Giuseppe Cullaro1, Elizabeth C Verna2, Jean C Emond3, Babak J Orandi4, Sumit Mohan5, Jennifer C Lai1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 2. Center for Liver Disease and Transplantation, Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons, New York, NY. 4. Department of Surgery, Division of Transplantation, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons and Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the implementation of the "Safety Net," we aimed to determine the impact of simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLKT), as compared to kidney transplant after liver transplant (KALT), on kidney allograft failure (KF). METHODS: An analysis of the UNOS database for all adult patients who received either an SLKT or KALT from 2002 to 2017. The outcomes were 90-day KF and 1-year KF (as reported to UNOS, at 90- and 365-day postkidney transplant, respectively). We compared the following groups of patients: SLKT <25 (SLKT with final model for end-stage liver disease [MELD] <25), SLKT25/35 (MELD ≥25/<35), and SLKT35 (MELD ≥35) to KALT. RESULTS: Of the 6276 patients, there were 1481 KALT, 1579 SLKT <25, 1832 SLKT25/35, and 1384 SLKT ≥35. The proportion of patients with 90-day and 1-year KF increased significantly among the KALT, SLKT <25, SLKT25/35, and SLKT ≥35 groups (P < 0.001; test for trend): 90-day KF: 3.3% versus 5.5% versus 7.3% versus 9.3% and 1-year KF: 5.1% versus 9.4% versus 12.3% versus 14.7%. After adjustment and compared with KALT, beginning at an MELD ≥25 those undergoing SLKT had significantly higher risk of 90-day and 1-year KF: 90-day KF: SLKT25/35: hazard ratio, 1.6(1.0-2.3); SLKT ≥35: 2.1(1.3-3.3); 1-year KF: SLKT25/35: hazard ratio, 1.7(1.2-2.4); SLKT ≥35: 2.1(1.5-3.0). CONCLUSIONS: As compared to KALT recipients, SLKT recipients with an MELD ≥25 had significantly higher risk of early KF. Given the now well-established "Safety Net," KALT may serve as an opportunity to improve kidney outcomes in patients with an MELD ≥25.
BACKGROUND: With the implementation of the "Safety Net," we aimed to determine the impact of simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLKT), as compared to kidney transplant after liver transplant (KALT), on kidney allograft failure (KF). METHODS: An analysis of the UNOS database for all adult patients who received either an SLKT or KALT from 2002 to 2017. The outcomes were 90-day KF and 1-year KF (as reported to UNOS, at 90- and 365-day postkidney transplant, respectively). We compared the following groups of patients: SLKT <25 (SLKT with final model for end-stage liver disease [MELD] <25), SLKT25/35 (MELD ≥25/<35), and SLKT35 (MELD ≥35) to KALT. RESULTS: Of the 6276 patients, there were 1481 KALT, 1579 SLKT <25, 1832 SLKT25/35, and 1384 SLKT ≥35. The proportion of patients with 90-day and 1-year KF increased significantly among the KALT, SLKT <25, SLKT25/35, and SLKT ≥35 groups (P < 0.001; test for trend): 90-day KF: 3.3% versus 5.5% versus 7.3% versus 9.3% and 1-year KF: 5.1% versus 9.4% versus 12.3% versus 14.7%. After adjustment and compared with KALT, beginning at an MELD ≥25 those undergoing SLKT had significantly higher risk of 90-day and 1-year KF: 90-day KF: SLKT25/35: hazard ratio, 1.6(1.0-2.3); SLKT ≥35: 2.1(1.3-3.3); 1-year KF: SLKT25/35: hazard ratio, 1.7(1.2-2.4); SLKT ≥35: 2.1(1.5-3.0). CONCLUSIONS: As compared to KALT recipients, SLKT recipients with an MELD ≥25 had significantly higher risk of early KF. Given the now well-established "Safety Net," KALT may serve as an opportunity to improve kidney outcomes in patients with an MELD ≥25.
Authors: W R Kim; J R Lake; J M Smith; D P Schladt; M A Skeans; A M Harper; J L Wainright; J J Snyder; A K Israni; B L Kasiske Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: M K Nadim; R S Sung; C L Davis; K A Andreoni; S W Biggins; G M Danovitch; S Feng; J J Friedewald; J C Hong; J A Kellum; W R Kim; J R Lake; L B Melton; E A Pomfret; S Saab; Y S Genyk Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2012-07-23 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Keri E Lunsford; Adam S Bodzin; Daniela Markovic; Ali Zarrinpar; Fady M Kaldas; Hans Albin Gritsch; Victor Xia; Douglas G Farmer; Gabriel M Danovitch; Jonathan R Hiatt; Ronald W Busuttil; Vatche G Agopian Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Alina M Allen; W Ray Kim; Terry M Therneau; Joseph J Larson; Julie K Heimbach; Andrew D Rule Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2014-04-05 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: J Levitsky; T Baker; S N Ahya; M L Levin; J Friedewald; L Gallon; B Ho; A Skaro; J Krupp; E Wang; S M Spies; D R Salomon; M M Abecassis Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Burcin Ekser; Richard S Mangus; W Fridell; Chandrashekhar A Kubal; Shunji Nagai; Sandra B Kinsella; Demetria R Bayt; Teresa M Bell; John A Powelson; William C Goggins; A Joseph Tector Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: S Feng; N P Goodrich; J L Bragg-Gresham; D M Dykstra; J D Punch; M A DebRoy; S M Greenstein; R M Merion Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Jayme E Locke; Daniel S Warren; Andrew L Singer; Dorry L Segev; Christopher E Simpkins; Warren R Maley; Robert A Montgomery; Gabriel Danovitch; Andrew M Cameron Journal: Transplantation Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 4.939