BACKGROUND: Primary non-function (PNF) and early allograft failure (EAF) after liver transplantation (LT) seriously affect patient outcomes. In clinical practice, effective prognostic tools for early identifying recipients at high risk of PNF and EAF were urgently needed. Recently, the Model for Early Allograft Function (MEAF), PNF score by King\'s College (King-PNF) and Balance-and-Risk-Lactate (BAR-Lac) score were developed to assess the risks of PNF and EAF. This study aimed to externally validate and compare the prognostic performance of these three scores for predicting PNF and EAF.
METHODS: A retrospective study included 720 patients with primary LT between January 2015 and December 2020. MEAF, King-PNF and BAR-Lac scores were compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and the net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analyses.
RESULTS: Of all 720 patients, 28 (3.9%) developed PNF and 67 (9.3%) developed EAF in 3 months. The overall early allograft dysfunction (EAD) rate was 39.0%. The 3-month patient mortality was 8.6% while 1-year graft-failure-free survival was 89.2%. The median MEAF, King-PNF and BAR-Lac scores were 5.0 (3.5-6.3), -2.1 (-2.6 to -1.2), and 5.0 (2.0-11.0), respectively. For predicting PNF, MEAF and King-PNF scores had excellent area under curves (AUCs) of 0.872 and 0.891, superior to BAR-Lac (AUC = 0.830). The NRI and IDI analyses confirmed that King-PNF score had the best performance in predicting PNF while MEAF served as a better predictor of EAD. The EAF risk curve and 1-year graft-failure-free survival curve showed that King-PNF was superior to MEAF and BAR-Lac scores for stratifying the risk of EAF.
CONCLUSIONS: MEAF, King-PNF and BAR-Lac were validated as practical and effective risk assessment tools of PNF. King-PNF score outperformed MEAF and BAR-Lac in predicting PNF and EAF within 6 months. BAR-Lac score had a huge advantage in the prediction for PNF without post-transplant variables. Proper use of these scores will help early identify PNF, standardize grading of EAF and reasonably select clinical endpoints in relative studies.

BACKGROUND: Machine perfusion (MP) was developed to expand the donor pool and improve liver transplantation (LT) outcomes. Despite optimal results in clinical trials, the real-world MP benefit in centers with low-/mid-volume activity (LVCs) is still being determined.
METHODS: Online survey on MP for LT, distributed to worldwide LT-centers representatives. Variables of interest included logistics, technicalities, and outcomes. Responders were grouped into high-volume centers (HVCs) (>60 LTs/year) and LVCs and results compared.
RESULTS: Sixty-seven centers were included, 36 HVCs and 31 LVCs. Significant differences in MP regarded: (I) existence of an established program (80.6% vs. 41.9%; p = 0.02), (II) presence of a dedicated perfusionist (58.3% vs. 22.6%; p = 0.006), (III) duration (>4 h: 47.2% vs. 16.1%; p = 0.01), (IV) routine use (20%-40% vs. 5%-20%; p = 0.002), (V) graft utilization (>50%: 75% vs. 51.6%; p = 0.009), (VI) 90-day patient-survival (90%-100% vs. 50%-90%; p = 0.001) and (VII) subjectively perceived benefit (always vs. only in selected ECD; p = 0.009). Concordance was found for indications, type, viability tests, graft-salvage, 90-day graft-loss, and major-complications.
CONCLUSIONS: This study captured a picture of MP in real-world LT-practice. Significant disparities have surfaced between LVCs and HVCs regarding logistics, utilization, and results. To close this gap, efforts should be made to more efficiently deliver dedicated support, training and mentoring to LVC teams adopting MP technology.

Renal transplantation improves quality of life and prolongs survival in patients with end-stage kidney disease, although challenges exist due to the paucity of suitable donor organs. This has been addressed by expanding the donor pool to include AKI kidneys. We aimed to establish whether transplanting such kidneys had a detrimental effect on graft outcome. The primary aim was to define early outcomes: delayed graft function (DGF) and primary non-function (PNF). The secondary aims were to define the relationship to acute rejection, allograft survival, eGFR and length of hospital stay (LOS). A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted on the studies reporting the above outcomes from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. This analysis included 30 studies. There is a higher risk of DGF in the AKI group (OR = 2.20, p < 0.00001). There is no difference in the risk for PNF (OR 0.99, p = 0.98), acute rejection (OR 1.29, p = 0.08), eGFR decline (p = 0.05) and prolonged LOS (p = 0.11). The odds of allograft survival are similar (OR 0.95, p = 0.54). Transplanting kidneys from donors with AKI can lead to satisfactory outcomes. This is an underutilised resource which can address organ demand.

We used the BSAi (Donor BSA/Recipient BSA) to assess whether transplanting a small or large kidney into a pediatric recipient relative to his/her size influences renal transplant outcomes.
We included 14 322 single-kidney transplants in pediatric recipients (0-17 years old) (01/2000-02/2020) from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. We divided cases into four BSAi groups (BSAi ≤ 1, 1 < BSAi ≤ 2, 2 < BSAi ≤ 3, BSAi > 3).
There were no differences concerning delayed graft function (DGF) or primary non-function (PNF) rates, whether the grafts were from living or brain-dead donors. In both transplants coming from living donors and brain-dead donors, cases with BSAi > 3 and cases with 2 < BSAi ≤ 3 had similar graft survival (p = .13 for transplants from living donors, p = .413 for transplants from brain-dead donors), and both groups had longer graft survival than cases with 1 < BSAi ≤ 2 and cases with BSAi ≤ 1 (p < .001). The difference in 10-year graft survival rates between cases with BSAi > 3 and cases with BSAi ≤ 1 reached around 25% in both donor types. The better graft survival in transplants with BSAi > 2 was confirmed in multivariable analysis.
There is no significant impact of donor-recipient size mismatch on DGF and PNF rates in pediatric renal transplants. However, graft survival is significantly improved when the donor\'s size is more than twice the pediatric recipient\'s size.

The frequency and outcomes of anhepatic patients listed for transplantation in the United States have not been studied. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) records anhepatic status for patients listed as Status 1A for hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) or primary non-function (PNF).
Using the UNOS database from 2005 to 2020, demographics and waitlist outcomes of anhepatic candidates relisted as Status 1A for HAT or PNF were assessed.
Among 1364 adult Status 1A patients relisted for PNF or HAT across 120 distinct transplant centres, 75 (5.5%) patients were anhepatic and 1289 (94.5%) were non-anhepatic. A substantial number of centres (n = 51) had experience with ≥1 anhepatic patient relisted for either PNF or HAT, with individual centre rates ranging from 0% to 11.4%. Waitlist mortality was more than twice as high for anhepatic patients: 42.5% versus 17.0% non-anhepatic patients (p < .001). The post-transplant outcomes of anhepatic patients were markedly inferior to non-anhepatic patients. For example, 41.9% of anhepatic patients died during the index admission versus 23.4% of the non-anhepatic group (p = .006). Patient survival for the anhepatic and non-anhepatic groups was 48.3% versus 66.2% at 1-year and 29.3% versus 46.2% at 5-years, respectively (log-rank test for overall survival p = .014).
Rescue hepatectomy after initial liver transplantation is not only associated with high waitlist mortality, but also markedly worse post-transplant outcomes. With less than half of anhepatic patients surviving to the first year post-LT, further research is warranted to better delineate which patients should be considered for rescue hepatectomy.

Introduction: Too small or too big liver grafts for recipient\'s size has detrimental effects on transplant outcomes. Research Questions: The purpose was to correlate donor-recipient body surface area ratio or body surface area index with recipient survival, graft survival, hepatic artery or portal vein, or vena cava thrombosis. High and low body surface area index cut-off points were determined. Design: There were 11,245 adult recipients of first deceased donor whole liver-only grafts performed in the UK from January 2000 until June 2020. The transplants were grouped according to the body surface area index and compared to complications, graft and recipient survival. Results: The body surface area index ranged from 0.491 to 1.691 with a median of 0.988. The body surface area index > 1.3 was associated with a higher rate of portal vein thrombosis within the first 3 months (5.5%). This risk was higher than size-matched transplants (OR: 2.878, 95% CI: 1.292-6.409, P = 0.01). Overall graft survival was worse in transplants with body surface area index ≤ 0.85 (HR: 1.254, 95% CI: 1.051-1.497, P = 0.012) or body surface area index > 1.4 (HR: 3.704, 95% CI: 2.029-6.762, P < 0.001) than those with intermediate values. The graft survival rates were reduced by 2% for cases with body surface area index ≤ 0.85 but were decreased by 20% for cases with body surface area index > 1.4. These findings were confirmed by bootstrap internal validation. No statistically significant differences were detected for hepatic artery thrombosis, occlusion of hepatic veins/inferior vena cava or recipient survival. Conclusions: Donor-recipient size mismatch affects the rates of portal vein thrombosis within the first 3 months and overall graft survival in deceased-donor liver transplants.

Donations from deceased donors have been increasing since the introduction of expanded criteria for donor kidney selection. Several studies have shown that patients receiving deceased donor kidneys using these expanded criteria have improved survival compared to those remaining on the waiting list during hemodialysis. It is important, however, to consider that some of the kidneys classed as usable under the expanded criteria may in fact be unacceptable. To address this concern, preoperative biopsy and imaging of deceased donor kidneys are increasingly being used to assess candidate kidneys. We present the case of a 44-year-old female patient who underwent deceased donor kidney transplantation with negative complement-dependent cytotoxicity and flow cytometry crossmatch. Hours after graft reperfusion, given clinical evidence of primary nonfunction in the kidney, the patient underwent nephrectomy. Despite negative tests for blood type difference and crossmatch, and although the main artery and vein were well perfused, the kidney graft was never functional, and pathologic findings showed thrombotic microangiopathy and diffuse acute tubular necrosis. We conclude that further work on ideal criteria for identifying acceptable donor kidneys is needed.

In adults, primary hyperoxaluria (PH) does not always present as obviously as in children, leading to delayed or even missed diagnosis. When diagnosed in adulthood, PH usually progresses at a slower rate and the focus is on the prevention of recurrent kidney stones as much as it is on the preservation of renal function. The most tragic presentation is when the diagnosis is made after primary non-function of a renal graft for treating previously unknown renal disease. Recurrent stones, nephrocalcinosis and features of systemic oxalosis can all be presenting features. For these reasons, consideration should be given to screening for this rare condition, using biochemical and/or genetic means, but being careful to exclude common differential diagnoses. Such efforts should be synchronized with diagnostic methods for other rare kidney diseases.

Optimal kidney graft outcomes after simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplant may be threatened by the increased cold ischemia time and hemodynamic perturbations of dual organ transplantation. Hypothermic machine perfusion (MP) of kidney allografts may mitigate these effects. We analyzed U.S. trends and renal outcomes of hypothermic non-oxygenated MP vs. static cold storage (CS) of kidney grafts from 6,689 SLK transplants performed between 2005 and 2020 using the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Outcomes included delayed graft function (DGF), primary non-function (PNF), and kidney graft survival (GS). Overall, 17.2% of kidney allografts were placed on MP. Kidney cold ischemia time was longer in the MP group (median 12.8 vs. 10.0 h; p < 0.001). Nationally, MP utilization in SLK increased from <3% in 2005 to >25% by 2019. Center preference was the primary determinant of whether a graft underwent MP vs. CS (intraclass correlation coefficient 65.0%). MP reduced DGF (adjusted OR 0.74; p = 0.008), but not PNF (p = 0.637). Improved GS with MP was only observed with Kidney Donor Profile Index <20% (HR 0.71; p = 0.030). Kidney MP has increased significantly in SLK in the U.S. in a heterogeneous manner and with variable short-term benefits. Additional studies are needed to determine the ideal utilization for MP in SLK.

BACKGROUND: Transplanting kidneys small for recipient\'s size results in inferior graft function. Body surface area (BSA) is related to kidney size. We used the BSA index (BSAi) (Donor BSA/Recipient BSA) to assess whether the renal graft size is sufficient for the recipient.
METHODS: We included 26,223 adult single kidney transplants (01/01/2007-31/12/2019) from the UK Transplant Registry. We divided renal transplants into groups: BSAi ≤ 0.75, 0.75 < BSA ≤ 1, 1 < BSAi ≤ 1.25, BSAi > 1.25. We compared delayed graft function rates, primary non-function rates and graft survival among them. (Reference category: BSAi ≤ 0.75).
RESULTS: Cases with BSAi ≤ 0.75 had the highest delayed graft function rates in living-donor renal transplants (11.1%) (0.75 < BSAi ≤ 1: OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.32-1.1, p = 0.095, 1 < BSAi ≤ 1.25: OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.23-0.89, p = 0.022, BSAi > 1.25: OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.13-0.77, p = 0.011) and in renal transplants from donors after brain death (26.2%) (0.75 < BSAi ≤ 1: OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55-0.96, p = 0.024, 1 < BSAi ≤ 1.25: OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.47-0.83, p = 0.001, BSAi > 1.25: OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.47-0.9, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in renal transplants from donors after circulatory death regarding delayed graft function rates (~ 40% in all groups). Graft survival was similar among BSAi groups in renal transplants from living donors and donors after brain death. Renal transplants from donors after circulatory death with BSAi ≤ 0.75 had the shortest graft survival (0.75 < BSAi ≤ 1: HR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.41-0.74, p < 0.001, 1 < BSAi ≤ 1.25: HR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.35-0.66, p < 0.001, BSAi > 1.25: HR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.31-0.66, p < 0.001). Ten-year graft survival rate was 58.4% for renal transplants from donors after circulatory death with BSAi ≤ 0.75.
CONCLUSIONS: Delayed graft function risk is higher in renal transplants with BSAi ≤ 0.75 coming from living donors and donors after brain death. Graft survival is greatly reduced in renal transplants from donors after circulatory death with BSAi ≤ 0.75.