This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as

IMPORTANCEIncreased utilization of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive liver allografts for liver transplant (LT) has been endorsed as one of several ways to combat national organ shortages. However, HCV-positive donors remain poorly characterized, and Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network regional differences in the utilization of HCV-positive liver allografts are unclear. OBJECTIVE To characterize HCV-positive donors and the allografts that come from them. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this cross-sectional study, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database was queried for all donors who underwent HCV testing from June 2015 to December 2018. Clinical and allograft characteristics were evaluated, and utilization across the United States was studied. Patients with positive or negative results for HCV antibody (Ab) and HCV nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT) were included in this study. Donors utilized for living donor transplant and pediatric (age <18 years) recipients were excluded.

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been used as a salvage modality for relief of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) after a failed ERCP. Multiple recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have been published to assess the suitability of EUS-BD as a first-line modality for achieving palliative BD. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing primary EUS-BD versus ERCP for MBO. We searched PubMed, Medline, and Embase up to January 1, 2019, to identify RCTs and observational studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of primary EUS-BD (without a prior attempted ERCP) versus ERCP. Quality of RCTs and observational studies was assessed using Jadad and Newcastle–Ottawa scores, respectively. The outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, odds of requiring a repeat intervention, and procedure-related adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) and standard mean difference were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model in RevMan 5.3 (the Cochrane Collaboration, the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Five studies (three RCTs and two observational studies) with 361 patients were included. Both procedures achieved comparable technical success (OR: 1.20 [0.44–3.24], I 2 = 0%) and clinical success (OR: 1.44, confidence interval [CI]: 0.63–3.29, I 2 = 0%). The overall adverse outcomes (OR: 1.59 [0.89–2.84]) did not differ between the two groups. In the ERCP group, 9.5% of patients developed procedure-related pancreatitis versus zero in the EUS group (risk difference = 0.08%, P = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in nonpancreatitis-related adverse events. The odds of requiring reintervention for BD (1.68 [0.76–3.73], I 2 = 42%) did not differ significantly. The ERCP group had significantly higher odds of requiring reintervention due to tumor overgrowth (5.35 [1.64–17.50], I 2 = 0%). EUS-BD has comparable technical and clinical success to ERCP and can potentially be used as a first-line palliative modality for MBO where expertise is available. ERCP-related pancreatitis which can cause significant morbidity can be completely avoided with EUS.

No abstract