American Society of Transplant Surgeons et al-2011

The American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, and the United Network for Organ Sharing (2011) issued a joint position statement recommending modifications to the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984. The joint recommendation stated that the potential pool of organs from HIV-infected donors should be explored. With modern antiretroviral therapy, the use of these previously banned organs would open an additional pool of donors to HIV-infected recipients. The increased pool of donors has the potential to shorten waiting times for organs and decrease the number of waiting list deaths. The organs from HIV-infected deceased donors would be used for transplant only with individuals already infected with HIV. In 2013, the HIV Organ Policy Equity Act permitting the use of this group of organ donors.

 

American Academy of Opthalmology-2018

The 2018 Preferred Practice Parameter on ocular edema and opacification by the American Academy of Ophthalmology did not provide specific recommendations on the keratoprosthesis, but discussed the technology and its current use:

“Significant improvements in the design and postoperative management of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis has resulted in a steady rise in the number of these procedures performed both in the United States and abroad. Reduced incidence of postoperative stromal necrosis and bacterial endophthalmitis due to the chronic use of protective soft contact lenses and topical antibiotics has resulted in improved retention and visual outcomes and has had a positive impact on surgeons’ perceptions of when to recommend keratoprosthesis. Once considered a procedure of last resort in patients with severe bilateral visual impairment, it is now being used for a variety of unilateral and bilateral indications, such as ocular trauma, herpetic keratitis, aniridia, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome. More recently, as corneal surgeons have gained a greater appreciation of the failure rate of repeat corneal transplantation, a role for a keratoprosthetic in cases of multiple graft failure has become clearer. Despite earlier suggestions, keratoprosthetics are not considered ideal for pediatric cases, particularly as primary treatment.…

“Patients with severe dry eye and autoimmune ocular surface diseases...remain a difficult management group despite the other successes of the Boston type 1 keratoprosthetic. Primary placement of the Boston keratoprosthesis in this group of patients results in a higher rate of epithelial defects, scleral and corneal necrosis, extrusion, and endophthalmitis. Some surgeons advocate ocular surface reconstruction with combined keratolimbal allografts or living related allografts prior to placement of the keratoprosthesis. This can potentially lead to improved outcomes in this group. The Boston type 2 keratoprosthetic designed to be used through the eyelid and the osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis have been implanted with some success in this group of patients.”

American Academy of Ophthalmology-2009

In 2009, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) published a position paper on endothelial keratoplasty, stating that the optical advantages, speed of visual rehabilitation, and lower risk of catastrophic wound failure have driven the adoption of endothelial keratoplasty as the standard of care for patients with endothelial failure and otherwise healthy corneas. The 2009 AAO position paper was based in large part on an AAO comprehensive review of the literature on Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. AAO concluded that “the evidence reviewed suggests Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty appears safe and efficacious for the treatment of endothelial diseases of the cornea. Evidence from retrospective and prospective Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty reports described a variety of complications from the procedure, but these complications do not appear to be permanently sight threatening or detrimental to the ultimate vision recovery in the majority of cases. Long-term data on endothelial cell survival and the risk of late endothelial rejection cannot be determined with this review.” “Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty should not be used in lieu of penetrating keratoplasty for conditions with concurrent endothelial disease and anterior corneal disease. These situations would include concurrent anterior corneal dystrophies, anterior corneal scars from trauma or prior infection, and ectasia after previous laser vision correction surgery.”

The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation-2021

The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation updated its consensus-based guidelines on the selection of lung transplant recipients.

These guidelines made the following statements about lung transplantation:

Lung transplantation should be considered for adults with chronic, end-stage lung disease who meet all the following general criteria:

1. High (>50%) risk of death from lung disease within 2 years if lung transplantation is not performed.

2. High (>80%) likelihood of 5-year post-transplant survival from a general medical perspective provided that there is adequate graft function.

Prior to determining that a patient is not a candidate for lung transplantation, referring providers should communicate directly with at least one lung transplant program with experience with the candidate’s potential contraindication(s).

Early referral is recommended to facilitate transplant education for the patient and caregivers, an initial assessment of barriers to transplant, and determination of timing for full evaluation with specific recommendations for optimization of candidacy.

Determination of candidacy requires a detailed evaluation not only to select appropriate candidates, but also to optimize each individual’s status to provide them with the best chance for a successful outcome.

Individual transplant candidacy at a particular institution depends on that center’s expertise for management of patients who have risk factors posing high or substantially increased risk.

Decision making regarding timing of listing for transplant should take into consideration results of the full evaluation, including disease severity and trajectory, estimated wait time for donor organ(s) and survival time without transplant, and candidate’s readiness for transplant.

Just as the decision to list is carefully considered, interval reassessment for continued listing should take place to evaluate the risks and benefits of transplant when considering any changes to the candidate’s status that may impact predicted perioperative or post-transplant outcomes.

When referring for lung transplant evaluation, consider simultaneous referral to palliative care to provide decision support and treatment selection that is consistent with goals of care throughout the transplant evaluation, listing, surgery, and posttransplant.

For combined heart/lung transplant, the guidelines have stated that:

Heart-lung and other multi-organ transplantation should be limited to centers with experience in such procedures and where specialists are available to manage each of the transplanted organs.

Candidates should meet the criteria for lung transplant listing and have significant dysfunction of one or more additional organs or meet the listing criteria for a non-pulmonary organ transplant and have significant pulmonary dysfunction.

Waiting times are likely to be longer and the likelihood of receiving a transplant is reduced when an individual requires more than one organ. Thus, referral should occur earlier in the disease course if multi-organ transplantation may be considered.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases et al-2013

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the American Society of Transplantation (2013) issued joint guidelines on evaluating [individuals] for liver transplant. These guidelines indicated liver transplantation for severe acute or advanced chronic liver disease after all effective medical treatments have been attempted. The formal evaluation should confirm the irreversible nature of the liver disease and lack of effective alternative medical therapy.

The guidelines also stated that liver transplant is indicated for the following conditions:

·         Acute liver failure complications of cirrhosis

·         Liver-based metabolic condition with systemic manifestations

·         Systemic complications of chronic liver disease.

 

The guidelines also included 1-A recommendations (strong recommendation with high-quality evidence) for a liver transplant that:

·         “Tobacco consumption should be prohibited in LT [liver transplant] candidates.”

·         “[Individuals] with HIV infection are candidates for LT if immune function is adequate and the virus is expected to be undetectable by the time of LT.”

·         “LT candidates with HCV [hepatitis C virus] have the same indications for LT as for other etiologies of cirrhosis.”

·         Contraindications to liver transplant included:

o    MELD [Model for End-stage Liver Disease] score less than 15

o    Severe cardiac or pulmonary disease

o    AIDS

o    Ongoing alcohol or illicit substance abuse

o    Hepatocellular carcinoma with metastatic spread

o    Uncontrolled sepsis

o    Anatomic abnormality that precludes liver transplantation

o    Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

o    Extrahepatic malignancy

o    Fulminant hepatic failure

o    Hemangiosarcoma

o    Persistent noncompliance

o    Lack of adequate social support system

 

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society of Transplantation, and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition issued joint guidelines on the evaluation of the pediatric [individuals] for liver transplant in 2014. The guidelines stated that “disease categories suitable for referral to a pediatric LT program are similar to adults: acute liver failure, autoimmune, cholestasis, metabolic or genetic, oncologic, vascular, and infectious. However, specific etiologies and outcomes differ widely from adult [individuals], justifying independent pediatric guidelines.” The indications listed for liver transplantation included biliary atresia, Alagille syndrome, pediatric acute liver failure, hepatic tumors, HCC, hemangioendothelioma, cystic fibrosis-associated liver disease, urea cycle disorders, immune-mediated liver disease, along with other metabolic or genetic disorders.

 

National Comprehensive Cancer Network-2022

Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines on hepatobiliary cancers (v.2.2022) recommend referral to a liver transplant center or bridge therapy for patients with HCC meeting United Network of Organ Sharing criteria of a single tumor measuring 2 to 5 cm, or 2 to 3 tumors 1-3 cm in diameter with no macrovascular involvement or no extrahepatic disease. Patients should be referred to the transplant center before the biopsy. In patients who are ineligible for transplant and in select patients with Child-Pugh class A or B liver function with tumors that are resectable, NCCN indicates resection is the preferred treatment option; locoregional therapy may also be considered. Patients with unresectable HCC should be evaluated for liver transplantation; if the patient is a transplant candidate, then referral to a transplant center should be given or bridge therapy should be considered.

Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors

The NCCN guidelines on neuroendocrine tumors (v.1.2022) indicate that liver transplantation included for neuroendocrine metastases confined to the liver is considered investigational despite “encouraging” 5-year survival rates.

American Gastroenterological Association-2003

The American Gastroenterological Association (2003) produced a medical position statement on short bowel syndrome and intestinal transplantation. It recommended dietary, medical, and surgical solutions. Indications for intestinal transplantation mirrored those of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The guidelines acknowledged the limitations of transplant for these individuals. The statement recommended the following Medicare-approved indications, pending availability of additional data:

·         Impending or overt liver failure

·         Thrombosis of major central venous channels

·         Frequent central line-related sepsis

·         Frequent severe dehydration.

 

American Society of Transplantation-2017

The American Society of Transplantation (2017) convened a consensus conference of experts to address issues related to the transplantation of hepatitis C virus (HCV) viremic solid organs into HCV non-viremic recipients.

·         Definition of HCV positive 

• HCV viremic reflecting a positive NAT should be adopted

·         Data interpretation 

• HCV antibody status alone limits interpretation of outcomes of transplantation of HCV "positive" organs

·         Transmission and Treatment 

• Highest risk for unexpected HCV transmission is associated with organ donation from a person who injected drugs within the eclipse or pre-viremic period

·         OPTN policy 

• No current policies prevent transplantation of HCV-viremic organs into HCV non-viremic recipients

·         Ethical considerations 

• Transplantation of HCV-viremic organs into HCV non-viremic recipients should be conducted under site specific IRB approved protocols with multi-step informed consent.

InterQual® Level of Care Criteria 2021. Acute Care Adult. McKesson Health Solutions, LLC.

 

Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Policies. 2020; https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov.

 

National Kidney Foundation. Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR). n.d.; https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/gfr.

 

American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS), The American Society of Transplantation (AST), The Association of Organ Procurement Organizations (AOPO), et al. Statement on

transplantation of organs from HIV-infected deceased donors.

 

Kervinen, MG, Lehto S, Helve J, et al. Type 2 diabetic patients on renal replacement therapy: Probability to receive renal transplantation and survival after transplantation. PLoS One. 2018

15;13(8): e0201478.

 

Black CK, Termanini KM, Aguirre O, Hawksworth JS, Sosin M. Solid organ transplantation in the 21st century. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6(20):409.

 

Chaudhry D, Chaudhry A, Peracha J, Sharif A. Survival for waitlisted kidney failure patients receiving transplantation versus remaining on waiting list: Systematic review and metaanalysis. BMJ. 2022;376: e068769.

 

Zheng X, Gong L, Xue W, et al. Kidney transplant outcomes in HIV-positive patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Res Ther. 2019;16(1):37.

 

Kainz A, Kammer M, Reindl-Schwaighofer R, et al. Waiting time for second kidney transplantation and mortality. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2022;17(1):90-97.

 

Reese PP, Abt PL, Blumberg EA, et al. Twelve-month outcomes after transplant of hepatitis cinfected kidneys into uninfected recipients: A single-group trial. Ann Intern Med.

2018;169(5):273-281.

 

Durand CM, Bowring MG, Brown DM, et al. Direct-Acting antiviral prophylaxis in kidney transplantation from hepatitis c virus-infected donors to noninfected recipients: An open-label

nonrandomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(8):533-540.

 

Sise ME, Goldberg DS, Kort JJ, et al. Multicenter study to transplant hepatitis c-infected kidneys (MYTHIC): An open-label study of combined glecaprevir and pibrentasvir to treat recipients of

transplanted kidneys from deceased donors with hepatitis c virus infection. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020;31(11):2678-2687.

 

Sise ME, Goldberg DS, Schaubel DE, et al. One-year outcomes of the multi-center study to transplant hepatitis c-infected kidneys (MYTHIC) Trial. Kidney Int Rep. 2021;7(2):241-250.

 

Gupta G, Yakubu I, Bhati CS, et al. Ultra-short duration direct acting antiviral prophylaxis to prevent virus transmission from hepatitis C viremic donors to hepatitis C negative kidney

transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2020;20(3):739-751.

 

Franco A, Moreso F, Merino E, et al. Renal transplantation from seropositive hepatitis C virus donors to seronegative recipients in Spain: A prospective study. Transpl Int. 2019;32(7):710-716.

 

Kapila N, Menon KVN, Al-Khalloufi K, et al. Hepatitis C virus NAT-positive solid organ allografts transplanted into hepatitis C virus-negative recipients: A real-world experience. Hepatology.

2020;72(1):32-41.

 

Feld JJ, Cypel M, Kumar D, et al. Short-course, direct-acting antivirals and ezetimibe to prevent HCV infection in recipients of organs from HCV-infected donors: A phase 3, single-centre, openlabel study [published correction appears in Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jul;5(7): e6]. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(7):649-657.

 

Molnar MZ, Nair S, Cseprekal O, et al. Transplantation of kidneys from hepatitis C-infected donors to hepatitis C-negative recipients: single center experience. Am J Transplant.

2019;19(11):3046-3057.

 

Friebus-Kardash J, Gäckler A, Kribben A, et al. Successful early sofosbuvir-based antiviral treatment after transplantation of kidneys from HCV-viremic donors into HCV-negative

recipients. Transpl Infect Dis. 2019;21(5): e13146.

 

Jandovitz N, Nair V, Grodstein E, et al. Hepatitis C-positive donor to negative recipient kidney transplantation: A real-world experience. Transpl Infect Dis. 2021;23(3): e13540.

 

Alghamdi W, Lotfy K, Weernink C, et al. Hepatitis C positive organ transplantation to negative recipients at a multiorgan Canadian transplant centre: Ready for prime time. BMC Gastroenterol.

2022;22(1):34.

 

Magalhães FP, Hirai FE, Sousa LB de, Oliveira LA de. Long-term outcomes with Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis in ocular burns. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2018;81(3):177-182.

 

Woo JH, Ang M, Htoon HM, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty. Am J

Ophthalmol. 2019; 207:288-303.

 

Singh SK, Sitaula S. Visual outcome of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty during the learning curve in initial fifty cases. J Ophthalmol. 2019.

 

Stuart AJ, Romano V, Virgili G, et al. Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for corneal endothelial

failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; CD012097.

 

Marques RE, Guerra PS, Sousa DC, et al. DMEK versus DSAEK for Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy: A meta-analysis. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019;29(1).

 

Chamberlain W, Lin CC, Austin A, et al. Descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial: A randomized trial comparing ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmol. 2019;126(1).

 

Hirabayashi KE, Chamberlain W, Rose-Nussbaumer J, et al. Corneal light scatter after ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial: A randomized controlled trial. Cornea. 2020;39(6):691-696.

 

Fuest M, Ang M, Htoon HM, et al. Long-term visual outcomes comparing descemet strippingautomated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol.2017; 182:62-71.

 

Farid M, Rhee MK, Akpek EK et al. Corneal edema and opacification preferred practicepattern(R). Ophthalmol. 2019;126(1).

 

InterQual® Level of Care Criteria 2021. Acute Care Adult. Change Healthcare, LLC.

 

Eye Bank Association of America. 2019 Eye Banking Statistical Report. 2019; https://restoresight.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2019-EBAA-Stat-Report-FINAL.pdf.

 

Duggan MJ, Rose-Nussbaumer J, Lin CC et al. Corneal higher-order aberrations in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus ultrathin dsaek in the descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial: A randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmol. 2019;126(7).

 

Deng SX, Lee WB, Hammersmith KM, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: Safety and outcomes: A report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmol. 2018;125(2):295-310.

 

Singh A, Zarei-Ghanavati M, Avadhanam V, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty/descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2017;36(11):1437-1443.

 

Pavlovic I, Shajari M, Herrmann E, et al. Meta-analysis of postoperative outcome parameters comparing descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2017;36(12):1445-1451.

 

Li S, Liu L, Wang W, et al. Efficacy and safety of descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis PLos One. 2017;12(12):e0182275.

 

Oellerich S, Baydoun L, Peraza-Nieves J, et al. Multicenter study of 6-month clinical outcomes after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2017;36(12):1467-1476.

 

Ivarsen A, Hjortdal J. Clinical outcome of descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty with femtosecond laser-prepared grafts. Acta Opthalmol. 2018;96(5).

 

Sorkin N, Mednick Z, Einan-Lifshitz A, et al. Three-year outcome comparison between femtosecond laser-assisted and manual descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2019;38(7).

 

Singhal D, Maharana PK. RE: "Three-year outcome comparison between femtosecond laserassisted and manual descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty". Cornea. 2019;38(11).

 

Hosny MH, Marrie A, Karim Sidky M, et al. Results of femtosecond laser-assisted descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. J Ophthalmol. 2017; 2017:8984367.

 

Dunker SL, Dickman MM, Wisse RPL, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: A multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(9):1152-1159.

 

Wu J, Wu T, Li J, Wang L, Huang Y. DSAEK or DMEK for failed penetrating keratoplasty: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis. Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41(7):2315-2328.

 

Liu Y, Li X, Li W, Jiu X, Tian M. Systematic review and meta-analysis of femtosecond laserenabled keratoplasty versus conventional penetrating keratoplasty. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(3):976-987.

 

Hjortshøj CS, Gilljam T, Dellgren G, et al. Outcome after heart–lung or lung transplantation in patients with Eisenmenger syndrome. Heart. Published Online First: 21 August 2019

 

Woolley, A. E., Singh, S. K., Goldberg, et al. Heart and lung transplants from HCV-infected donors to uninfected recipients. N Engl J Med. 2019;17:1606-1617.

 

Rudasill, S. E., Lyengar, A., Kwon, O. J., et al. Recipient working status is independently associated with outcomes in heart and lung transplantation. Clin Transplant. 2019;13462

 

United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). Heart/Lung: Submitting LAS exception requests for candidates diagnosed with PH. 2018.

 

Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Policies. Policy 6: Heart and heart-lungs, 2023;

https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/media/1200/optn_policies.pdf. Updated September 28, 2023 Accessed October 11, 2023

 

Sertic F, Han J, Diagne D, et al. Not all septal defects are equal: Outcomes of bilateral lung transplant with cardiac defect repair vs combined heart-lung transplant in patients with Eisenmenger syndrome in the United States. Chest. Nov 2020; 158(5): 2097-2106.

 

Riggs KW, Chapman JL, Schecter M, et al. Pediatric heart-lung transplantation: A contemporary analysis of outcomes. Pediatr Transplant. May 2020; 24(3): e13682.

 

Koval CE, Farr M, Krisl J, et al. Heart or lung transplant outcomes in HIV-infected recipients. J

 

Heart Lung Transplant. 2019; 38(12): 1296-1305.

 

Leard LE, Holm AM, Valapour M, et al. Consensus document for the selection of lung transplant candidates: An update from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. Nov 2021; 40(11): 1349-1379.

 

Singh TP, Cherikh WS, Hsich E et al. The International thoracic organ transplant registry of the international society for heart and lung transplantation: Twenty-fifth pediatric heart transplantation report—2022; focus on infant heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant.2022; 41(10): 1357–1365.

 

Doberne JW, Jawitz OK, Raman V, et al. Heart transplantation survival outcomes of HIV positive and negative recipients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021; 111(5):1465-1471.

 

InterQual® Level of Care Criteria 2021. Acute Care Adult. McKesson Health Solutions, LLC.

 

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Hepatobiliary cancers. Version 2.2022.

 

Marot A, Dubois M, TreÂpo E, Moreno C, Deltenre P. Liver transplantation for alcoholic hepatitis: A systematic review with meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(1).

 

Utako P, Emyoo T, Anothaisintawee T, et al. Clinical outcomes after liver transplantation for hepatorenal syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BioMed Research Intl. 2018.

 

Hamilton EC, Balogh J, Nguyen DT, et al. Liver transplantation for primary hepatic malignancies of childhood: The UNOS experience. J Pediatric Surg. 2018;53(1):163-169.

 

Firl DJ, Kimura S, McVey J, et al. Reframing the approach to patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Longitudinal assessment with HALTHCC improves ablate and wait strategy. Hepatology. 2018.

 

Yadav DK, Chen W, Bai X, et al. Salvage liver transplant versus primary liver transplant for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Transplant. 2018;3;23:524-545.

 

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors. Version 1.2022.

 

Luckett K, Kaiser TE, Bari K, et al. Use of hepatitis c virus antibody-positive donor livers in hepatitis Cnonviremic liver transplant recipients. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;228(4):560-567.

 

Saberi B, Hamilton JP, Durand CM, et al. Utilization of hepatitis C virus RNA-positive donor liver for transplant to hepatitis C virus RNA-negative recipient. Liver Transpl. 2018;24(1):140-143.

 

Campos-Varela I, Agudelo EZ, Sarkar M, et al. Use of a hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA-positive donor in a treated HCV RNA-negative liver transplant recipient. Transpl Infect Dis. 2018;20(1).

 

Kwong AJ, Wall A, Melcher M, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV) non-viremic recipients with HCV viremic donors. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(5):1380-1387.

 

Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Governance. Policies. Policy 9: Allocation of livers and liver-intestines. 04/01/2020.

 

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American Society of Transplantation. Liver transplantation, evaluation of the adult patient. 2013; https://www.aasld.org/publications/practiceguidelines.

 

Black CK, Termanini KM, Aguirre O, et al. Solid organ transplantation in the 21 st century. Ann Transl

Med. 2018;6(20):409.

 

Gadiparthi C, Cholankeril G, Perumpail BJ, et al. Use of direct-acting antiviral agents in hepatitis C virus-infected liver transplant candidates. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(3):315-322.

 

Blumberg EA, Rogers CC. Solid organ transplantation in the HIV-infected patient: Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice. Clin Transplant. 2019;33(9):e13499.

 

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Diagnosis and treatment of alcohol associated liver diseases: 2019 Practice Guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hep.30866.

 

Yong JN, Lim WH, Ng CH, et al. Outcomes of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis after liver transplantation: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review [published online ahead of print, 2021]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;S1542-3565(21)01226-X.

 

Cambridge WA, Fairfield C, Powell JJ, et al. Meta-analysis and meta-regression of survival after liver transplantation for unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2021;273(2):240-250.

 

Ziogas IA, Giannis D, Economopoulos KP, et al. Liver transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-analysis and meta-regression of survival rates. Transplantation. 2021;105(10):2263-2271.

 

Hue JJ, Rocha FG, Ammori JB, et al. A comparison of surgical resection and liver transplantation in the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the era of modern chemotherapy: An analysis of the National Cancer Database. J Surg Oncol. 2021;123(4):949-956.

 

Salimi J, Jafarian A, Fakhar N, et al. Study of re-transplantation and prognosis in liver transplant center in Iran. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2021;14(3):237-242.

 

Bouari S, Rijkse E, Metselaar HJ, et al. A comparison between combined liver kidney transplants to liver transplants alone: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2021;35(4):100633.

 

Tang W, Qiu JG, Cai Y, Cheng L, Du CY. Increased surgical complications but improved overall survival with adult living donor compared to deceased donor liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:1320830.

 

Kapila N, Menon KVN, Al-Khalloufi K, et al. Hepatitis C virus NAT-positive solid organ allografts transplanted into hepatitis C virus-negative recipients: A real-world experience. Hepatology. 2020;72(1):32-41.

 

Cotter TG, Paul S, Sandıkçı B, et al. Increasing utilization and excellent initial outcomes following liver transplant of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic donors into HCV-negative recipients: Outcomes following liver transplant of HCV-viremic donors. Hepatology. 2019;69(6):2381-2395.

 

Sobotka LA, Mumtaz K, Wellner MR, et al. Outcomes of hepatitis C virus seropositive donors to hepatitis C virus seronegative liver recipients: A large single center analysis. Ann Hepatol. 2021;24:100318.

 

Aqel B, Wijarnpreecha K, Pungpapong S, et al. Outcomes following liver transplantation from HCVseropositive donors to HCV-seronegative recipients. J Hepatol. 2021;74(4):873-880.

 

Lacaille F, Irtan S, Dupic L, Talbotec C, Lesage F, et al. Twenty-eight years of intestinal transplantation in Paris: Experience of the oldest European center. Transpl Int. 2017;30(2):178186.

 

Ekser B, Kubal CA, Fridell JA, Mangus RS. Comparable outcomes in intestinal retransplantation: Single-center cohort study. Clin Transplant. 2018;32(7):e13290.

 

Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Policies. 2022.

 

Levitsky J, Formica RN, Bloom RD, et al. The American Society of Transplantation consensus conference on the use of Hepatitis C viremic donors in solid organ transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2017;17:2790-2802.

 

Bharadwaj S, Tandon P, Gohel TD, et al. Current status of intestinal and multivisceral transplantation. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2017;5(1):20-28.

 

Loo L, Vrakas G, Reddy S, et al. Intestinal transplantation: A review. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2017;33(3):203-211.

 

Garcia Aroz S, Tzvetanov I, Hetterman EA, et al. Long-term outcomes of living-related small intestinal transplantation in children: A single-center experience. Pediatr Transplant. 2017;21(4).

 

Luckett k, Kaiser TE, Bari K, et al. Use of hepatitis C virus antibody-positive donor livers in hepatitis C nonviremic liver transplant recipients. J AM Coll Surg. 2019:228(4):560-567.

 

Saberi B, Hamilton JP, Durand CM, et al. Utilization of hepatitis C virus RNA-positive donor liver for transplant to hepatitis C virus RNA-negative recipient. Liver Transpl. 2018;24(1):140-143.

 

Campos-Varela I, Agudelo EZ, Sarkar M, et al. Use of hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA-positive donor in a treated HCV RNA-negative liver transplant recipient. Transpl Infect Dis. 2018;20(1).

 

Kwong AJ, Wall A, Melcher M, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV) non-viremic recipients with HCV viremic donors. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(5):1380-1387.

 

InterQual® Level of Care Criteria 2021. Acute Care Adult. Change Healthcare, LLC.

 

Raghu VK, Beaumont JL, Everly MJ, Venick RS, Lacaille F, Mazariegos GV. Pediatric intestinal transplantation: Analysis of the intestinal transplant registry. Pediatr Transplant. 2019;23(8): e13580.

 

Spence AB, Natarajan M, Fogleman S, Biswas R, Girlanda R, Timpone J. Intra-abdominal infections among adult intestinal and multivisceral transplant recipients in the 2-year postoperative period. Transpl Infect Dis. 2020;22(1):e13219.

 

Massironi S, Cavalcoli F, Rausa E, Invernizzi P, Braga M, Vecchi M. Understanding short bowel syndrome: Current status and future perspectives. Dig Liver Dis. 2020;52(3):253-261.

 

Bharadwaj S, Tandon P, Gohel TD, et al. Current status of intestinal and multivisceral transplantation. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2017;5(1):20-28.

For questions related to this policy, contact the Highmark Government Market Policy Team at GovernmentPolicy@Highmark.com