Early changes in liver distribution following implementation of Share 35

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

MELD 3.0 in Advanced Chronic Liver Disease

The MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) 3.0 score was developed to replace the MELD-Na score that is currently used to prioritize liver allocation for cirrhotic patients awaiting liver transplantation in the United States. The MELD 3.0 calculator includes new inputs from patient sex and serum albumin levels and has new weights for serum sodium, bilirubin, international normalized ratio, and creatinine levels. It is expected that use of MELD 3.0 scores will reduce overall waitlist mortality modestly and improve access for female liver transplant candidates. The utility of MELD 3.0 and PELDcre (pediatric end-stage liver disease, creatinine) scores for risk stratification in cirrhotic patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, and other interventions requires further study. This article reviews the background of the MELD score and the rationale to create MELD 3.0 as well as potential implications of using this newer risk stratification tool in clinical practice.

Impact of Share 35 liver transplantation allocation in Australia and New Zealand

Patients with high model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores waiting for liver transplantation in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) have had limited access to deceased donor livers and therefore binational sharing of livers, for patients with a MELD score ≥35 was introduced in February 2016. Waiting list mortality, post-transplant outcomes and intention-to-treat survival were compared between patients whose MELD score reached 35 on the waiting list between October 2013 and April 2015 (Pre-Share 35 group, n = 23) and patients who were Share 35 listed between February 2016 and May 2022 (Share 35 group, n = 112). There was significantly reduced waiting list mortality in share 35 listed patients in comparison to the pre-Share 35 group (11.7% vs. 52.2%, OR .120 95% CI .044-.328, P < .001). Post-transplant patient and graft survival were not significantly different between the groups (5-year patient survival 82% vs. 84%, P = .991, 5-year graft survival 82% vs. 76%, P = .543). Intention-to-treat survival was superior in the Share 35 group (HR .302, 95% CI .149-.614, P < .001). Introduction of Share 35 in ANZ resulted in a 78% risk reduction in waiting list mortality, equivalent post-transplant survival and an improvement in intention-to-treat survival.

Transplant Candidate Outcomes After Declining a DCD Liver in the United States

BACKGROUND

In the context of the organ shortage, donation after circulatory death (DCD) provides an opportunity to expand the donor pool. Although deceased-donor liver transplantation from DCD donors has expanded, DCD livers continue to be discarded at elevated rates; the use of DCD livers from older donors, or donors with comorbidities, is controversial.

METHODS

Using US registry data from 2009 to 2020, we identified 1564 candidates on whose behalf a DCD liver offer was accepted ("acceptors") and 16 981 candidates on whose behalf the same DCD offers were declined ("decliners"). We characterized outcomes of decliners using a competing risk framework and estimated the survival benefit (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) of accepting DCD livers using Cox regression.

RESULTS

Within 10 y of DCD offer decline, 50.9% of candidates died or were removed from the waitlist before transplantation with any type of allograft. DCD acceptors had lower mortality compared with decliners at 10 y postoffer (35.4% versus 48.9%, P < 0.001). After adjustment for candidate covariates, DCD offer acceptance was associated with a 46% reduction in mortality (0.54 [0.49-0.61]). Acceptors of older (age ≥50), obese (body mass index ≥30), hypertensive, nonlocal, diabetic, and increased risk DCD livers had 44% (0.56 [0.42-0.73]), 40% (0.60 [0.49-0.74]), 48% (0.52 [0.41-0.66]), 46% (0.54 [0.45-0.65]), 32% (0.68 [0.43-1.05]), and 45% (0.55 [0.42-0.72]) lower mortality risk compared with DCD decliners, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

DCD offer acceptance is associated with considerable long-term survival benefits for liver transplant candidates, even with older DCD donors or donors with comorbidities. Increased recovery and utilization of DCD livers should be encouraged.

Liver Transplantation: Protocol for Recipient Selection, Evaluation, and Assessment

Liver transplantation (LT) is the definitive therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease, acute liver failure, acute-on-chronic liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, and metabolic liver diseases. The acceptance of LT in Asia has been gradually increasing and so is the expertise to perform LT. Preparing a patient with cirrhosis for LT is the most important aspect of a successful LT. The preparation for LT begins with the first index decompensation for a patient with cirrhosis. Patients planned for LT should undergo a thorough screening for infections, and a complete cardiac, pulmonology, and psychosocial evaluation pre-LT. In this review, we discuss the indications and contraindications of LT and the evaluation and assessment of patients with liver disease planned for LT.

Association of Body Surface Area With Access to Deceased Donor Liver Transplant and Novel Allocation Policies

Importance

Small waitlist candidates are significantly less likely than larger candidates to receive a liver transplant.

Objective

To investigate the magnitude of the size disparity and test potential policy solutions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A decision analytical model was generated to match liver transplant donors to waitlist candidates based on predefined body surface area (BSA) ratio limits (donor BSA divided by recipient BSA). Participants included adult deceased liver transplant donors and waitlist candidates in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database from June 18, 2013, to March 20, 2020. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to September 2021.

Exposures

Candidates were categorized into 6 groups according to BSA from smallest (group 1) to largest (group 6). Waitlist outcomes were examined. A match run was created for each donor under the current acuity circle liver allocation policy, and the proportion of candidates eligible for a liver based on BSA ratio was calculated. Novel allocation models were then tested.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Time on the waitlist, assigned Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and proportion of patients undergoing a transplant were compared by BSA group. Modeling under the current allocation policies was used to determine baseline access to transplant by group. Simulation of novel allocation policies was performed to examine change in access.

Results

There were 41 341 donors (24 842 [60.1%] male and 16 499 [39.9%] female) and 84 201 waitlist candidates (53 724 [63.8%] male and 30 477 [36.2%] female) in the study. The median age of the donors was 42 years (IQR, 28-55) and waitlist candidates, 57 years (IQR, 50-63). Females were overrepresented in the 2 smallest BSA groups (7100 [84.0%] and 7922 [61.1%] in groups 1 and 2, respectively). For each increase in group number, waitlist time decreased (234 days [IQR, 48-700] for group 1 vs 179 days [IQR, 26-503] for group 6; P < .001) and the proportion of the group undergoing transplant likewise improved (3890 [46%] in group 1 vs 4932 [57%] in group 6; P < .001). The smallest 2 groups of candidates were disadvantaged under the current acuity circle allocation model, with 37% and 7.4% fewer livers allocated relative to their proportional representation on the waitlist. Allocation of the smallest 10% of donors (by BSA) to the smallest 15% of candidates overcame this disparity, as did performing split liver transplants.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, liver waitlist candidates with the smallest BSAs had a disadvantage due to size. Prioritizing allocation of smaller liver donors to smaller candidates may help overcome this disparity.

Perioperative mortality in liver transplantation before and after the implementation of the organ allocation policy Share 35

INTRODUCTION

In 2013, a new liver transplant allocation policy (Share 35) aimed to reduce waitlist-mortality was introduced in the United States. Regional organ sharing for recipients with a MELD score of ≥35 was prioritized over local allocation to those with lower MELD scores. Our aim was to assess the changes in perioperative mortality following the introduction of Share 35 as well as changes in patients' short-term 7-day survival, patients discharged alive and 1-year survival. Analyses were also carried out for the subgroups of patients with MELD scores ≥ and < 35.

METHODS

We used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and included liver transplants between March 2002 and December 2018 in this retrospective cohort study. Perioperative mortality was defined as death during and within two days of liver transplant. We used robust interrupted time series analyses to evaluate the impact of Share 35 on mortality.

RESULTS

We included 90 002 liver transplants in our analysis and observed a decreasing trend in perioperative mortality over time (-.061 deaths per 1000 cases per month, 95% CI -.084 to -.037, p < .001). Share 35 was not associated with a change in perioperative mortality (p = .33), short-term 7-day survival (p = .48), survival to discharge (p = .56), or 1-year survival (p = .27).

CONCLUSIONS

Prioritizing sicker recipients with a MELD score ≥35 for liver transplantation was not associated with a change in postoperative mortality.

Perceptions and Early Outcomes of the Acuity Circles Allocation Policy Among Liver Transplant Centers in the United States

Recently, a new liver allocation policy called the acuity circles (AC) framework was implemented to decrease geographic disparities in transplant metrics across donor service areas. Early analyses have examined the changes in outcomes because of the AC policy. However, perceptions among transplant surgeons and staff regarding the new policy remain unknown.

Methods

A 28-item survey was sent to division chiefs and surgical directors of liver transplantation across the United States. Questions assessed the respondents' perceptions regarding center-level metrics and staff satisfaction. We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data to study differences in allocation between the pre-AC implementation period (2019) and the post-AC implementation period (2020-2021).

Results

A total of 40 participants completed this ongoing survey study. Most responses were from region 8 (13%), region 10 (15%), and region 11 (13%). Sixty-three percent of respondents stated that the wait time for a suitable offer for recipients with model of end-stage liver disease score <30 has decreased, whereas 50% stated that wait time for a suitable offer for recipients with model of end-stage liver disease score >30 has increased. However, most respondents (75%) felt that the average cost per transplant had increased and that the rate of surgical complications and 1-y graft survival had remained the same. In most states, an observable decrease in in-state liver transplantations occurred each year between 2019 and 2021. In addition, most allocation regions reported an increase in donations after circulatory deaths between 2019 and 2021.

Conclusions

Perceptions of the new AC policy among liver transplant surgeons in the United States remain mixed, highlighting the potential strengths and concerns regarding its future impact. Further studies should assess the effects of the AC policy on clinical outcomes and liver transplantation access.

Center-level and region-level variations in liver transplantation practices following acuity circles policy change

Although early studies suggest the Acuity Circles (AC) allocation policy has increased access to deceased donor liver transplants (DDLTs) for patients with the highest MELD scores, changes in center- and region-level practices among patients with the highest MELD scores in response to AC are not well-characterized. OPTN/UNOS data were analyzed to compare center-level changes in the number of DDLTs based on allocation-MELD (aMELD) categories used for AC sharing performed in the 18-month periods before and after AC enactment on February 4, 2020. There was large center-level variation in the number and proportion of aMELD ≥ 37 DDLTs performed from pre-AC to AC period; 13 centers accounted for 196 of the 198 total net increase in aMELD ≥ 37 DDLTs performed after AC, 5 of these being from UNOS region 5. Similar center-level variation was seen for MELD 33-36 and MELD 29-32 DDLTs, with 17 centers and 14 centers, respectively, accounting for the entire net increase in DDLTs in the aMELD categories. In conclusion, AC increased access to livers for transplantation for high MELD patients nationally, but imbalances remain in transplant practice patterns at the center and regional levels. Longer-term study is necessary to assess effectiveness of AC in improving equitability of liver transplantations.

Are MELD and MELDNa Still Reliable Tools to Predict Mortality on the Liver Transplant Waiting List?

Liver transplantation is the only curative treatment for end-stage liver disease. Unfortunately, the scarcity of donor organs and the increasing pool of potential recipients limit access to this life-saving procedure. Allocation should account for medical and ethical factors, ensuring equal access to transplantation regardless of recipient's gender, race, religion, or income. Based on their short-term prognosis prediction, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and MELD sodium (MELDNa) have been widely used to prioritize patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation resulting in a significant decrease in waiting list mortality/removal. Recent concern has been raised regarding the prognostic accuracy of MELD and MELDNa due, in part, to changes in recipients' profile such as body mass index, comorbidities, and general condition, including nutritional status and cause of liver disease, among others. This review aims to provide a comprehensive view of the current state of MELD and MELDNa advantages and limitations and promising alternatives. Finally, it will explore future options to increase the donor pool and improve donor-recipient matching.

Development of a Novel Prognostic Nomogram for High Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score Recipients Following Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation

Background

A high model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (>30) adversely affects outcomes even if patients receive prompt liver transplantation (LT). Therefore, balanced allocation of donor grafts is indispensable to avoid random combinations of donor and recipient risk factors, which often lead to graft or recipient loss. Predictive models aimed at avoiding donor risk factors in high-MELD score recipients are urgently required to obtain satisfactory outcomes.

Method

Data of patients with MELD score >30 who underwent LT at three transplantation institutes between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Early allograft dysfunction (EAD), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and graft loss were recorded. Corresponding independent risk factors were analyzed using stepwise multivariable regression analysis. A prediction model of graft loss was developed, and discrimination and calibration were measured.

Results

After applying the exclusion criteria, 778 patients were enrolled. The incidence of EAD was 34.8% (271/778). Donor graft macrovesicular steatosis, graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR), warm ischemia time (WIT), cold ischemia time (CIT), and ABO blood incompatibility, together with donor serum albumins, were independent predictors of EAD. The incidence of ICU stay over 10 days was 64.7% (503/778). Donor age, recipient's MELD score, Child score, and CIT were independent predictors of ICU stay. The 3-year graft survival rates (GSRs) in the training and validation cohorts were 64.2 and 59.3%, respectively. The independent predictors of graft loss were recipient's Child score, ABO blood type incompatibility, donor serum total bilirubin over 17.1 μmol/L, and cold CIT. A nomogram based on these variables was internally and externally validated and showed good performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 70.8 and 66.0%, respectively). For a recipient with a high MELD score, the avoidance of ABO blood type incompatibility and CIT ≥6 h would achieve a 3-year GSR of up to 78.4%, whereas the presence of the aforementioned risk factors would decrease the GSR to 35.4%.

Conclusion

The long-term prognosis of recipients with MELD scores >30 could be greatly improved by avoiding ABO blood type incompatibility and CIT ≥6 h.

The Effect of Acuity Circles on Deceased Donor Transplant and Offer Rates Across Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Scores and Exception Statuses

Acuity circles (AC), the new liver allocation system, was implemented on February 4, 2020. Difference-in-differences analyses estimated the effect of AC on adjusted deceased donor transplant and offer rates across Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) categories and types of exception statuses. The offer rates were the number of first offers, top 5 offers, and top 10 offers on the match run per person-year. Each analysis adjusted for candidate characteristics and only used active candidate time on the waiting list. The before-AC period was February 4, 2019, to February 3, 2020, and the after-AC period was February 4, 2020, to February 3, 2021. Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 and PELD/MELD scores 33 to 36 had higher transplant rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 after AC compared with before AC (transplant rate ratios: PELD/MELD scores 29-32, _2.34 3.32_4.71 ; PELD/MELD scores 33-36, _1.70 2.51_3.71 ). Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 or higher had higher offer rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28, and candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 had the largest difference (offer rate ratios [ORR]: first offers, _2.77 3.95_5.63 ; top 5 offers, _3.90 4.39_4.95 ; top 10 offers, _4.85 5.30_5.80 ). Candidates with exceptions had lower offer rates than candidates without exceptions for offers in the top 5 (ORR: hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], _0.68 0.77_0.88 ; non-HCC, _0.73 0.81_0.89 ) and top 10 (ORR: HCC, _0.59 0.65_0.71 ; non-HCC, _0.69 0.75_0.81 ). Recipients with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 and an HCC exception received a larger proportion of donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors after AC than before AC, although the differences in the liver donor risk index were comparatively small. Thus, candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 34 and no exceptions had better access to transplant after AC, and donor quality did not notably change beyond the proportion of DCD donors.

Impact of the Share 35 Policy on Perioperative Management and Mortality in Liver Transplantation Recipients

Background

The Share 35 policy was introduced in 2013 by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) to increase opportunities of sicker patients to access liver transplantation. However, it has the disadvantage of higher MELD score associated with adverse postoperative transplant outcomes. Early data after implementation of the Share 35 policy showed significantly poorer post-transplantation survival in some UNOS regions. We aimed to analyze the impact of Share 35 on demographics of patients, perioperative management, and perioperative mortality.

Material/Methods

A retrospective analysis of data was performed from an institutional liver transplantation cohort from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017. Adult patients who underwent liver transplantation before 2013 were defined as the pre-Share 35 group and the other group was defined as the post-Share 35 group. The MELD score of each patient was calculated at the time of transplantation. Perioperative mortality was defined as death within 30 days after the operation.

Results

A total of 1596 patients underwent liver transplantation. Of those, 895 recipients underwent OLT in the pre-Share 35 era and 737 in the post-Share 35 era. The median MELD score was significantly higher in the post-Share 35 group (30 vs 26, P<0.001) and 45.7% of the post-Share 35 group had MELD scores ≥35. In intraoperative management, patients required significantly more blood component transfusion, intraoperative vasopressor, and fluid replacement. Veno-venous bypass (VVB) usage was significantly higher in the post-Share 35 era (47.2% vs 38.1%, P<0.001). In the subgroup of patients with MELD scores ≥35, the median waiting time was significantly shorter (18.5 vs 14.5 days, P=0.045). Overall perioperative mortality was not significantly difference between groups (P=0.435).

Conclusions

After implementation of the Share 35 policy, we performed liver transplantation in significantly higher medical acuity patients, which required more medical resources to obtain a result comparable to that of the pre-Share 35 era.

Evolution of liver transplant organ allocation policy: Current limitations and future directions

Since the adoption of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score for organ allocation in 2002, numerous changes to the system of liver allocation and distribution have been made with the goal of decreasing waitlist mortality and minimizing geographic variability in median MELD score at time of transplant without worsening post-transplant outcomes. These changes include the creation and adoption of the MELD-Na score for allocation, Regional Share 15, Regional Share for Status 1, Regional Share 35/National Share 15, and, most recently, the Acuity Circles Distribution Model. However, geographic differences in median MELD at time of transplant remain as well as limits to the MELD score for allocation, as etiology of liver disease and need for transplant changes. Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a subset of liver failure where prevalence is rising and has been shown to have an increased mortality rate and need for transplantation that is under-demonstrated by the MELD score. This underscores the limitations of the MELD score and raises the question of whether MELD is the most accurate, objective allocation system. Alternatives to the MELD score have been proposed and studied, however MELD score remains as the current system used for allocation. This review highlights policy changes since the adoption of the MELD score, addresses limitations of the MELD score, reviews proposed alternatives to MELD, and examines the specific implications of these changes and alternatives for ACLF.

A novel prognostic model to predict outcome of artificial liver support system treatment

The prognosis of Artificial liver support system (ALSS) for hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure (HBV-ACLF) is hard to be expected, which results in multiple operations of ALSS and excessive consumption of plasma, increase in clinical cost. A total of 375 HBV-ACLF patients receiving ALSS treatment were randomly divided a train set and an independent test set. Logistic regression analysis was conducted and a decision tree was built based on 3-month survival as outcome. The ratio of total bilirubin before and after the first time of ALSS treatment was the most significant prognostic factor, we named it RPTB. Further, a decision tree based on the multivariate logistic regression model using CTP score and the RPTB was built, dividing patients into 3 main groups such as favorable prognosis group, moderate prognosis group and poor prognosis group. A clearly-presented and easily-understood decision tree was built with a good predictive value of prognosis in HBV-related ACLF patients after first-time ALSS treatment. It will help maximal the therapeutic value of ALSS treatment and may play an important role in organ allocation for liver transplantation in the future.

A Stepwise Evaluation of Hepatitis B Virus-Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure to Optimize the Indication for Urgent Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure (HBV-ACLF) is a dynamic but reversible disease.

AIM

We aimed to clarify whether the change in Chinese Group on the Study of Severe Hepatitis B-ACLF (COSSH-ACLF) grade in HBV-ACLF patients can be used to predict prognosis, and to explore the appropriate conditions for performing urgent liver transplantation.

METHODS

We assessed the COSSH-ACLF grades of HBV-ACLF patients at different time points from June 2013 to May 2019 at Huashan Hospital in Shanghai, China, and analyzed the relationship between the change in grade and patient prognosis.

RESULTS

A total of 207 HBV-ACLF patients were enrolled, of which 79 underwent urgent liver transplantation. Their COSSH-ACLF grades were calculated at diagnosis, 3-7 days after diagnosis, and on the final day. Most of the final ACLF grades were consistent with their corresponding grades at days 3-7 after diagnosis (62.5%), while only 44.5% were in accordance with the initial grades at diagnosis. In patients who had a poor prognosis (initial ACLF-3 and ACLF-2 or -3 at days 3-7), the 28-day survival rate was 93.3% in those who underwent transplantation and 6.8% in those who did not (P < 0.0001). However, in patients who had a good prognosis (ACLF-0 or ACLF-1 at days 3-7), the 28-day survival rate was 100% in transplanted patients and 91.5% in non-transplanted patients (P = 0.236).

CONCLUSIONS

Reevaluation of the COSSH-ACLF grade 3-7 days after diagnosis could potentially show an indication for urgent liver transplantation.

Impact of Model for End-stage Liver Disease Score-based Allocation System in Korea: A Nationwide Study. Transplantation. 2019;103:2515-2522. [PMID: 30985735 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000002755]

BACKGROUND

In June 2016, the Korean Network for Organ Sharing implemented a Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score-based allocation system to better prioritize deceased-donor liver transplant (DDLT) candidates. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of this allocation system.

METHODS

We compared waiting list and posttransplant outcomes during the first year of operation of the MELD allocation system (from June 2016 to May 2017) with an equivalent period before its implementation (from June 2015 to May 2016).

RESULTS

A total of 3041 candidates were listed for DDLT (1464 pre-MELD, 1577 post-MELD era) and 892 patients received DDLT during the study period. A decrease in waiting list mortality and an increase in DDLT rate were observed after MELD implementation. However, the number of living donor liver transplants did not differ significantly pre- to post-MELD. As was expected, introduction of the MELD allocation system increased mean MELD scores at DDLT (24.1 ± 8.3 pre-MELD, 34.5 ± 7.0 post-MELD era, P < 0.001). Posttransplant patient survival rates at 1-year were 79.9% in pre-MELD era and 76.2% in post-MELD era (P = 0.184). The proportion of interregional organ transfer increased from 25.1% to 40.5%. Furthermore, transplant benefits increased with MELD scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The MELD system was found to address the goal of fairness well. Implementation of the MELD system improved equity in terms of access to DDLT regardless of regions. Although a greater proportion of more severely ill patients received DDLT after MELD implementation, posttransplant survivals remained unchanged.

Use of Hepatitis C Nucleic Acid Test-Positive Liver Allografts in Hepatitis C Virus Seronegative Recipients

Because of underutilization of liver allografts, our center previously showed that hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody-positive/nucleic acid test (NAT)-negative livers when transplanted into HCV nonviremic recipients were safe with a 10% risk of HCV transmission. Herein, we present our single-center prospective experience of using HCV NAT+ liver allografts transplanted into HCV NAT- recipients. An institutional review board-approved matched cohort study was conducted examining post- liver transplantation (LT) outcomes of HCV- patients who received HCV NAT+ organs (treatment group) compared with matched recipients with HCV NAT- organs (matched comparator group) between June 2018 to October 2019. The primary endpoint was success of HCV treatment and elimination of HCV infection. The secondary outcomes included the 30-day and 1-year graft and patient survival as well as perioperative complications. There were 32 recipients enrolled into each group. Because of 1 death in the index admission, 30/31 patients (97%) were given HCV treatment at a median starting time of 47 days (18-140 days) after LT. A total of 19 (63%) patients achieved sustained virological response at week 12 (SVR12). Another 6 patients achieved end-of-treatment response, while 5 remained on therapy and 1 is yet to start treatment. No HCV treatment failure has been noted. There were no differences in 30-day and 1-year graft and patient survival, length of hospital stay, biliary or vascular complications, or cytomegalovirus viremia between the 2 groups. In this interim analysis of a matched cohort study, which is the first and largest study to date, the patients who received the HCV NAT+ organs had similar outcomes regarding graft function, patient survival, and post-LT complications.

Geographic Disparity in Deceased Donor Liver Transplant Rates Following Share 35

BACKGROUND

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented Share 35 on June 18, 2013, to broaden deceased donor liver sharing within regional boundaries. We investigated whether increased sharing under Share 35 impacted geographic disparity in deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) across donation service areas (DSAs).

METHODS

Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients June 2009 to June 2017, we identified 86 083 adult liver transplant candidates and retrospectively estimated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)-adjusted DDLT rates using nested multilevel Poisson regression with random intercepts for DSA and transplant program. From the variance in DDLT rates across 49 DSAs and 102 programs, we derived the DSA-level median incidence rate ratio (MIRR) of DDLT rates. MIRR is a robust metric of heterogeneity across each hierarchical level; larger MIRR indicates greater disparity.

RESULTS

MIRR was 2.18 pre-Share 35 and 2.16 post-Share 35. Thus, 2 candidates with the same MELD in 2 different DSAs were expected to have a 2.2-fold difference in DDLT rate driven by geography alone. After accounting for program-level heterogeneity, MIRR was attenuated to 2.10 pre-Share 35 and 1.96 post-Share 35. For candidates with MELD 15-34, MIRR decreased from 2.51 pre- to 2.27 post-Share 35, and for candidates with MELD 35-40, MIRR increased from 1.46 pre- to 1.51 post-Share 35, independent of program-level heterogeneity in DDLT. DSA-level heterogeneity in DDLT rates was greater than program-level heterogeneity pre- and post-Share 35.

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic disparity substantially impacted DDLT rates before and after Share 35, independent of program-level heterogeneity and particularly for candidates with MELD 35-40. Despite broader sharing, geography remains a major determinant of access to DDLT.

Agree on much, except it is time for change

The imbalance between supply and demand of organs for transplant will not be fully solved by changes to the allocation system. Improved organ donation and utilization must be accomplished through critical reassessment of organ procurement organization (OPO) performance as a partnership between transplant centers, OPOs, and community hospitals. The continued discussion on changes to the organ distribution system should be based on patient-centeredness, enhanced transparency, improved models, and metrics. Focusing too heavily on geography without consideration for the other factors at play risks oversimplification of this complex issue.

Development of a Korean Liver Allocation System using Model for End Stage Liver Disease Scores: A Nationwide, Multicenter study

The previous Korean liver allocation system was based on Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores, but increasing numbers of deceased donors created a pressing need to develop an equitable, objective allocation system based on model for end-stage liver disease scores (MELD scores). A nationwide, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of candidates registered for liver transplantation from January 2009 to December 2011 was conducted at 11 transplant centers. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to stratify MELD score ranges according to waitlist survival. Of the 2702 patients that registered for liver transplantation, 2248 chronic liver disease patients were eligible. CART analysis indicated several MELD scores significantly predicted waitlist survival. The 90-day waitlist survival rates of patients with MELD scores of 31-40, 21-30, and ≤20 were 16.2%, 64.1%, and 95.9%, respectively (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the 14-day waitlist survival rates of severely ill patients (MELD 31-40, n = 240) with MELD scores of 31-37 (n = 140) and 38-40 (n = 100) were 64% and 43.4%, respectively (P = 0.001). Among patients with MELD > 20, presence of HCC did not affect waitlist survival (P = 0.405). Considering the lack of donor organs and geographic disparities in Korea, we proposed the use of a national broader sharing of liver for the sickest patients (MELD ≥ 38) to reduce waitlist mortality. HCC patients with MELD ≤ 20 need additional MELD points to allow them equitable access to transplantation. Based on these results, the Korean Network for Organ Sharing implemented the MELD allocation system in 2016.

Defining a Liver Transplant Benefit Threshold for the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium Score

OBJECTIVES

The benefits of transplant are shown as the difference in survival posttransplant versus that shown if the patient had remained on the wait list. Serum sodium was added to improve prediction. We sought to revisit the question of which Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium score threshold corresponded to a predicted benefit of liver transplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on adult patients (≥ 18 years old) were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry (date range of June 18, 2013 to December 2016). Exclusion criteria were individuals listed for multiple organs or liver retransplant, patients who eventually underwent living-donor liver transplant, and patients with MELD score < 12. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to determine a time-dependent covariate for undergoing transplant with either MELD or MELD-sodium scores to describe the variability in estimated transplant benefit within 6 months of listing.

RESULTS

Our study included 14 352 patients. There were 902 patients with MELD score of 39 to 40 (6.3%) and 931 patients with MELD-Na score of 39 to 40 (6.5%). Using the original MELD score, we found that 90% of the cohort could derive benefit from transplant compared with 83% when MELD-Na was used. We found that 13% of patients had a predicted transplant benefit when determined using either MELD or MELD-Na but not both. The threshold for transplant benefit was 16 and 17 using MELD and MELD-Na, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Transition to MELD-Na did not define a more precise range at which patients benefited from transplant, and a similar percentage of patients was expected to derive benefit. Future revisions of donor liver allocation may allow better discrimination of expected transplant benefits among candidates currently assigned a high priority for donor livers.

Liver Allocation Policies in the USA: Past, Present, and the Future

Identifying the optimal allocation policy with regard to hepatocellular carcinoma has been a persistent and evolving challenge. The current criteria for LT for HCC endorsed by the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) are based on the Milan Criteria: a solitary tumor < 5 cm, or maximum of three tumors ≤ 3 cm each, without vascular invasion or evidence of extrahepatic spread. Contraindications to HCC exception points include: stage 1 HCC, ruptured HCC, extrahepatic HCC, and main portal or hepatic vein HCC invasion. Based upon projected waitlist dropout rates due to tumor growth, patients with HCC are assigned MELD standardized exception points. In addition to tumor size and number, AFP levels are an important predictor of recurrence of HCC following liver transplantation. Standardized exception points for HCC patients are not awarded to patients with AFP levels > 1000 ng/mL that do not decrease to < 500 ng/mL with treatment. Appeals for MELD exception points for patients with HCC vary widely between UNOS regions, with success of nonstandardized exception point appeals varying from 3.1 to 21% between regions. In an effort to make prioritization for HCC more consistent, a national liver review board (NLRB)is being convened that will focus on developing a national guidance for assessing common requests and addressing exception points, including for HCC.

Impact of Regional Organ Sharing and Allocation in the UK Northern Liver Alliance on Waiting Time to Liver Transplantation and Waitlist Survival

BACKGROUND

In the United Kingdom, liver transplantation (LT) is undertaken in 7 supraregional centers. Until March 2018, liver grafts were offered to a center and allocated to a patient on their elective waiting list (WL) based on unit prioritization. Patients in Newcastle, Leeds, and Edinburgh with a United Kingdom Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (UKELD) score ≥62 were registered on a common WL and prioritized for deceased-donor liver allocation. This was known as the Northern Liver Alliance (NLA) "top-band scheme." Organs were shared between the 3 centers, with a "payback" scheme ensuring no patient in any center was disadvantaged. We investigated whether the NLA had improved WL survival and waiting time (WT) to transplantation.

METHODS

Data for this study were obtained from the UK Transplant Registry maintained by National Health Service Blood and Transplant. This study was based on adult patients registered for first elective liver transplant between April 2013 and December 2016. Non-NLA centers were controls. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate WL survival and median WT to transplant, with the log-rank test used to make comparisons; a Bonferroni correction was applied post hoc to determine pairwise differences.

RESULTS

WT was significantly lower at NLA centers compared with non-NLA centers for top-band patients (23 versus 99 days, P < 0.001). However, WL survival was not significantly different for top-band patients (P > 0.999) comparing NLA with non-NLA centers. WL survival for nontop-band patients was no different (P > 0.999) comparing NLA with non-NLA centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The NLA achieved its aim, providing earlier transplantation to patients with the greatest need. Nontop-band patients did not experience inferior survival.

Disparities in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma based on geographical region are decreasing

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Geographic differences have existed in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and efforts to reduce regional disparities have been initiated. The aim of this study is to use the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to determine if regional disparities in the treatment of HCC continue to exist.

METHOD

A retrospective database analysis using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample was performed that included patients with a primary diagnosis of HCC. Logistic regression models were utilized to determine geographic disparities in liver decompensation, treatment, inpatient mortality, and metastatic disease.

RESULTS

This study's locational reach of 62 604 patients included 22 769 patients from the South (36%), 14 554 in the Northeast (23%), 14 041 in the West (22%), and 11 240 in the Midwest (18%). Patients who received treatment in the West were more likely to have inpatient mortality (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03, 1.53) than patients who received treatment in the Midwest. No significant differences were observed between rates of resection, ablation, and transarterial chemoembolization when comparing by region. Rates of liver transplantation were lower in the West compared with the Midwest (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29, 0.87). There was no significant difference between other regions.

CONCLUSION

Geographic disparities in the treatment of HCC are improving.

The effect of Share 35 on biliary complications: An interrupted time series analysis

The purpose of the Share 35 allocation policy was to improve liver transplant waitlist mortality, targeting high MELD waitlisted patients. However, policy changes may also have unintended consequences that must be balanced with the primary desired outcome. We performed an interrupted time series assessing the impact of Share 35 on biliary complications in a select national liver transplant population using the Vizient CDB/RM database. Liver transplants that occurred between October 2012 and September 2015 were included. There was a significant change in the incident-rate of biliary complications between Pre-Share 35 (n = 3018) and Post-Share 35 (n = 9984) cohorts over time (P = .023, r²  = .44). As a control, a subanalysis was performed throughout the same time period in Region 9 transplant centers, where a broad sharing agreement had previously been implemented. In the subanalysis, there was no change in the incident-rate of biliary complications between the two time periods. Length of stay and mean direct cost demonstrated a change after implementation of Share 35, although they did not meet statistical difference. While the target of improved waitlist mortality is of utmost importance for the equitable allocation of organs, unintended consequences of policy changes should be studied for a full assessment of a policy's impact.

Liver Transplant Survival Index for Patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score ≥ 35: Modeling Risk and Adjusting Expectations in the Share 35 Era

BACKGROUND

The Share 35 policy for liver allocation prioritizes patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores ≥ 35 for regional sharing of liver allografts. To better assess donor-recipient interactions and inform expectations, this study identified factors affecting graft survival independent of MELD score and derived a risk index for transplantation in the MELD ≥ 35 population.

STUDY DESIGN

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) STAR database was evaluated for deceased donor liver transplants with recipients' MELD ≥ 35, between January 2006 and June 2016. Data were randomly split into test and validate cohorts. Four individual models of graft survival spanning 90 days to 5 years were evaluated with univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses against donor- and recipient-specific characteristics. Significant factors were compiled to generate the Liver Transplant Survival Index (LTSI-35), and survival analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Five risk groups (very low, low, moderate, high, and severe) were identified, with 1-year graft survival rates of 90.8% ± 0.2%, 89.3% ± 0.3%, 85.0% ± 0.3%, 79.8% ± 0.3%, and 70.3% ± 0.4% (p < 0.001 across groups), respectively. The greatest risk of graft loss was associated with donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors (1-year hazard ratio [HR] = 1.61 [95% CI 1.26 to 2.05], p = 0.001), recipients' requiring ventilator support (HR 1.32 [95% CI 1.17 to 1.51], p < 0.001), and recipient portal vein thrombosis (HR 1.21 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.42], p = 0.003). Subgroup analysis revealed increased risk of graft loss with graft macrosteatosis ≥ 30% on pre-donation biopsy at 90 days (HR 1.64 [1.33 to 1.99], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The LTSI-35 identifies risk factors for graft loss in a high-MELD population which, when combined, may portend worse outcomes. The LTSI-35 may be used to influence donor selection, organ allocation, and to inform expectations for allograft survival.

Effects of Allocating Livers for Transplantation Based on Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-Sodium Scores on Patient Outcomes

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The Model for End-stage Liver Disease and Sodium (MELD-Na) score was introduced for liver allocation in January 2016. We evaluated the effects of liver allocation, based on MELD-Na score, on waitlist and post-transplantation outcomes.

METHODS

We examined 2 patient groups from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry; the MELD-period group was composed of patients who were registered as transplant candidates from June 18, 2013 through January 10, 2016 (n = 18,850) and the MELD-Na period group was composed of patients who were registered from January 11, 2016 through September 30, 2017 (n = 14,512). We compared waitlist and post-transplantation outcomes and association with serum sodium concentrations between groups.

RESULTS

Mortality within 90 days on the liver waitlist decreased (hazard ratio [HR] 0.738, P < .001) and transplantation probability increased significantly (HR 1.217, P < .001) in the MELD-Na period. Although mild, moderate, and severe hyponatremia (130-134, 125-129, and <125 mmol/L) were independent risk factors for waitlist mortality in the MELD period (HR 1.354, 1.762, and 2.656; P < .001, P < .001, and P < .001, respectively) compared with the reference standard (135-145 mmol/L), these adverse outcomes were decreased in the MELD-Na period (HR 1.092, 1.271 and 1.374; P = .27, P = .018, and P = .037, respectively). The adjusted survival benefit of transplant recipients vs patients placed on the waitlist in the same score categories was definitive for patients with MELD-Na scores of 21-23 in the MELD-Na era (HR 0.336, P < .001) compared with MELD scores of 15-17 in the MELD era (HR 0.365, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver allocation based on MELD-Na score successfully improved waitlist outcomes and provided significant benefit to hyponatremic patients. Given the discrepancy in transplantation survival benefit, the current rules for liver allocation might require revision.

Effect of broader geographic sharing of donor lungs on lung transplant waitlist outcomes

BACKGROUND

The United States lung allocation system prioritizes allocation based on medical urgency and benefit but does not address a federal mandate for broader geographic organ sharing. It is unknown whether broader geographic sharing of donor lungs would improve lung transplant waitlist outcomes.

METHODS

A discrete event microsimulation model simulated donor lung allocation according to different geographic lung-sharing policies, including the historic local donor service area (DSA)-based policy and hypothetical policies that prioritize candidates to donors within 500-mile or 1,000-mile geographic radii. Candidate waitlist mortality, number of transplants, and 1-year survival were compared across organ allocation policies. Waitlist mortality rates were further stratified by diagnosis, Lung Allocation Score (LAS) threshold, ABO blood type, and region.

RESULTS

Under broader geographic lung sharing, the proportion of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease transplant recipients decreased, whereas the proportion of pulmonary fibrosis recipients increased. Waitlist mortality decreased with broader geographic lung sharing with a 21.3% decrease in waitlist mortality with 500-mile lung sharing and a 31.8% decrease in waitlist mortality with 1,000-mile lung sharing. The decrease in waitlist deaths occured across all U.S. geographic regions and was greatest in candidates with pulmonary fibrosis and/or high medical urgency.

CONCLUSIONS

Broader geographic sharing of donor lungs could reduce waitlist mortality, particularly among pulmonary fibrosis and high-medical-urgency candidates.

Patients From Appalachia Have Reduced Access to Liver Transplantation After Wait-Listing

BACKGROUND

The Appalachian region is medically underserved and characterized by high morbidity and mortality. We investigated disparities among patients listed for liver transplantation (LT) in wait-list outcomes, according to residence in the Appalachian region.

METHODS

Data on adult patients listed for LT were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing for July 2013 to December 2015. Wait-list outcomes were compared using cause-specific hazard models by region of residence (Appalachian vs non-Appalachian) among patients listed at centers serving Appalachia. Posttransplant patient and graft survival were also compared. The study included 1835 LT candidates from Appalachia and 5200 from non-Appalachian regions, of whom 1016 patients experienced wait-list mortality or were delisted; 3505 received liver transplants.

RESULTS

In multivariable analyses, patients from Appalachia were less likely to receive LT (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.93; P < .001), but Appalachian residence was not associated with wait-list mortality or delisting (HR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.89-1.18; P = .696). Among liver transplant recipients, patient and graft survival did not differ by Appalachian versus non-Appalachian residence.

CONCLUSION

Appalachian residence was associated with lower access to transplantation after listing for LT. This geographic disparity should be addressed in the current debate over reforming donor liver allocation and patient priority for LT.

Improved retransplant outcomes: early evidence of the share35 impact

BACKGROUND

Share 35 prioritizes offers of deceased donor livers to regional candidates with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥35 over local candidates with lower MELD scores. Analysis of Share35 has shown that overall 1- or 2-year post-transplant (LTx) outcomes have been unchanged while waitlist mortality has been reduced. However, these studies exclude retransplant (reLTx) recipients. This study aims to investigate the outcomes of liver retransplants in evaluating the impact of the Share35 policy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database over the period June 2011-June 2015 was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 19,748 LTx and 312 reLTx recipients were identified. Of the LTx recipients, 9626 (48.7%) underwent transplant pre-Share 35 and 10,122 (51.3%) post-Share 35. 123 (39.4%) reLTx recipients underwent retransplantation pre-Share 35 and 189 (60.6%) post-Share 35. ReLTx recipients experienced improved 2-year graft survival post-Share 35 compared to pre-Share 35 (67% vs. 21.1%). Patient survival also improved at 2-years for reLTx recipients post-Share 35 compared to pre-Share 35 (69.2% vs. 33.1%). Transplant post-Share 35 was protective for both 2-year graft (HR = 0.669, CI = 0.454-0.985, p = 0.04) and patient (HR = 0.659, CI = 0.44-0.987, p = 0.003) survival.

CONCLUSION

Share35 is associated with improved outcomes after retransplantation.

The Association Between Lung Recipient Travel Distance and Posttransplant Survival

Introduction:

Recipient travel distance may be an unrecognized burden in lung transplantation.

Design:

Retrospective single-center cohort study of all adult (≥18 years) first-time lung-only transplants from January 1, 2010, until February 28, 2017. Recipient distance to transplant center was calculated using the linear distance from the recipient’s home zip code to the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio.

Results:

569 recipients met inclusion criteria. Posttransplant graft survival was 85%, 88%, 91%, and 91% at 1 year and 49%, 52%, 57%, and 56% at 5 years posttransplant for recipient travel distances of ≤50, >50 to ≤250, >250 to ≤500, and >500 miles, respectively ( P = .10).

Discussion:

We found no significant relationship between recipient travel distance and posttransplant graft survival. In carefully selected recipients, travel distance is not a significant barrier to successful posttransplant outcomes which may be important for patient decision-making and donor allocation policy. These data should be validated in a national cohort.

Waitlist Outcomes in Liver Transplant Candidates with High MELD and Severe Hepatic Encephalopathy

BACKGROUND

Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and United Network for Organ Sharing (OPTN/UNOS) implemented the Share 35 policy in June 2013 to prioritize the sickest patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT). However, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score does not incorporate hepatic encephalopathy (HE), an independent predictor of waitlist mortality.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of severe HE (grade 3-4) on waitlist outcomes in MELD ≥ 30 patients.

METHODS

Using the OPTN/UNOS database, we evaluated LT waitlist registrants from 2005-2014. Demographics, comorbidities, and waitlist survival were compared between four cohorts: MELD 30-34 with severe HE, MELD 30-34 without severe HE, MELD ≥ 35 with severe HE, and MELD ≥ 35 without severe HE.

RESULTS

Among 10,003 waitlist registrants studied, 41.6% had MELD score 30-34 and 58.4% had MELD ≥ 35. Patients with severe HE had a higher 90-day waitlist mortality in both MELD 30-34 (severe HE 71.1% vs. no HE 56.6%; p < 0.001) and MELD ≥ 35 subgroups (severe HE 85% versus no HE 74.2%; p < 0.001). MELD 30-34 patients with severe HE had similar 90-day waitlist mortality as MELD ≥ 35 patients without severe HE (71.1 vs. 74.2%, respectively; p = 0.35). On multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling, MELD ≥ 30 patients had 58% greater risk of 90-day waitlist mortality than those without severe HE (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.53-1.62; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients awaiting LT with MELD score of 30-34 and severe HE should receive priority status for organ allocation with exception MELD ≥ 35.

New paradigms for organ allocation and distribution in liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The 'Final Rule,' issued by the Health Resources and Service Administration in 2000, mandated that liver allocation policy should be based on disease severity and probability of death, and - among other factors - should be independent of a candidate's residence or listing. As a result, the Organ Procurement Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has explored policy changes addressing geographic disparities without compromising outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Major paradigm shifts are underway in U.S. liver allocation policy. New hepatocellular carcinoma exception policy incorporates tumor characteristics associated with posttransplantation outcomes, whereas a National Liver Review Board will promote a standardized process for awarding exception points. Meanwhile, following extensive debate, new allocation policy aims to reduce geographic disparity by broadening sharing to the UNOS region and 150-mile circle around the donor hospital for liver transplant candidates with a calculated model for end-stage liver disease score at least 32. Unnecessary organ travel will be reduced by granting 3 'proximity points' to candidates within the same donation service area (DSA) as a liver donor or within 150 nautical miles of the donor hospital, regardless of DSA or UNOS region.

SUMMARY

This review provides an evaluation of major policy changes in liver allocation from 2016 to 2018.

Offer acceptance practices and geographic variability in allocation model for end-stage liver disease at transplant

Offer acceptance practices may cause geographic variability in allocation Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (aMELD) score at transplant and could magnify the effect of donor supply and demand on aMELD variability. To evaluate these issues, offer acceptance practices of liver transplant programs and donation service areas (DSAs) were estimated using offers of livers from donors recovered between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016. Offer acceptance practices were compared with liver yield, local placement of transplanted livers, donor supply and demand, and aMELD at transplant. Offer acceptance was associated with liver yield (odds ratio, 1.32; P < 0.001), local placement of transplanted livers (odds ratio, 1.34; P < 0.001), and aMELD at transplant (average aMELD difference, -1.62; P < 0.001). However, the ratio of donated livers to listed candidates in a DSA (ie, donor-to-candidate ratio) was associated with median aMELD at transplant (r = -0.45; P < 0.001), but not with offer acceptance (r = 0.09; P = 0.50). Additionally, the association between DSA-level donor-to-candidate ratios and aMELD at transplant did not change after adjustment for offer acceptance. The average squared difference in median aMELD at transplant across DSAs was 24.6; removing the effect of donor-to-candidate ratios reduced the average squared differences more than removing the effect of program-level offer acceptance (33% and 15% reduction, respectively). Offer acceptance practices and donor-to-candidate ratios independently contributed to geographic variability in aMELD at transplant. Thus, neither offer acceptance nor donor-to-candidate ratios can explain all of the geographic variability in aMELD at transplant. Liver Transplantation 24 478-487 2018 AASLD.

The Impact of Share 35 Policy on Patient Survival in Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation With Gender- and Race-Mismatched Donors: An Analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing Registry

INTRODUCTION

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) instituted the Share 35 policy in June 2013 in order to reduce death on liver transplant waitlist. The effect of this policy on patient survival among patients with gender- and race-mismatched donors has not been examined.

RESEARCH QUESTION

To assess the impact of Share 35 policy on posttransplantation patient survival among patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) transplanted with gender- and race-mismatched donors.

DESIGN

A total of 16 467 adult patients with ESLD who underwent liver transplantation between 2012 and 2015 were identified from UNOS. An overall Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for demographic, clinical, and geographic factors and separate models with a dummy variable of pre- and post-Share 35 periods as well as its interaction with other factors were performed to model the effect of gender and race mismatch on posttransplantation patient survival and to compare the patient survival differences between the first 18 months of Share 35 policy to an equivalent time period before.

RESULTS

Comparison of the pre- and post-Share 35 periods did not show significant changes in the numbers of gender- and race-mismatched transplants, or the risk of death for gender-mismatched recipients. However, black recipients with Hispanic donors (hazard ratio: 0.51, 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.90) had significantly increased patient survival after Share 35 policy took effect.

CONCLUSION

The Share 35 policy had a moderate impact on posttransplantation patient survival among recipients with racially mismatched donors according to the first 18-month experience. Future research is recommended to explore long-term transplantation.

Geographic variation in liver transplantation persists despite implementation of Share35

AIM

Geographic disparities persist in the USA despite locoregional organ sharing policies. The impact of national organ sharing policies on waiting-list mortality on a regional basis remains unknown.

METHODS

Data on all adult liver transplants between 1 February 2002 and 31 March 2015 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ and Transplantation Network. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed in a time-to-event analysis to estimate waiting-list mortality for the pre- and post-Share35 eras.

RESULTS

In the analyzed time period, 134 247 patients were listed for transplantation and 54 510 received organs (42.8%). Listing volume increased following the introduction of the Share35 organ sharing policy (15 976 candidates pre- vs. 18 375 post) without significant regional changes as did the number of transplants (7210 pre- vs. 8224 post). Waiting-list mortality improved from 12.2% to 8.1% (P < 0.001). Adjusted waiting-list mortality ratios remained geographically disparate. Region 10 and region 11 had lower hazard ratios (HR) but still had increased mortality (1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-1.60, P < 0.001; and HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.37-1.62, P < 0.001, respectively). Regions 3 and 6 had increased HR with persistently elevated waiting-list mortality (1.79, 95% CI 1.66-1.93, P < 0.001; and HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16-1.45, P < 0.001, respectively). Model for End-state Liver Disease (MELD) exception continued to propagate a survival benefit (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.63-0.68, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although overall waiting-list mortality has decreased, geographic disparities persist, but appear reduced despite broader sharing policies enacted by Share35. The advantage afforded by MELD exception, while still present, was diminished by Share35 as organs are being shifted to MELD >35 candidates. The disparities highlighted by our findings imply a need to review current allocation policies to best balance local, regional, and national transplant environments.

Improved posttransplant mortality after share 35 for liver transplantation

The Share 35 policy was implemented in June 2013 to improve equity in access to liver transplantation (LT) between patients with fulminant liver failure and those with cirrhosis and severe hepatic decompensation. The aim of this study was to assess post-LT outcomes after Share 35. Relevant donor, procurement, and recipient data were extracted from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database. All adult deceased donor LTs from January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2016, were included in the analysis. One-year patient survival before and after Share 35 was assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, with adjustment for variables known to affect graft survival. Of 34,975 adult LT recipients, 16,472 (47.1%) were transplanted after the implementation of Share 35, of whom 4,599 (27.9%) had a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score ≥35. One-year patient survival improved from 83.9% to 88.4% after Share 35 (P < 0.01) for patients with MELD ≥35. There was no significant impact on survival of patients with MELD <35 (P = 0.69). Quality of donor organs, as measured by a donor risk index without the regional share component, improved for patients with MELD ≥35 (P < 0.01) and worsened for patients with lower MELD (P < 0.01). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, Share 35 was associated with improved 1-year patient survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.80) in recipients with MELD ≥35.

CONCLUSION

Share 35 has had a positive impact on survival after transplantation in patients with MELD ≥35, without a reciprocal detriment in patients with lower acuity; this was in part a result of more favorable donor-recipient matching. (Hepatology 2018;67:273-281).

Successful introduction of Model for End-stage Liver Disease scoring in deceased donor liver transplantation in Korea: analysis of first 1 year experience at a high-volume transplantation center

Backgrounds/Aims

Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was adopted in June 2016 in Korea.

Methods

We analyzed changes in volumes and outcomes of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for 1 year before and after introduction of MELD scoring at Asan Medical Center.

Results

There were 64 cases of DDLT in 1 year before MELD introduction and 106 in 1 year after MELD introduction, an increase of 65%. The volume of DDLTs abruptly increased during first 3 months, but then returned to its usual level before MELD introduction, which indicated 3-month depletion of accumulated recipient pool with high MELD scores. The number of pediatric DDLT cases increased from 3 before MELD introduction to 11 after it, making up 21.4% and 47.8% of all cases of pediatric liver transplantation, respectively. The number of cases of retransplanted DDLTs increased from 4 to 27, representing 6.3% and 25.5% of all DDLT cases, respectively. The number of status 1 DDLT cases increased from 5 to 12, being 7.8% and 11.3% of all cases. Patient survival outcomes were similar before and after MELD introduction.

Conclusions

The number of DDLTs temporarily increased after adoption of MELD scoring due to accumulated recipient pool with high MELD scores. The numbers of retransplanted and pediatric DDLT cases significantly increased. Patient survival in adult and pediatric DDLT was comparable before and after adoption of MELD scoring. These results imply that Korean MELD score-based allocation system was successfully established within its first year.

Improvements in Outcomes for Ethnic Minorities During the Share 35 Era Are Not Due to Decreased Rates of Early Graft Loss

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to investigate the effects of the Share 35 policy on outcomes in ethnic minorities and recipients who experienced early graft failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed donor and recipient data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database before (June 6, 2011 to June 18, 2013) and after (June 18, 2013 to June 30, 2015) implementation of Share 35. Graft and patient survival outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in 1- and 2-year graft and patient survival rates between ethnicities pre-Share 35 (P = .03, P < .001, P = .01, P < .001, respectively). There were no significant differences in 1- and 2-year graft and patient survival between ethnicities post-Share 35 (P = .268, P = .09, P = .343, P = .087, respectively). There were no differences in early graft failure rates pre- and post-Share 35 at 7 days (2.1% vs 2.0; P = .71) and 30 days (4.0% vs 3.8%; P = .47) after transplant, with a decreased early graft failure rate shown at 90 days after transplant (6.8% vs 5.8%; P = .003). When analyzed separately, the low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (score of < 35) and the high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease recipients (score of ≥ 35) both exhibited reduced early graft failure rates post-Share 35 (6.1% vs 5.3% and 10.8% vs 7.8%, respectively; P < .05).

CONCLUIONS

Share 35 was associated with a short-term reduction in ethnic disparities. Most ethnic groups experienced improved survival in the Share 35 era. Share 35 was not associated with an increase in early graft failure and is an efficacious policy with regard to short-term outcomes.

Access to Liver Transplantation and Patient Survival among Asian Populations: Pre-Share 35 vs Post-Share 35

BACKGROUND

Studies addressing ethnic disparities and trends in liver transplantation for Asian population are scant. Objective: To examine the impact of Share 35 policy on Asian patients' access to liver transplantation and outcomes since its implementation in June 2013.

METHODS

A total of 11,910 adult white and Asian patients who were registered for deceased donor liver transplantation between 2012 and 2015, was identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Logistic regression and proportional hazard models with adjustment for demographic, clinical and geographic factors were used to model the access to liver transplantation and patient survival. Stratification on pre- and post-Share 35 periods was performed to compare the first 18 months of Share 35 policy to an equivalent period.

RESULTS

Comparison of the pre- and post-Share 35 periods showed a significant decrease in time on waiting list and higher proportions of patients receiving liver transplantation for Asian patients. Asians shared similar transplant rates as whites (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.80-1.67) but experienced significantly longer waiting time (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.92) before they received liver transplantation after Share 35 policy took effect. No significant post-transplantation survival difference was observed between Asians and whites at the 18-month outcome.

CONCLUSION

Although benefited from the Share 35 policy, Asian patients are still at greater risk of disparities in access to liver transplantation.