Background

Although hospital systems have largely halted elective surgical practices in preparing their response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, transplantation remains an essential and lifesaving surgical practice. To continue transplantation while protecting immunocompromised patients and health care workers, significant restructuring of normal patient care practice habits is required.

Methods

This is a nonrandomized, descriptive study of the abdominal transplant program at 1 academic center (University of California, San Francisco) and the programmatic changes undertaken to safely continue transplantations. Patient transfers, fellow use, and patient discharge education were identified as key areas requiring significant reorganization.

Results

The University of California, San Francisco abdominal transplant program took an early and aggressive approach to restructuring inpatient workflows and health care worker staffing. The authors formalized a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transfer system to address patients in need of services at their institution while minimizing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 in their transplant ward and used technological approaches to provide virtual telehealth where possible. They also modified their transplant fellow staffing and responsibilities to develop an adequate backup system in case of potential exposures.

Conclusion

Every transplant program is unique, and an individualized plan to adapt and modify standard clinical practices will be required to continue providing essential transplantation services. The authors' experience highlights areas of attention specific to transplant programs and may provide generalizable solutions to support continued transplantation in the COVID-19 era.

Background: Scoring systems have been proposed to select donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors and recipients for liver transplantation (LT). We hypothesized that complex scoring systems derived in large datasets might not predict outcomes locally. Methods: Based on 1-year DCD-LT graft survival predictors in multivariate logistic regression models, we designed, validated, and compared a simple index using the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) cohort (n = 136) and a universal-comprehensive (UC)-DCD score using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) cohort (n = 5,792) to previously published DCD scoring systems. Results: The total warm ischemia time (WIT)-index included donor WIT (dWIT) and hepatectomy time (dHep). The UC-DCD score included dWIT, dHep, recipient on mechanical ventilation, transjugular-intrahepatic-portosystemic-shunt, cause of liver disease, model for end-stage liver disease, body mass index, donor/recipient age, and cold ischemia time. In the UNOS cohort, the UC-score outperformed all previously published scores in predicting DCD-LT graft survival (AUC: 0.635 vs. ≤0.562). In the UCSF cohort, the total WIT index successfully stratified survival and biliary complications, whereas other scores did not. Conclusion: DCD risk scores generated in large cohorts provide general guidance for safe recipient/donor selection, but they must be tailored based on non-/partially-modifiable local circumstances to expand DCD utilization.