U.S. performing LDLT, and conclusions and recommendations from A2ALL may help to guide clinical decision making.

Intention-to-treat analysis of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: living versus deceased donor transplantation

For patients who have cirrhosis with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) reduces waiting time and dropout rates. We performed a comparative intention-to-treat analysis of recurrence rates and survival outcomes after LDLT and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) in HCC patients. Our study included 183 consecutive patients with HCC who were listed for liver transplantation over a 9-year period at our institution. Tumor recurrence was the primary endpoint. At listing, patient and tumor characteristics were comparable in the two groups (LDLT, n = 36; DDLT, n = 147). Twenty-seven (18.4%) patients dropped out, all from the DDLT waiting list, mainly due to tumor progression (19/27 [70%] patients). The mean waiting time was shorter in the LDLT group (2.6 months versus 7.9 months; P = 0.001). The recurrence rates in the two groups were similar (12.9% and 12.7%, P = 0.78), and there was a trend toward a longer time to recurrence after LDLT (38 ± 27 months versus 16 ± 13 months, P = 0.06). Tumors exceeding the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria, tumor grade, and microvascular invasion were independent predictive factors for recurrence. On an intention-to-treat basis, the overall survival (OS) in the two groups was comparable. Patients beyond the Milan and UCSF criteria showed a trend toward worse outcomes with LDLT compared with DDLT (P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

The recurrence and survival outcomes after LDLT and DDLT were comparable on an intent-to-treat analysis. Shorter waiting time preventing dropouts is an additional advantage with LDLT. LDLT for HCC patients beyond validated criteria should be proposed with caution.

When disaster strikes: death of a living organ donor

Donor safety is of paramount importance in living donor transplantation. Yet, living donor deaths occur. We believe that problems exist in our system of live donor transplantation that can be summarized in a series of simple statements: (1) Donor mortality can never be completely eliminated; (2) Live donor risk has not been mitigated so that it is as low as possible; (3) After a donor death, systematic reviews are not routinely performed to identify correctable causes; (4) The lessons learned from any donor death are not adequately communicated to other programs and (5) The administrative mechanisms and resources are not universally available at all transplant centers to implement lessons learned. To rectify these problems, we propose the following: (1) A national living donor death task force be established with the purpose of performing systematic reviews of any donor death. (2) Findings of these reviews be disseminated to all institutions performing live donor transplants on a secure, password-protected website. (3) A no-fault donor death indemnity fund be established to provide a financial imperative for institutions to cooperate with this external peer-review. These measures will serve the best interests of the involved institutions, the transplant community, and most importantly, the patients and their families.

Donation after cardiac death liver transplantation: predictors of outcome

We aimed to identify recipient, donor and transplant risk factors associated with graft failure and patient mortality following donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplantation. These estimates were derived from Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from all US liver-only DCD recipients between September 1, 2001 and April 30, 2009 (n = 1567) and Cox regression techniques. Three years post-DCD liver transplant, 64.9% of recipients were alive with functioning grafts, 13.6% required retransplant and 21.6% died. Significant recipient factors predictive of graft failure included: age ≥ 55 years, male sex, African-American race, HCV positivity, metabolic liver disorder, transplant MELD ≥ 35, hospitalization at transplant and the need for life support at transplant (all, p ≤ 0.05). Donor characteristics included age ≥ 50 years and weight >100 kg (all, p ≤ 0.005). Each hour increase in cold ischemia time (CIT) was associated with 6% higher graft failure rate (HR 1.06, p < 0.001). Donor warm ischemia time ≥ 35 min significantly increased graft failure rates (HR 1.84, p = 0.002). Recipient predictors of mortality were age ≥ 55 years, hospitalization at transplant and retransplantation (all, p ≤ 0.006). Donor weight >100 kg and CIT also increased patient mortality (all, p ≤ 0.035). These findings are useful for transplant surgeons creating DCD liver acceptance protocols.