PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Kidney dysfunction is challenging in liver transplant candidates to determine whether it is reversible or not. This review focuses on the pertinent data on how to best approach liver transplant candidates with kidney dysfunction in the current era after implementing the simultaneous liver kidney (SLK) allocation policy and safety net. RECENT FINDINGS: The implementation of the SLK policy inverted the steady rise in SLK transplants and improved the utilization of high-quality kidneys. Access to kidney transplantation following liver transplant alone (LTA) increased with favorable outcomes. Estimating GFR in liver transplant candidates remains challenging, and innovative methods are needed. SLK provided superior patient and graft survival compared to LTA only for patients with advanced CKD and dialysis at least 3 months. SLK can provide immunological protection against kidney rejection in highly sensitized candidates. Post-SLK transplant care is complex, with an increased risk of complications and hospitalization. SUMMARY: The SLK policy improved kidney access and utilization. Transplant centers are encouraged, under the safety net, to reserve SLK for liver transplant candidates with advanced CKD or dialysis at least 3 months while allowing lower thresholds for highly sensitized patients. Herein, we propose a practical approach to liver transplant candidates with kidney dysfunction.

The number of live kidney donors has declined since 2005. This decline parallels the evolving knowledge of risk for biologically related, black, and younger donors. To responsibly promote donation, we sought to identify declining low-risk donor subgroups that might serve as targets for future interventions. We analyzed a national registry of 77 427 donors and quantified the change in number of donors per 5-year increment from 2005 to 2017 using Poisson regression stratified by donor-recipient relationship and race/ethnicity. Among related donors aged <35, 35 to 49, and ≥50 years, white donors declined by 21%, 29%, and 3%; black donors declined by 30%, 31%, and 12%; Hispanic donors aged <35 and 35 to 49 years declined by 18% and 15%, and those aged ≥50 increased by 10%. Conversely, among unrelated donors aged <35, 35 to 49, and ≥50 years, white donors increased by 12%, 4%, and 24%; black donors aged <35 and 35 to 49 years did not change but those aged ≥50 years increased by 34%; Hispanic donors increased by 16%, 21%, and 46%. Unlike unrelated donors, related donors were less likely to donate in recent years across race/ethnicity. Although this decline might be understandable for related younger donors, it is less understandable for lower-risk related older donors (≥50 years). Biologically related older individuals are potential targets for interventions to promote donation.