Outcomes of Deceased Donor Kidney Offers to Patients at the Top of the Waiting List

Expanding Access to High KDPI Kidney Transplant for Recipients Aged 60 y and Older: Cost Utility and Survival

Background

Modern organ allocation systems are tasked with equitably maximizing the utility of transplanted organs. Increasing the use of deceased donor organs at risk of discard may be a cost-effective strategy to improve overall transplant benefit. We determined the survival implications and cost utility of increasing the use of marginal kidneys in an older adult Canadian population of patients with end-stage kidney disease.

Methods

We constructed a cost-utility model with microsimulation from the perspective of the Canadian single-payer health system for incident transplant waitlisted patients aged 60 y and older. A kidney donor profile index score of ≥86 was considered a marginal kidney. Donor- and recipient-level characteristics encompassed in the kidney donor profile index and estimated posttransplant survival scores were used to derive survival posttransplant. Patients were followed up for 10 y from the date of waitlist initiation. Our analysis compared the routine use of marginal kidneys (marginal kidney scenario) with the current practice of limited use (status quo scenario).

Results

The 10-y mean cost and quality-adjusted life-years per patient in the marginal kidney scenario were estimated at $379 485.33 (SD: $156 872.49) and 4.77 (SD: 1.87). In the status quo scenario, the mean cost and quality-adjusted life-years per patient were $402 937.68 (SD: $168 508.85) and 4.37 (SD: 1.87); thus, the intervention was considered dominant. At 10 y, 62.8% and 57.0% of the respective cohorts in the marginal kidney and status quo scenarios remained alive.

Conclusions

Increasing the use of marginal kidneys in patients with end-stage kidney disease aged 60 y and older may offer cost savings, improved quality of life, and greater patient survival in comparison with usual care.

Impact of donor smoking history on kidney transplant recipient outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Impact of donor smoking history on kidney transplant recipient outcomes is undefined.

METHODS

We systematically searched, critically appraised, and summarized associations between donor smoking and primary outcomes of death-censored and all-cause graft failure (DCGF, ACGF), and secondary outcomes of allograft histology, delayed graft function, serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and mortality. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Databases from 2000 to 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Exposure tool. Quality of evidence was assessed by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group recommendations. We pooled results using inverse variance, random-effects model and reported hazard ratios for time-to-event outcomes or binomial proportions. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistic.

RESULTS

From 1785 citations, we included 17 studies. Donor smoking was associated with modestly increased DCGF (HR 1.05 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.09); I2 = 0%; low quality of evidence), predominantly in deceased donors, and ACGF in adjusted analyses (HR 1.12 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.19); I2 = 20%; very low quality of evidence). Other outcomes could not be pooled meaningfully.

CONCLUSIONS

Kidney donor smoking history was associated with modestly increased risk of death-censored graft failure and all-cause graft failure. This review emphasizes the need for further research, standardized reporting, and thoughtful consideration of donor factors like smoking in clinical decision-making on kidney utilization and allocation.

Characterization of Transplant Center Decisions to Allocate Kidneys to Candidates With Lower Waiting List Priority

Importance

Allocation of deceased donor kidneys is meant to follow a ranked match-run list of eligible candidates, but transplant centers with a 1-to-1 relationship with their local organ procurement organization have full discretion to decline offers for higher-priority candidates and accept them for lower-ranked candidates at their center.

Objective

To describe the practice and frequency of transplant centers placing deceased donor kidneys with candidates who are not the highest rank at their center according to the allocation algorithm.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used 2015 to 2019 organ offer data from US transplant centers with a 1-to-1 relationship with their local organ procurement organization, following candidates for transplant events from January 2015 to December 2019. Participants were deceased kidney donors with a single match-run and at least 1 kidney transplanted locally and adult, first-time, kidney-only transplant candidates receiving at least 1 offer for a locally transplanted deceased donor kidney. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2022 to March 28, 2023.

Exposure

Demographic and clinical characteristics of donors and recipients.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcome of interest was kidney transplantation into the highest-priority candidate (defined as transplanted after zero declines for local candidates in the match-run) vs a lower-ranked candidate.

Results

This study assessed 26 579 organ offers from 3136 donors (median [IQR] age, 38 [25-51] years; 2903 [62%] men) to 4668 recipients. Transplant centers skipped their highest-ranked candidate to place kidneys further down the match-run for 3169 kidneys (68%). These kidneys went to a median (IQR) of the fourth- (third- to eighth-) ranked candidate. Higher kidney donor profile index (KDPI; higher score indicates lower quality) kidneys were less likely to go to the highest-ranked candidate, with 24% of kidneys with KDPI of at least 85% going to the top-ranked candidate vs 44% of KDPI 0% to 20% kidneys. When comparing estimated posttransplant survival (EPTS) scores between the skipped candidates and the ultimate recipients, kidneys were placed with recipients with both better and worse EPTS than the skipped candidates, across all KDPI risk groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of local kidney allocation at isolated transplant centers, we found that centers frequently skipped their highest-priority candidates to place kidneys further down the allocation prioritization list, often citing organ quality concerns but placing kidneys with recipients with both better and worse EPTS with nearly equal frequency. This occurred with limited transparency and highlights the opportunity to improve the matching and offer algorithm to improve allocation efficiency.

Disparities in Deceased Donor Kidney Offer Acceptance: A Survey of Canadian Transplant Nephrologists, General Surgeons and Urologists

Background

Significant variability in organ acceptance thresholds have been demonstrated across the United States, but data regarding the rate and rationale for kidney donor organ decline in Canada are lacking.

Objective

To examine decision making regarding deceased kidney donor acceptance and non-acceptance in a population of Canadian transplant professionals.

Design

A survey study of theoretical deceased donor kidney cases of increasing complexity.

Setting

Canadian transplant nephrologists, urologists, and surgeons making donor call decisions responding to an electronic survey between July 22 and October 4, 2022.

Participants

Invitations to participate were distributed to 179 Canadian transplant nephrologists, surgeons, and urologists through e-mail. Participants were identified by contacting each transplant program and requesting a list of physicians who take donor call.

Measurements

Survey respondents were asked whether they would accept or decline a given donor, assuming there was a suitable recipient. They were also asked to cite reasons for donor non-acceptance.

Methods

Donor scenario-specific acceptance rates (total acceptance divided by total number of respondents for a given scenario and overall) and reasons for decline were determined and presented as a percentage of the total cases declined.

Results

In all, 72 respondents from 7 provinces completed at least one question of the survey, with considerable variability between acceptance rates for centers; the most conservative center declined 60.9% of donor cases, whereas the most aggressive center declined only 28.1%, P-value < .001. There was an increased risk of non-acceptance with advancing age, donation after cardiac death, acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and comorbidities.

Limitations

As with any survey, there is the potential for participation bias. In addition, this study examines donor characteristics in isolation, however, asks respondent to assume there is a suitable candidate available. In reality, whenever donor quality is considered, it should be considered in the context of the intended recipient.

Conclusion

In a survey of increasingly medically complex deceased kidney donor cases, there was significant variability in donor decline among Canadian transplant specialists. Given relatively high rates of donor decline and apparent heterogeneity in acceptance decisions, Canadian transplant specialists may benefit from additional education regarding the benefits achieved from even medically complex kidney donors for appropriate candidates relative to remaining on dialysis on the transplant waitlist.

Kidney nonprocurement in deceased donors with acute kidney injury

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in deceased organ donors and is associated with high rates of kidney discard by transplant centers. High discard rates may consequently drive nonprocurement of these kidneys by organ procurement organizations. We aimed to study the relationship between donor AKI and kidney nonprocurement.

METHODS

Using U.S. registry data, we identified donors with at least one organ recovered from 2008 to 2018. We compared characteristics of donors with no kidneys procured across AKI stages, and used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between AKI severity and kidney nonprocurement.

RESULTS

Overall 14 543 kidneys from 7620 donors were not procured, among which 93% were from donors with AKI. For 6945 donors with no kidneys procured but an extrarenal organ recovered, most had stage 3 (51%), followed by stage 1 (27%) and stage 2 AKI (15%). Nonprocured stage 3 donors were the youngest and had the lowest Kidney Donor Risk Index of all nonprocured donors. Adjusted odds of kidney nonprocurement were 1.14 (95%CI 1.02-1.27) for stage 1, 1.25 (95%CI 1.12-1.41) for stage 2, and 10.37 (95%CI 9.30-11.56) for stage 3 donors, compared to non-AKI donors. Among donors with minimum creatinine <1.5 mg/dl, stage 2 and 3 AKI were still associated with significantly higher odds of nonprocurement.

CONCLUSIONS

AKI severity is a strong risk factor for kidney nonprocurement. Efforts to address the organ shortage should focus on encouraging procurement and utilization of kidneys from deceased donors with severe AKI, given the large and rising prevalence of donor AKI and excellent transplant outcomes with these kidneys.

Patient Preferences for Waiting Time and Kidney Quality

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Approximately 20% of deceased donor kidneys are discarded each year in the United States. Some of these kidneys could benefit patients who are waitlisted. Understanding patient preferences regarding accepting marginal-quality kidneys could help more of the currently discarded kidneys be transplanted.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

This study uses a discrete choice experiment that presents a deceased donor kidney to patients who are waiting for, or have received, a kidney transplant. The choices involve trade-offs between accepting a kidney today or a future kidney. The options were designed experimentally to quantify the relative importance of kidney quality (expected graft survival and level of kidney function) and waiting time. Choices were analyzed using a random-parameters logit model and latent-class analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 605 participants completed the discrete choice experiment. Respondents made trade-offs between kidney quality and waiting time. The average respondent would accept a kidney today, with 6.5 years of expected graft survival (95% confidence interval, 5.9 to 7.0), to avoid waiting 2 additional years for a kidney, with 11 years of expected graft survival. Three patient-preference classes were identified. Class 1 was averse to additional waiting time, but still responsive to improvements in kidney quality. Class 2 was less willing to accept increases in waiting time for improvements in kidney quality. Class 3 was willing to accept increases in waiting time even for small improvements in kidney quality. Relative to class 1, respondents in class 3 were likely to be age ≤61 years and to be waitlisted before starting dialysis, and respondents in class 2 were more likely to be older, Black, not have a college degree, and have lower Karnofsky performance status.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants preferred accepting a lower-quality kidney in return for shorter waiting time, particularly those who were older and had lower functional status.

Association of transplant center market concentration and local organ availability with deceased donor kidney utilization

Although there is a shortage of kidneys available for transplantation, many transplantable kidneys are not procured or are discarded after procurement. We investigated whether local market competition and/or organ availability impact kidney procurement/utilization. We calculated the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) for deceased donor kidney transplants (2015-2019) for 58 US donation service areas (DSAs) and defined 4 groups: HHI ≤ 0.32 (high competition), HHI = 0.33-0.51 (medium), HHI = 0.53-0.99 (low), and HHI = 1 (monopoly). We calculated organ availability for each DSA as the number kidneys procured per incident waitlisted candidate, grouped as: <0.42, 0.42-0.69, >0.69. Characteristics of procured organs were similar across groups. In adjusted logistic regression, the HHI group was inconsistently associated with composite export/discard (reference: high competition; medium: OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.11-1.20; low 1.01, 0.96-1.06; monopoly 1.19, 1.13-1.26) and increasing organ availability was associated with export/discard (reference: availability <0.42; 0.42-0.69: OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.30-1.40; >0.69: OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.73-1.93). When analyzing each endpoint separately, lower competition was associated with higher export and only market monopoly was weakly associated with lower discard, whereas higher organ availability was associated with export and discard. These results indicate that local organ utilization is more strongly influenced by the relative intensity of the organ shortage than by market competition between centers.

Deceased donor kidneys allocated out of sequence by organ procurement organizations

Deceased donor kidney allocation follows a ranked match-run of potential recipients. Organ procurement organizations (OPOs) are permitted to deviate from the mandated match-run in exceptional circumstances. Using match-run data for all deceased donor kidney transplants (Ktx) in the US between 2015 and 2019, we identified 1544 kidneys transplanted from 933 donors with an OPO-initiated allocation exception. Most OPOs (55/58) used this process at least once, but 3 OPOs performed 64% of the exceptions and just 2 transplant centers received 25% of allocation exception Ktx. At 2 of 3 outlier OPOs these transplants increased 136% and 141% between 2015 and 2019 compared to only a 35% increase in all Ktx. Allocation exception donors had less favorable characteristics (median KDPI 70, 41% with history of hypertension), but only 29% had KDPI ≥ 85% and the majority did not meet the traditional threshold for marginal kidneys. Allocation exception kidneys went to larger centers with higher offer acceptance ratios and to recipients with 2 fewer priority points-equivalent to 2 less years of waiting time. OPO-initiated exceptions for kidney allocation are growing increasingly frequent and more concentrated at a few outlier centers. Increasing pressure to improve organ utilization risks increasing out-of-sequence allocations, potentially exacerbating disparities in access to transplantation.

Declined Offers for Deceased Donor Kidneys Are Not an Independent Reflection of Organ Quality

Background

Deceased donor kidney offers are frequently declined multiple times before acceptance for transplantation, despite significant organ shortage and long waiting times. Whether the number of times a kidney has been declined, reflecting cumulative judgments of clinicians, is associated with long-term transplant outcomes remains unclear.

Methods

In this national, retrospective cohort study of deceased donor kidney transplants in the United States from 2008 to 2015 (n=78,940), we compared donor and recipient characteristics and short- and long-term graft and patient survival outcomes grouping by the sequence number at which the kidney was accepted for transplantation. We compared outcomes for kidneys accepted within the first seven offers in the match-run, after 8-100 offers, and for hard-to-place kidneys distinguishing those requiring >100 and >1000 offers before acceptance.

Results

Harder-to-place kidneys had lower donor quality and higher rates of delayed graft function (46% among kidneys requiring >1000 offers before acceptance versus 23% among kidneys with ≤7 offers). In unadjusted models, later sequence groups had higher hazard of all-cause graft failure, death-censored graft failure, and patient mortality; however, these associations were attenuated after adjusting for Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI). After adjusting for donor factors already taken into consideration during allocation, and recipient factors associated with long-term outcomes, graft, and patient survival outcomes were not significantly different for the hardest-to-place kidneys compared with the easiest-to-place kidneys, with the exception of death-censored graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.16, 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.28).

Conclusion

Late sequence offers may represent missed opportunities for earlier successful transplant for the higher-priority waitlisted candidates for whom the offers were declined.

Hardest-to-place kidney transplant outcomes in the United States

The outcomes of hardest-to-place kidney transplants-accepted last in the entire match run after being refused by previous centers-are unclear, potentially translating to risk aversion and unnecessary organ discard. We aimed to determine the outcomes of hardest-to-place kidney transplants and whether the organ acceptance position on the match run sufficiently captures the risk. This is a cohort study of the United Network for Organ Sharing data of all adult kidney-only transplant recipients from deceased donors between 2007 and 2018. Multiple regression models assessed delayed graft function, graft survival, and patient survival stratified by share type: local versus shared kidney acceptance position scaled by tertile. Among 127 028 kidney transplant recipients, 92 855 received local kidneys. The remaining received shared kidneys at sequence number 1-4 (n = 12 322), 5-164 (n = 10 485) and >164 (n = 11 366). Hardest-to-place kidneys, defined as the latest acceptance group in the match-run, were associated with delayed graft function (adjusted odds ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.74-1.92) and all-cause allograft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.11, 95% CI 1.04-1.17). Results of this IRB-approved study were robust to the exclusion of operational allocation bypass and mandatory shares. The hardest-to-place kidneys accepted later in the match run were associated with higher graft failure and delayed graft function.

Greater complexity and monitoring of the new Kidney Allocation System: Implications and unintended consequences of concentric circle kidney allocation on network complexity

The deceased donor kidney allocation system in the United States has undergone several rounds of iterative changes, but these changes were not explicitly designed to address the geographic variation in access to transplantation. The new allocation system, expected to start in December 2020, changes the definition of "local allocation" from the Donation Service Area to 250 nautical mile circles originating from the donor hospital. While other solid organs have adopted a similar approach, the larger number of both kidney transplant centers and transplant candidates is likely to have different consequences. Here, we discuss the incredible increase in complexity in allocation, discuss some of the likely intended and unintended consequences, and propose metrics to monitor the new system.

The impact of multi-organ transplant allocation priority on waitlisted kidney transplant candidates

Kidney-alone transplant (KAT) candidates may be disadvantaged by the allocation priority given to multi-organ transplant (MOT) candidates. This study identified potential KAT candidates not receiving a given kidney offer due to its allocation for MOT. Using the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) database, we identified deceased donors from 2002 to 2017 who had one kidney allocated for MOT and the other kidney allocated for KAT or simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant (SPK) (n = 7,378). Potential transplant recipient data were used to identify the "next-sequential KAT candidate" who would have received a given kidney offer had it not been allocated to a higher prioritized MOT candidate. In this analysis, next-sequential KAT candidates were younger (p < .001), more likely to be racial/ethnic minorities (p < .001), and more highly sensitized than MOT recipients (p < .001). A total of 2,113 (28.6%) next-sequential KAT candidates subsequently either died or were removed from the waiting list without receiving a transplant. In a multivariable model, despite adjacent position on the kidney match-run, mortality risk was significantly higher for next-sequential KAT candidates compared to KAT/SPK recipients (hazard ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.44, 1.66). These results highlight implications of MOT allocation prioritization, and potential consequences to KAT candidates prioritized below MOT candidates.

Donor considerations in pediatric kidney transplantation

This article reviews kidney transplant donor options for children with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Global access to kidney transplantation is variable. Well-established national policies, organizations for organ procurement and allocation, and donor management policies may account for higher deceased donor (DD transplants) in some countries. Living donor kidney transplantation (LD) predominates in countries where organ donation has limited national priority. In addition, social, cultural, religious and medical factors play a major role in both LD and DD kidney transplant donation. Most children with ESKD receive adult-sized kidneys. The transplanted kidney has a finite survival and the expectation is that children who require renal replacement therapy from early childhood will probably have 2 or 3 kidney transplants in their lifetime. LD transplant provides better long-term graft survival and is a better option for children. When a living related donor is incompatible with the intended recipient, paired kidney exchange with a compatible unrelated donor may be considered. When the choice is a DD kidney, the decision-making process in accepting a donor offer requires careful consideration of donor history, kidney donor profile index, HLA matching, cold ischemia time, and recipient's time on the waiting list. Accepting or declining a DD offer in a timely manner can be challenging when there are undesirable facts in the donor's history which need to be balanced against prolonging dialysis in a child. An ongoing global challenge is the significant gap between organ supply and demand, which has increased the need to improve organ preservation techniques and awareness for organ donation.

Kidney nonprocurement in solid organ donors in the United States

There are limited data on the nonprocurement of kidneys from solid organ donors. Analysis of Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files was undertaken on all deceased donors in the United States with at least 1 solid organ recovered. From 2000 to 2018, 21 731 deceased donor kidneys (averaging 1144 kidneys per year) were not procured. No kidneys were procured from 8% of liver donors, 3% of heart donors, and 3% of lung donors. Compared to donors with all kidneys procured, those with none procured were older and more likely obese, black, hypertensive, diabetic, hepatitis C positive, smokers, Public Health Service - Increased Risk designated, deceased after cardiac death, or deceased after cerebrovascular accident. Although these donors had lower quality kidneys (median Kidney Donor Risk Index (interquartile range) 1.9 (1.0) vs 1.2 (0.7)), there was substantial overlap in quality between nonprocured and procured kidneys. Nearly one third of nonprocurements were attributed to donor history. Donors with elevated terminal creatinine likely resulting from acute kidney injury (AKI) had higher odds of kidney nonprocurement. Nonprocurement odds varied widely across Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network regions, with a positive correlation between donor kidney nonprocurements and kidney discards at the donation service area level. These findings suggest current discard rates underestimate the underutilization of deceased donor kidneys and more research is needed to optimize safe procurement and utilization of kidneys from donors with AKI.

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

BACKGROUND

Geographic 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.

METHODS

To 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.

RESULTS

Candidates 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).

CONCLUSIONS

Large 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.

Deceased vs. living donor kidney transplantation in prediction of acute renal allograft rejection using Tc-99m DTPA renal scan

OBJECTIVES

No data are available regarding different prognostic values of Tc-99m diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) renal scan in kidney transplantation (KT) recipients according to two distinct donor types: deceased donor KT (DDKT) and living donor KT (LDKT). We evaluated whether the interpretation of Tc-99m DTPA renal scan should be different by the donor type in predicting acute renal allograft rejection (AR).

METHODS

One hundred and seven KT recipients (61 DDKT and 46 LDKT) were included in this study. Tc-99m DTPA renal scan was performed 1 week after KT. AR was defined as pathological evidence of renal allograft rejection during the first 6 months of KT. Clinical factors and Tc-99m DTPA renal scan findings were compared between patients with and without AR. To further analyze the effect of the donor type, they were again compared within DDKT and LDKT recipients, respectively.

RESULTS

AR occurred in 15 patients (7 DDKT and 8 LDKT recipients). Among all patients, time to peak uptake (TTP) of the cortex (TTP_CX) measured by Tc-99m DTPA renal scan was independently predictive of AR. Moreover, TTP_KD (TTP of the whole transplanted kidney) and TTP_CX were the only predictors of AR among DDKT recipients. The most accurate predictors were TTP_CX and kidney area on renal scan for DDKT and LDKT, respectively. However, these parameters could not predict AR for the opposite donor type.

CONCLUSIONS

AR could be effectively predicted by Tc-99m DTPA renal scan obtained at 1 week post-KT. Different parameters should be applied according to the donor type in the prediction of AR.

The Paradox of Increasing Waiting List Mortality and Declining Utilization of Deceased Donor Grafts in Kidney Transplant

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are a rare type of tumor with malignant potential, characterized by slowgrowth, frequent hepatic metastatic lesions that usually stay contained within the liver. In patients with unresectable liver metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, liver transplant is the only treatment available. Insulinomas are the most common pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and 5% to 10% of insulinomas are malignant. We herein report a case of a living-donor liver transplant with distal pancreatectomy for a patient with hepatic metastatic pancreatic insulinoma with a 13-year postoperative survival.

Functional status-based risk-benefit analyses of high-KDPI kidney transplant versus dialysis

Yearly, over half of deceased-donor kidneys with kidney donor profile index (KDPI) > 85 were discarded, yet they could improve survival outcomes for dialysis patients. The potential risk of high-KDPI kidney transplant (KT) depends on the patient's overall health summarized by functional status, which should be examined. The analyzed cohort consisted of adult deceased-donor KT candidates on dialysis listed in 2005-2014. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with functional status, measured using Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS), and transplant status as time-varying covariates. Derived from the Cox model, survival curves were analyzed to compare the survival outcomes between dialysis and transplant with different kidney qualities across three different KPS strata: 10-40, 50-70, and 80-100. With KDPI 0-99 KT, KPS 10-40 patients will survive ≥4.38 years median compared with 3.21 years median if they remained on dialysis. For KPS 50+ patients, the median survival years increase from 5.82 to 6.60 years on dialysis to ≥7.83 years after KDPI < 100 KT. The risk-adjusted analyses suggested that patients are expected to benefit more from KDPI 81-99 KT than from remaining on dialysis.

Evaluation of Accepting Kidneys of Varying Quality for Transplantation or Expedited Placement With Decision Trees

BACKGROUND

Underutilization of marginal-quality kidneys for transplantation produced ideas of expediting kidney placement for populations with decreased opportunities of receiving transplants. Such policies can be less efficacious for specific individuals and should be scrutinized until the decision-making for accepting marginal-quality organs, which has relied on experiential judgment, is better understood at the individual level. There exist rigorous tools promoting personalized decisions with useful and objective information.

METHODS

This article introduces a decision-tree methodology that analyzes a patient's dilemma: to accept a kidney offer now or reject it. The methodology calculates the survival benefit of accepting a kidney given a certain quality now and the survival benefit of rejecting it. Survival benefit calculation accounts for patients' and donors' characteristics and transplant centers' and organ procurement organizations' performances and incorporates patients' perceived transplant and dialysis utilities. Valuations of rejecting an offer are contingent on future opportunities and subject to uncertainty in the timing of successive kidney offers and their quality and donor characteristics.

RESULTS

The decision tree was applied to a realistic patient profile as a demonstration. The tool was tested on 1000 deceased-donor kidney offers in 2016. Evaluating up to 1 year of future offers, the tool attains 61% accuracy, with transplant utility of 1.0 and dialysis utility of 0.5. The accuracy reveals potential bias in kidney offer acceptance/rejection at transplant centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision-tree tool presented could aid personalized transplant decision-making in the future by providing patients with calculated, individualized survival benefits between accepting and rejecting a kidney offer.

A Donor Utilization Index to Assess the Utilization and Discard of Deceased Donor Kidneys Perceived as High Risk

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of patients on the waitlist for a kidney transplant indicates a need to effectively utilize as many deceased donor kidneys as possible while ensuring acceptable outcomes. Assessing regional and center-level organ utilization with regards to discard can reveal regional variation in suboptimal deceased donor kidney acceptance patterns stemming from perceptions of risk.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We created a weighted donor utilization index from a logistic regression model using high-risk donor characteristics and discard rates from 113,640 deceased donor kidneys procured for transplant from 2010 to 2016, and used it to examine deceased donor kidney utilization in 182 adult transplant centers with >15 annual deceased donor kidney transplants. Linear regression and correlation were used to analyze differences in donor utilization indexes.

RESULTS

The donor utilization index was found to significantly vary by Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network region (P<0.001), revealing geographic trends in kidney utilization. When investigating reasons for this disparity, there was no significant correlation between center volume and donor utilization index, but the percentage of deceased donor kidneys imported from other regions was significantly associated with donor utilization for all centers (rho=0.39; P<0.001). This correlation was found to be particularly strong for region 4 (rho=0.83; P=0.001) and region 9 (rho=0.82; P=0.001). Additionally, 25th percentile time to transplant was weakly associated with the donor utilization index (R ²=0.15; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

There is marked center-level variation in the use of deceased donor kidneys with less desirable characteristics both within and between regions. Broader utilization was significantly associated with shorter time to transplantation.

Association Between Declined Offers of Deceased Donor Kidney Allograft and Outcomes in Kidney Transplant Candidates

IMPORTANCE

In the United States, substantial disparities in access to kidney transplant exist for wait-listed candidates with end-stage renal disease. The implications of transplant centers' willingness to accept kidney offers for access to transplant and mortality outcomes are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the outcomes for wait-listed kidney transplant candidates after the transplant center's refusal of a deceased donor kidney offer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study obtained data from the United Network for Organ Sharing Potential Transplant Recipient data set on all deceased donor kidney offers in the United States made between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015. The final study cohort included adult patients who were wait-listed for kidney transplant and received at least 1 allograft offer during the study period (N = 280 041). Data analysis was conducted from June 1, 2018, to March 30, 2019.

EXPOSURE

Candidate state of residence.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Waiting list outcome event groups included received deceased donor allograft, received living donor allograft, died while on the waiting list, removed from the waiting list without a transplant, or still on the waiting list at the end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Among the 280 041 kidney transplant candidates included in the study, the mean (SD) age at wait-listing was 51.1 (13.1) years, and male patients were predominant (171 517 [61.2%]). In this cohort, 81 750 candidates (29.2%) received a deceased donor kidney allograft, 30 870 (11.0%) received a living donor allograft, 25 967 (9.3%) died while on the waiting list, and 59 359 (21.2%) were removed from the waiting list. Overall, 10 candidates with at least 1 previous allograft offer died each day during the study period. Time to first offer was similar for candidates who received deceased donor kidney allograft compared with those who died while waiting (median [interquartile range {IQR}] time, 79 [16-426] days vs 78 [17-401] days, respectively). Deceased donor allograft recipients had a median of 17 offers (IQR, 6-44) over 422 days (IQR, 106-909 days), whereas candidates who died while waiting received a median of 16 offers (IQR, 6-41) over 651 days (IQR, 304-1117 days). Most kidneys (84%) were declined on behalf of at least 1 candidate before being accepted for transplant. As reported by centers, organ or donor quality concerns accounted for 8 416 474 (92.6%) of all declined offers, whereas offers were infrequently refused because of patient-related factors (232 193 [2.6%]), logistical limitations (49 492 [0.5%]), or other concerns. The odds of death after an offer and the median number of offers received prior to death varied considerably by state.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that transplant candidates appeared to receive a large number of viable deceased donor kidney offers that were refused on their behalf by transplant centers, potentially exacerbating the detrimental consequences of the organ shortage; increased transparency in organ allocation process and decisions may improve patient-centered care and access to kidney transplant.

Donor Lung Sequence Number and Survival after Lung Transplantation in the United States

RATIONALE

In the United States, an algorithm known as the "match-run" creates an ordered ranking of potential recipients for available lung allografts. A potential recipient's match-run position, or "sequence number," is available to the transplant center when contacted with a lung offer. Lung offers with higher sequence numbers may be interpreted as a crowd-sourced evaluation of poor organ quality, though the association between the sequence number at which a lung is accepted and its recipient's post-transplant outcomes is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the primary reasons provided when a lung offer was refused by a transplant center, transplant center and donor/organ factors associated with a higher sequence number at acceptance, and the association of the sequence number at acceptance with post-transplant mortality and graft failure.

METHODS

Match-run outcomes for lung offers that occurred in the United States from May 2007 through June 2014 were merged with recipient follow-up data through December 2017. Associations between the sequence number at the time of acceptance and selected transplant center and donor characteristics were estimated using multivariable logistic and multinomial regression models. The associations between the final sequence number and recipient survival and graft survival were estimated using multivariable time-to-event models.

RESULTS

Of 10,981 lung offer acceptances, nearly 70% were accepted by one of the top 10 ranked candidates. Higher median annual center volume and potential indicators of organ quality (e.g., abnormal chest radiograph or bronchoscopy) were associated with a higher sequence number at acceptance. There was weak evidence for a small positive relationship between the sequence number at acceptance and both mortality and graft failure. For example, the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios for death associated with the log-sequence number at acceptance were 1.019 (95% confidence interval, 1.001-1.038) and 1.011 (95% confidence interval, 0.989-1.033), respectively. On the absolute scale, using the multivariable model, a 10-fold increase in the sequence number translated into a 0.8% absolute decline in the predicted 5-year survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance of a donor lung offer at a later point in the match-run was associated with measurable indicators of organ quality, but not with clinically meaningful differences in post-transplant mortality or graft failure.

Who can tolerate a marginal kidney? Predicting survival after deceased donor kidney transplant by donor-recipient combination

The impact of donor quality on post-kidney transplant (KT) survival may vary by candidate condition. Characterizing this variation would increase access to KT without sacrificing outcomes. We developed a tool to estimate post-KT survival for combinations of donor quality and candidate condition. We studied deceased donor KT recipients (n = 120 818) and waitlisted candidates (n = 376 272) between 2005 and 2016 by using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Donor quality and candidate condition were measured by using the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) and the Estimated Post Transplant Survival (EPTS) score. We estimated 5-year post-KT survival based on combinations of KDPI and EPTS score using random forest algorithms and waitlist survival by EPTS score using Weibull regressions. Survival benefit was defined as absolute reduction in mortality risk with KT. For candidates with an EPTS score of 80, 5-year waitlist survival was 47.6%, and 5-year post-KT survival was 78.9% after receiving kidneys with a KDPI of 20 and was 70.7% after receiving kidneys with a KDPI of 80. The impact of KDPI on survival benefit varied greatly by EPTS score. For candidates with low EPTS scores (eg, <40), the KDPI had limited impact on survival benefit. For candidates with middle or high EPTS scores (eg, >40), survival benefit decreased with higher KDPI but was still substantial even with a KDPI of 100 (>16 percentage points). Our prediction tool (www.transplantmodels.com/kdpi-epts) can support individualized decision-making on kidney offers in clinical practice.

A new approach to kidney wait-list management in the kidney allocation system era: Pilot implementation and evaluation

Kidney transplant wait-list management is becoming increasingly complex. We introduced a novel wait-list management strategy at our center, the Transplant Readiness Assessment Clinic (TRAC), whereby patients whose Kidney Allocation Scores surpass a threshold are actively managed. From January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, we evaluated 195 patients through TRAC. Compared to pre-TRAC systems at our institution, TRAC resulted in a higher proportion of activation at 18 months (38% vs 22%-26%, P < 0.0001), despite being enriched in patients with long dialysis duration. TRAC also resulted in a higher proportion of wait-list removal (15% vs 8%-9%, P < 0.05) although combined wait-list removal and death on wait-list did not differ (18% vs 16%-17%). Median time to activation was 356 days from TRAC evaluation. Of the transplant barriers, need for cardiovascular studies was the most common (31%), followed by other medical issues (23%), poor functional status (13%), and psychosocial issues (10%). By concentrating center resources on patients most likely to be transplanted after activation and performing active patient management close to the time of transplant, TRAC has the potential to significantly enhance kidney transplant success in regions with long wait-times.