Expanding Liver Transplant Opportunities in Older Patients With Nonconventional Grafts.

INTRODUCTION: Broader use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and nonconventional grafts for liver transplant helps reduce disparities in organ availability. Limited data, however, exists on outcomes specific to nonconventional graft utilization in older patients. As such, this study aimed to investigate outcomes specific to conventional and nonconventional graft utilization in recipients > 70 y of age. METHODS: 1-to-3 matching based on recipient sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and donor type was performed on patients ≥70 and <70 y of age who underwent liver transplant alone at Mayo Clinic Arizona between 2015 and 2020. Primary outcomes were posttransplant patient and liver allograft survival for recipients greater than or less than 70 y of age. Secondary outcomes included grafts utilization patterns, hospital length of stay, need for reoperation, biliary complications and disposition at time of hospital discharge. RESULTS: In this cohort, 36.1% of grafts came from DCD donors, 17.4% were postcross clamp offers, and 20.8% were nationally allocated. Median recipient ages were 59 and 71 y (P < 0.01). Recipients had similar Intensive care unit (P = 0.82) and hospital (P = 0.14) lengths of stay, and there were no differences in patient (P = 0.68) or graft (P = 0.38) survival. When comparing donation after brain death and DCD grafts in those >70 y, there were no differences in patient (P = 0.89) or graft (P = 0.71) survival. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes can be achieved in older recipients, even with use of nonconventional grafts. Expanded use of nonconventional grafts can help facilitate transplant opportunities in older patients.

Cancer embryonic antigen (CEA) levels in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma predict response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and overall survival.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Serum tumor markers are widely used for diagnosis, prognosis, treatment response, and surveillance. Our study evaluated cancer embryonic antigen (CEA) in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was reviewed (2004-2011) for patients with surgical treatment for appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Patients were stratified into two groups: normal and elevated CEA. Multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to determine the independent effect of CEA on survival. RESULTS: Our study consisted of 2867 patients, 54.0% having elevated CEA. Patients with elevated CEA were more likely to have Stage IV disease, be female, and African American; all p < 0.001. Three-year overall survival (OS) was significantly higher with normal CEA (75.5% vs. 62.8%, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, elevated CEA was associated with worse survival (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.23-1.80). Patients with elevated CEA had improved 3-year OS with neo-adjuvant compared to adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.004), while those with normal CEA showed no difference. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with surgically treated appendiceal adenocarcinoma, preoperative elevation in CEA independently predicts decreased 3-year survival and correlates with improved OS with neo-adjuvant therapy. CEA levels should be considered in clinical decision-making regarding neo-adjuvant therapy in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.

Decreasing Significance of Early Allograft Dysfunction with Rising Use of Nonconventional Donors.

Background and Objectives: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is considered a surrogate marker for adverse post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes. With the increasing use of nonconventional donors, EAD has become a more frequent occurrence. Given this background, we aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of EAD in an updated cohort inclusive of both conventional and nonconventional liver allografts. Materials and Methods: Perioperative and one-year outcomes were assessed for a total of 611 LT recipients with and without EAD from Mayo Clinic Arizona. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: bilirubin > 10 mg/dL on day 7, INR > 1.6 on day 7, or ALT and/or AST > 2000 IU/L within the first 7 days of LT. Results: Within this cohort, 31.8% of grafts (n = 194) came from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, 17.7% (n = 108) were nationally shared, 16.4% (n = 100) were allocated as post-cross clamp, and 8.7% contained moderate steatosis. EAD was observed in 52.2% (n = 321) of grafts in the study cohort (79% in DCD grafts and 40% in DBD grafts). EAD grafts had higher donor risk index (DRI) scores (1.9 vs. 1.6, p < 0.0001), were more likely to come from DCD donors (48% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.0001), were regionally allocated (p = 0.003), and had higher cold ischemia times (median 6.0 vs. 5.5 h, p = 0.001). Primary nonfunction events were rare in both groups (1.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.22). Post-LT acute kidney injury occurred at a similar frequency in recipients with and without EAD (43.6% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.41), and there were no differences in ICU (median 2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.60) or hospital (6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.24) length of stay. For DCD grafts, the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was similar in the two groups (14.9% EAD vs. 17.5% no EAD, p = 0.69). One-year patient survival for grafts with and without EAD was 96.0% and 94.1% (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7−1.8; p = 0.54); one-year graft survival was 92.5% and 92.1% (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7−1.5; p = 0.88). Conclusions: In this cohort, EAD occurred in 52% of grafts. The occurrence of EAD, however, did not portend inferior outcomes. Compared to those without EAD, recipients with EAD had similar post-operative outcomes, as well as one-year patient and graft survival. EAD should be managed supportively and should not be viewed as a deterrent to utilization of non-ideal grafts.

Reassessing Geographic, Logistical, and Cold Ischemia Cutoffs in Liver Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Liver acceptance patterns vary significantly between transplant centers. Data pertaining to outcomes of livers declined by local and regional centers and allocated nationally remains limited. PROJECT AIM: The objective was to compare post-liver transplant outcomes between liver allografts transplanted as a result of national and local-regional allocation. DESIGN: This was a retrospective evaluation of 109 nationally allocated liver allografts used for transplant by a single center. Outcomes of nationally allocated grafts were compared to standard allocation grafts (N = 505) during the same period. RESULTS: Recipients of nationally allocated grafts had lower model for end stage liver disease scores (17 vs 22, P = .001). Nationally allocated grafts were more likely to be post-cross clamp offers (29.4% vs 13.4%, P = .001) and have longer cold ischemia times (median hours 7.8 vs 5.5, P = .001). Early allograft dysfunction was common (54.1% vs 52.5%, P = .75) and did not impact hospital length of stay (median 5 vs 6 days, P = .89). There were no differences in biliary complications (P = .11). There were no differences in patient (P = .88) or graft survival (P = .35). In a multivariate model, after accounting for differences in cold ischemia time and posttransplant biliary complications, nationally allocated grafts were not associated with increased risk for graft loss (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.4-1.8). Abnormal liver biopsy findings (33.0%) followed by donor donation after circulatory death status (22.9%) were the most common reasons for decline by local-regional centers. CONCLUSION: Despite longer cold ischemia times, patient and graft survival outcomes remain excellent and comparable to those seen from standard allocation grafts.

Building Patient-Physician Trust: A Medical Student Perspective.

Public trust in physicians has declined over the last 50 years. Future physicians will need to mend the patient-physician trust relationship. In conjunction with the American Medical Association's Accelerating Change in Medical Education initiative, the Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine implemented the Science of Health Care Delivery (SHCD) curriculum-a 4-year curriculum that emphasizes interdisciplinary training across population-centered care; person-centered care; team-based care; high-value care; leadership; and health policy, economics, and technology-in 2015. In this medical student perspective, the authors highlight how the SHCD curriculum has the potential to address issues that have eroded patient-physician trust. The curriculum reaches this aim through didactic and/or experiential teachings in health equity, cultural humility and competence, shared decision making, patient advocacy, and safety and quality of care. It is the authors' hope that novel medical education programs such as the SHCD curriculum will allow the nation's future physicians to own their role in rebuilding and fostering public trust in physicians and the health care system.