BACKGROUND
A report from a high-volume single center indicated a survival benefit of receiving a kidney transplant from an HLA-incompatible live donor as compared with remaining on the waiting list, whether or not a kidney from a deceased donor was received. The generalizability of that finding is unclear.
METHODS
In a 22-center study, we estimated the survival benefit for 1025 recipients of kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors who were matched with controls who remained on the waiting list or received a transplant from a deceased donor (waiting-list-or-transplant control group) and controls who remained on the waiting list but did not receive a transplant (waiting-list-only control group). We analyzed the data with and without patients from the highest-volume center in the study.
RESULTS
Recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors had a higher survival rate than either control group at 1 year (95.0%, vs. 94.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 89.6% for the waiting-list-only control group), 3 years (91.7% vs. 83.6% and 72.7%, respectively), 5 years (86.0% vs. 74.4% and 59.2%), and 8 years (76.5% vs. 62.9% and 43.9%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons with the two control groups). The survival benefit was significant at 8 years across all levels of donor-specific antibody: 89.2% for recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors who had a positive Luminex assay for anti-HLA antibody but a negative flow-cytometric cross-match versus 65.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 47.1% for the waiting-list-only control group; 76.3% for recipients with a positive flow-cytometric cross-match but a negative cytotoxic cross-match versus 63.3% and 43.0% in the two control groups, respectively; and 71.0% for recipients with a positive cytotoxic cross-match versus 61.5% and 43.7%, respectively. The findings did not change when patients from the highest-volume center were excluded.
CONCLUSIONS
This multicenter study validated single-center evidence that patients who received kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors had a substantial survival benefit as compared with patients who did not undergo transplantation and those who waited for transplants from deceased donors. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.)
Incompatible live donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) offers a survival advantage over dialysis to patients with anti‐HLA donor‐specific antibody (DSA). Program‐specific reports (PSRs) fail to account for ILDKT, placing this practice at regulatory risk. We collected DSA data, categorized as positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch (PLNF) (n = 185), positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch (PFNC) (n = 536) or positive cytotoxic crossmatch (PCC) (n = 304), from 22 centers. We tested associations between DSA, graft loss and mortality after adjusting for PSR model factors, using 9669 compatible patients as a comparison. PLNF patients had similar graft loss; however, PFNC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15–2.23, p = 0.007) and PCC (aHR = 5.01, 95% CI: 3.71–6.77, p < 0.001) were associated with increased graft loss in the first year. PLNF patients had similar mortality; however, PFNC (aHR = 2.04; 95% CI: 1.28–3.26; p = 0.003) and PCC (aHR = 4.59; 95% CI: 2.98–7.07; p < 0.001) were associated with increased mortality. We simulated Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services flagging to examine ILDKT's effect on the risk of being flagged. Compared to equal‐quality centers performing no ILDKT, centers performing 5%, 10% or 20% PFNC had a 1.19‐, 1.33‐ and 1.73‐fold higher odds of being flagged. Centers performing 5%, 10% or 20% PCC had a 2.22‐, 4.09‐ and 10.72‐fold higher odds. Failure to account for ILDKT's increased risk places centers providing this life‐saving treatment in jeopardy of regulatory intervention.
Bridging LRT in HCC patients within MC does not improve post-LT survival or HCC recurrence in the majority of patients who fail to achieve cPR. The need for increasing LRT treatments and lack of alphafetoprotein response to LRT independently predict post-LT recurrence, serving as a surrogate for underlying tumor biology which can be utilized for prioritization of HCC LT candidates.
| INTRODUC TI ONThe demand for liver transplantation continues to outpace the supply of donor organs in the United States. 1 In the context of this organ shortage, it is essential to make the best use of all transplantable organs. Previously, donor livers infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) typically have been either discarded or used in patients already infected with HCV. 2-4 Donor livers infected with HCV are still not widely accepted for non-viremic recipients, due to concerns regarding HCV transmission, the natural history of untreated HCV infection after liver transplantation, and limited evidence in this specific population. 5 Highly effective and well-tolerated direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies are now available for the treatment of HCV infection and can eliminate HCV in the allograft in greater than 95% of cases. 6In the setting of the ongoing organ shortage, the opioid epidemic, and the advent of DAA therapy, more HCV-infected donor organs are being utilized to expand the donor pool, and non-viremic patients are being given the option to accept these grafts in some centers, including ours. 4,7,8 The aim of our study was to summarize the posttransplant outcomes after donor-derived HCV infection in non-viremic liver transplant recipients at our institution.
Residents who are more likely to fail the ABS qualifying and certifying examinations can be identified by a low USMLE Step 1 score and by poor performance on the ABSITE at any time during residency. These findings support the use of the USMLE Step 1 score in the surgical residency selection process and a formal academic intervention for residents who perform poorly on the ABSITE.
A majority of categorical general surgery residents seriously consider leaving residency. Female residents are more likely to consider leaving. Thoughts of leaving seem to be associated with work conditions on specific rotations rather than with overall work hours and are more prevalent among programs with historically high attrition rates.
HIV-infected patients are increasingly referred for kidney transplantation, and may be at an increased risk for rejection. Treatment for rejection frequently includes thymoglobulin. We studied thymoglobulin's effect on CD4+ T-cell count, risk of infection and rejection reversal in 20 consecutive HIV-infected kidney recipients. All patients used antiretroviral therapy and opportunistic infection prophylaxis. Maintenance immunosuppression consisted of prednisone, mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporine. Eleven patients received thymoglobulin (7 for rejection and 4 for delayed/slow graft function) while 9 did not. These two groups were similar in age, gender, race, donor characteristics and immunosuppression. Mean CD4+ T-cell counts remained stable in patients who did not receive thymoglobulin, but became profoundly suppressed in those who did, decreasing from 475 ± 192 to 9 ± 10 cells/lL (p < 0.001). Recovery time ranged from 3 weeks to 2 years despite effective HIV suppression. Although opportunistic infections were successfully suppressed, low CD4+ T-cell count was associated with increased risk of serious infections requiring hospitalization. Rejection reversed in 6 of 7 patients receiving thymoglobulin. We conclude that thymoglobulin reverses acute rejection in HIV-infected kidney recipients, but produces profound and long-lasting suppression of the CD4+ T-cell count associated with increased risk of infections requiring hospitalization.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.