Combined heart-liver transplantation practices survey in North America: Evaluation and organ listing practices.

We conducted a web-based survey to characterize liver transplant (LT) evaluation and listing practices for patients being evaluated for combined heart-liver transplantation (CHLT), with a specific emphasis on patients with congenital heart disease (CHD), around transplant centers in North America. Very few protocols for liver evaluation and listing in patients undergoing combined heart-liver transplantation are published, and no guidelines currently exist on this topic. A subject of intense debate in the transplant community is the decision of which patients with CHD and liver disease benefit from CHLT compared with heart transplantation. A focus group from the American Society of Transplantation Liver-Intestine Community of Practice Education Subcommittee developed a web-based survey that included questions (1) respondee demographic information; (2) LT evaluation practices in CHLT; (3) liver organ listing practices in CHLT, and (4) 4 clinical vignettes with case-based scenarios in CHLT liver listings among CHD patients who underwent Fontan palliation. The survey was distributed to medical and surgical LT program directors of 47 centers that had completed at least 1 CHLT up to July 2021 in the US and the University of Toronto, Canada. The survey had an excellent 83% response rate (87% for centers that completed at least 1 CHLT in the past 5 y). Total 66.7% used transjugular liver biopsy with HVPG measurements, 30% used percutaneous liver biopsy with no consensus on the use of a fibrosis staging system, 95% mandated contrasted cross-sectional imaging, and 65% upper endoscopy. The following isolated findings evaluation mandated CHLT listing: isolated elevated HVPG (61.5%); the presence of portosystemic collaterals on imaging (67.5%); the endoscopic presence of esophageal or gastric varices (75%), and the presence of HCC (80%), whereas the majority of centers did not feel that the presence of isolated splenomegaly (100%), thrombocytopenia (81.6%), endoscopic findings of portal hypertensive gastropathy (66.7%), or highly sensitized patients (84.6%) justified CHLT. In our survey of North American centers that had performed at least 1 CHLT in the past 5 years, we observed heterogeneity in practices for both evaluation and listing protocols in these patients.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of open versus laparoscopy-assisted versus pure laparoscopic versus robotic living donor hepatectomy.

The value of minimally invasive approaches for living donor hepatectomy remains unclear. Our aim was to compare the donor outcomes after open versus laparoscopy-assisted versus pure laparoscopic versus robotic living donor hepatectomy (OLDH vs. LALDH vs. PLLDH vs. RLDH). A systematic literature review of the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement (up to December 8, 2021). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed separately for minor and major living donor hepatectomy. The risk of bias in nonrandomized studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 31 studies were included. There was no difference in donor outcomes after OLDH versus LALDH for major hepatectomy. However, PLLDH was associated with decreased estimated blood loss, length of stay (LOS), and overall complications versus OLDH for minor and major hepatectomy, but also with increased operative time for major hepatectomy. PLLDH was associated with decreased LOS versus LALDH for major hepatectomy. RLDH was associated with decreased LOS but with increased operative time versus OLDH for major hepatectomy. The scarcity of studies comparing RLDH versus LALDH/PLLDH did not allow us to meta-analyze donor outcomes for that comparison. There seems to be a marginal benefit in estimated blood loss and/or LOS in favor of PLLDH and RLDH. The complexity of these procedures limits them to transplant centers with high volume and experience. Future studies should investigate self-reported donor experience and the associated economic costs of these approaches.

Liver transplantation for post-COVID-19 cholangiopathy: A case series.

BACKGROUND: Post-COVID-19 cholangiopathy is an emerging cholestatic liver disease observed in patients recovering from severe COVID-19 infection. Its prognosis is poor, necessitating liver transplantation in some cases. This study aimed to investigate the outcomes of liver transplantation for post-COVID-19 cholangiopathy. METHODS: Seven patients who underwent liver transplantation for post-COVID-19 cholangiopathy at three institutions between 2020 and 2022 were included in this retrospective multi-center case series. RESULTS: At the time of initial COVID-19 infection, all patients developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, and six patients (86%) required ICU admission. Median time intervals from the initial COVID-19 diagnosis to the diagnosis of post-COVID-19 cholangiopathy and liver transplantation were 4 and 12 months, respectively. Four patients underwent living donor liver transplantation, and three patients underwent deceased donor liver transplantation. The median MELD score was 22 (range, 10-38). No significant intraoperative complications were observed. The median ICU and hospital stays were 2.5 and 12.5 days, respectively. One patient died due to respiratory failure 5 months after liver transplantation. Currently, the patient and graft survival rate is 86% at a median follow-up of 11 months. CONCLUSIONS: Liver transplantation is a viable option for patients with post-COVID-19 cholangiopathy with acceptable outcome. Timely identification of this disease and appropriate management, including evaluation for liver transplantation, are essential.

Addressing the Burden and Management Strategies for Disparities and Inequities Among Liver Transplant Professionals: The ILTS Experience.

Medical professional environments are becoming increasingly multicultural, international, and diverse in terms of its specialists. Many transplant professionals face challenges related to gender, sexual orientation or racial background in their work environment or experience inequities involving access to leadership positions, professional promotion, and compensation. These circumstances not infrequently become a major source of work-related stress and burnout for these disadvantaged, under-represented transplant professionals. In this review, we aim to 1) discuss the current perceptions regarding disparities among liver transplant providers 2) outline the burden and impact of disparities and inequities in the liver transplant workforce 3) propose potential solutions and role of professional societies to mitigate inequities and maximize inclusion within the transplant community.

Liver transplant after donation from controlled circulatory death versus brain death: A UNOS database analysis and publication bias adjusted meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is an increasingly utilized alternative to donation after brain death (DBD) to expand the liver donor pool. We compared the outcomes of liver transplant (LT) after DCD versus DBD. METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review was performed using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases (end-of-search-date: July 2, 2020). US outcomes were analyzed using the UNOS database (February, 2002-September, 2020). Pooled hazard ratios (HR) for patient and graft survival were obtained through random effect meta-analyses and adjusted for publication bias. RESULTS: Thirteen studies reporting on 1426 DCD and 5385 DBD LT recipients were included. 5620 DCD and 87561 DBD LT recipients were analyzed from the UNOS database. Meta-analysis showed increased risk of patient mortality for DCD (HR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.09-1.70; P = .01; I2  = 53.6%). When adjusted for publication bias, meta-analysis showed no difference in patient survival between DCD and DBD (HR = 1.15; 95%CI, .91-1.45; P = .25; I2  = 61.5%). Meta-analysis showed increased risk of graft loss for DCD (HR = 1.50; 95%CI, 1.20-1.88; P < .001; I2  = 67.8%). When adjusted for publication bias, meta-analysis showed a reduction in effect size (HR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.06-1.74; P = .02; I2  = 73.5%). CONCLUSION: When adjusted for publication bias, no difference was identified between DCD and DBD regarding patient survival, while DCD was associated with an increased risk of graft loss.

Early United States experience with liver donation after circulatory determination of death using thoraco-abdominal normothermic regional perfusion: A multi-institutional observational study.

Mortality on the liver waitlist remains unacceptably high. Donation after circulatory determination of death (DCD) donors are considered marginal but are a potentially underutilized resource. Thoraco-abdominal normothermic perfusion (TA-NRP) in DCD donors might result in higher quality livers and offset waitlist mortality. We retrospectively reviewed outcomes of the first 13 livers transplanted from TA-NRP donors in the US. Nine centers transplanted livers from eight organ procurement organizations. Median donor age was 25 years; median agonal phase was 13 minutes. Median recipient age was 60 years; median lab MELD score was 21. Three patients (23%) met early allograft dysfunction (EAD) criteria. Three received simultaneous liver-kidney transplants; neither had EAD nor delayed renal allograft function. One recipient died 186 days post-transplant from sepsis but had normal presepsis liver function. One patient developed a biliary anastomotic stricture, managed endoscopically; no recipient developed clinical evidence of ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). Twelve of 13 (92%) patients are alive with good liver function at 439 days median follow-up; one patient has extrahepatic recurrent HCC. TA-NRP DCD livers in these recipients all functioned well, particularly with respect to IC, and provide a valuable option to decrease deaths on the waiting list.

Gender and Racial Disparity Among Liver Transplantation Professionals: Report of a Global Survey.

Equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) are fundamental principles. Little is known about the pattern of practice and perceptions of EDI among liver transplant (LT) providers. International Liver Transplant Society (ILTS) EDI Committee survey around topics related to discrimination, mentorship, and gender. Answers were collected and analyzed anonymously. Worldwide female leadership was also queried via publicly available data. The survey was e-mailed to 1312 ILTS members, 199 responses (40.7% female) were collected from 38 countries (15.2% response rate). Almost half were surgeons (45.7%), 27.6% hepatologists and 26.6% anesthetists. Among 856 LT programs worldwide, 8.2% of leadership positions were held by females, and 22% of division chiefs were female across all specialties. Sixty-eight of respondents (34.7%) reported some form of discrimination during training or at their current position, presumably related to gender/sexual orientation (20.6%), race/country of origin (25.2%) and others (7.1%). Less than half (43.7%) received mentorship when discrimination occurred. An association between female responses and discrimination, differences in compensation, and job promotion was observed. This survey reveals alarmingly high rate of experience with racial and gender disparity, lack of mentorship, and very low rates of female leadership in the LT field and calls to action to equity and inclusion.

Liver Transplantation for Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis: A US Population-Based Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) is the most common histiocytic disorder. Liver involvement is seen in 10.1% to 19.8% of patients with LCH and can lead to secondary sclerosing cholangitis requiring liver transplantation (LT). We describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing LT for LCH. All patients undergoing a first LT for LCH in the United States were identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database (1987-2018). The Kaplan-Meier curve method and log-rank tests evaluated post-LT survival. A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. A total of 60 LCH LT recipients were identified in the SRTR, and 55 patients (91.7%) were children with median total bilirubin levels at LT of 5.8 mg/dL (interquartile range [IQR], 2.7-12.9). A total of 49 patients (81.7%) underwent deceased donor LT (DDLT). The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year patient survival rates were 86.6%, 82.4%, and 82.4%, respectively. The systematic review yielded 26 articles reporting on 50 patients. Of the patients, 41 were children (82.0%), 90.0% had multisystem LCH, and most patients underwent DDLT (91.9%; n = 34/37). Pre-LT chemotherapy was administered in 74.0% and steroids in 71.7% (n = 33/46) of the patients, and a recurrence of LCH to the liver was reported in 8.0% of the patients. Of the 50 patients, 11 (22.0%) died during a median follow-up of 25.2 months (IQR, 9.0-51.6), and the 1-year patient survival rate was 79.4%. LT can be considered as a feasible life-saving option for the management of liver failure secondary to LCH in well-selected patients.

Comparison of Wait-List Mortality Between Cholangiocarcinoma and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Liver Transplant Candidates.

Despite the divergent disease biology of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), wait-list prioritization is identical for both diagnoses. We compared wait-list and posttransplant outcomes between CCA and HCC liver transplantation patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease exceptions using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. The 408 CCA candidates listed between 2003 and mid-2017 were matched to 2 HCC cohorts by listing date (±2 months, n = 816) and by Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) region and date (±6 months, n = 408). Cumulative incidence competing risk regression examined the effects of diagnosis, OPTN region, and center-level CCA listing volume on wait-list removal due to death/being too ill (dropout). Cox models evaluated the effects of diagnosis, OPTN region, center-level CCA volume, and waiting time on graft failure among deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) recipients. After adjusting for OPTN region and CCA listing volume (all P ≥ 0.07), both HCC cohorts had a reduced likelihood of wait-list dropout compared with CCA candidates (HCC with period matching only: subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.93; P = 0.02 and HCC with OPTN region and period matching: SHR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41-0.87; P = 0.007). The cumulative incidence rates of wait-list dropout at 6 and 12 months were 13.2% (95% CI, 10.0%-17.0%) and 23.9% (95% CI, 20.0%-29.0%) for CCA candidates, 7.3% (95% CI, 5.0%-10.0%) and 12.7% (95% CI, 10.0%-17.0%) for HCC candidates with region and listing date matching, and 7.1% (95% CI, 5.0%-9.0%) and 12.6% (95% CI, 10.0%-15.0%) for HCC candidates with listing date matching only. Additionally, HCC DDLT recipients had a 57% reduced risk of graft failure compared with CCA recipients (P < 0.001). Waiting time was unrelated to graft failure (P = 0.57), and there was no waiting time by diagnosis cohort interaction effect (P = 0.47). When identically prioritized, LT candidates with CCA have increased wait-list dropout compared with those with HCC. More granular data are necessary to discern ways to mitigate this wait-list disadvantage and improve survival for patients with CCA.

Living vs deceased donor liver transplantation in cholestatic liver disease: An analysis of the OPTN database.

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) can expand the donor pool for cholestatic liver disease (CLD) patients. We sought to compare the outcomes of deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) vs LDLT in CLD patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of adult CLD recipients registered in the OPTN database who received primary LT between 2002 and 2018. Cox proportional hazards regression models with mixed effects were used to determine the impact of graft type on patient and graft survival. RESULTS: Five thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine DDLT (5730 donation after brain death [DBD], 269 DCD) and 912 LDLT recipients were identified. Ten-year patient/graft survival rates were DBD: 73.8%/67.9%, DCD: 74.7%/60.7%, and LDLT: 82.5%/73.9%. Higher rates of biliary complications as a cause of graft failure were seen in DCD (56.8%) than LDLT (30.5%) or DBD (18.7%) recipients. On multivariable analysis, graft type was not associated with patient mortality, while DCD was independently associated with graft failure (P = .046). CONCLUSION: DBD, DCD, and LDLT were associated with comparable overall patient survival. No difference in the risk of graft failure could be observed between LDLT and DBD. DCD can be an acceptable alternative to DBD with equivalent patient survival, but inferior graft survival likely related to the high rate of biliary complications.

Hyperammonemia syndrome due to Ureaplasma infection after liver-kidney transplant.

Hyperammonemia syndrome, with high levels of ammonia and neurologic dysfunction, is a syndrome with historically high mortality that may occur after solid organ transplantation. Recently, this has been associated with infection due to Ureaplasma, mostly following lung transplantation. We describe the first case of hyperammonemia syndrome due to Ureaplasma infection after liver-kidney transplantation. Our patient rapidly recovered after specific antibiotic treatment. It is important to consider these infections in the differential diagnosis for encephalopathy post-transplant, as these organisms often do not grow using routine culture methods and polymerase chain reaction testing is typically required for their detection. This is particularly critical after liver transplantation, where a number of other etiologies may be considered as a cause of hyperammonemia syndrome.

Transplant tourism complicated by life-threatening New Delhi metallo-ß-lactamase-1 infection.

Transplant tourism, which is the practice of traveling to other countries for transplant, continues to be a major problem worldwide. We describe a patient who traveled to Pakistan and underwent commercial kidney transplant. He developed life-threatening infections from New Delhi metallo-ß-lactamase-1-producing Enterobacter cloacae and Rhizopus oryzae, resulting in a necrotizing kidney allograft infection and subsequent external iliac artery rupture. He survived after a prolonged course of nonstandardized antimicrobial therapy, including a combination of aztreonam and ceftazidime-avibactam, and aggressive surgical debridement with allograft nephrectomy. The early timing of infection with these unusual organisms localized to the allograft suggests contamination and substandard care at the time of transplant. This case highlights the challenges of caring for these infections and serves as a cautionary tale for the potential complications of commercial transplant tourism.

Living Donation Versus Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation for Low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Recipients.

In this era of organ scarcity, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an alternative to using deceased donors, and in Western countries, it is more often used for recipients with low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. We sought to compare the patient survival and graft survival between recipients of liver transplantation from living donors and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors in patients with low MELD scores. This is a retrospective cohort analysis of adult liver transplant recipients with a laboratory MELD of ≤20 who underwent transplantation between January 1, 2003 and March 31, 2016. Recipients were categorized by donor graft type (DCD or LDLT), and recipient and donor characteristics were compared. Ten-year patient and graft survival curves were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analyses, and a mixed-effects model was performed to determine the contributions of recipient, donor, and center variables on patient and graft survival. There were 36,705 liver transplants performed: 32,255 (87.9%) from DBD donors, 2166 (5.9%) from DCD donors, and 2284 (6.2%) from living donors. In the mixed-effects model, DCD status was associated with a higher risk of graft failure (relative risk [RR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.38) but not worse patient survival (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.96-1.67). Lower DCD center experience was associated with a 1.21 higher risk of patient death (95% CI, 1.17-1.25) and a 1.13 higher risk of graft failure (95% CI, 1.12-1.15). LDLT center experience was also predictive of patient survival (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03) and graft failure (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.05-1.06). In conclusion, for liver transplant recipients with low laboratory MELD, LDLT offers better graft survival and a tendency to better patient survival than DCD donors.

Size mismatch in deceased donor liver transplantation and its impact on graft survival.

The impact of size mismatch in deceased donor liver transplantation is unknown. BSA has been demonstrated to be an accurate indicator of liver volume. We developed a model to match livers by BSA and estimate the impact of size mismatch on graft survival. Using the Standard Transplant Analysis and Research (STAR) database we selected solitary primary liver transplants recipients of any age, transplanted between 3/6/2002 and 12/31/2016. Using the Cox proportional hazard model, and controlling for donor and recipient factors, we determined the relative risk for graft survival for four donor/recipient body surface area ratio groups (≤0.68, 0.69-0.90, 0.91-1.25, 1.26-1.5). We studied two groups: recipients with a BSA > 1.6 (adults) and ≤1.6 (children) and a subgroup with a BSA ≤ 0.53 (small infants). In recipients with BSA > 1.6 (adults [n = 71 365]), D/R ratios ≤ 0.68 and > 1.25 had a negative impact on graft survival. In recipients with BSA ≤ 1.6 (children [n = 8339]) D/R ratios <0.75 and >1.25 had a negative impact on graft survival. In the 1725 recipients with BSA ≤ 0.53 (small infants) D/R ratios <1 and >2.3 had a negative impact on graft survival. In deceased donor liver transplantation, the D/R ratio is a significant, yet underestimated predictor of graft survival that should be considered in donor and recipient selection.

Living liver donation improves patient and graft survival in the pediatric population.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of living donor grafts resulted in an increased availability of liver for pediatric recipients, and accordingly, this was associated with a significantly decreased waiting time before liver transplantation as well as reduced pre-transplant mortality. We hypothesized that the use of living donors in pediatric LT may lead to improved graft and patient survival, when compared to LT using deceased donors. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of pediatric recipients (aged <18 years) registered in the UNOS database who received a primary liver transplant between February 2002 and December 2016. Covariates predictive of survival by multivariable analyses were included in the Cox proportional hazards regression models to determine predictors of patient and graft survival. RESULTS: A total of 6312 children received a primary LT from a LD (n = 800) or a deceased donor (n = 5517; partial graft n = 1784 and whole graft n = 3733). Vascular and biliary complications were similar. Kaplan-Meier graft and patient survival rates were superior in LD recipients compared with recipients of deceased whole and reduced graft (Figures 1 and 2). In the multivariable analysis, LD were an independent predictor of improved patient and graft survival. CONCLUSION: The use of LD in children is associated with improved patient and graft survival. The option of LD should be introduced early on in the evaluation of every pediatric patient being evaluated for liver transplant.

Body mass index as a predictor of outcomes among pediatric kidney transplant recipient.

Controversies exist regarding the impact of obesity on patients undergoing kidney transplantation. We sought to estimate the association between BMI and patient outcomes (survival and graft function) among pediatric kidney transplant patients in the USA. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database (1987-2013), which revealed 13 014 pediatric patients (<18 years old) who underwent primary kidney transplantation. Patients were stratified into five BMI categories established by the World Health Organizations according to their Z score, which is based on age, gender and BMI. The -2, 0, and +2 categories were collapsed and served as the reference group, while the -3 (thin) and +3 (obese) categories were evaluated for differences in graft and patient survival. The survival rates between these categories were compared using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to adjust for recipient and donor characteristics to estimate the risk of graft loss and mortality associated with BMI. Logistic regression models were estimated to evaluate whether there was an association between BMI and DGF. There were no differences in overall patient (P=.1655) or graft (P=.1688) survival between the severely thin, normal, and obese patients. Adjusted models also revealed no statistically significant differences in graft or patient survival. There were no differences in the odds of DGF (both unadjusted and adjusted) among the three groups. The prevalence of obesity is increasing among children who present for kidney transplant in the USA. In this national study of pediatric kidney transplant recipients, there was no difference in graft or patient survival and no differences in rates of DGF among obese children compared to normal and underweight children undergoing kidney transplantation.

Cost-effectiveness of liver transplantation in methylmalonic and propionic acidemias.

Propionic acidemia (PA) and classical methylmalonic acidemia (MMA) are rare inborn errors of metabolism that can cause early mortality and significant morbidity. The mainstay of disease management is lifelong protein restriction. As an alternative, liver transplantation (LT) may improve survival, quality of life, and prevent further neurological deterioration. The aim of our study was to estimate the incremental costs and outcomes of LT versus nutritional support in patients with early-onset MMA or PA. We constructed a Markov model to simulate and compare life expectancies, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime direct and indirect costs for a cohort of newborns with MMA or PA who could either receive LT or be maintained on conventional nutritional support. We conducted a series of 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In the base case, LT on average resulted in 1.5 more life years lived, 7.9 more QALYs, and a savings of $582,369 for lifetime societal cost per individual compared to nutritional support. LT remained more effective and less costly in all 1-way sensitivity analyses. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, LT was cost-effective at the $100,000/QALY threshold in more than 90% of the simulations and cost-saving in over half of the simulations. LT is likely a dominant treatment strategy compared to nutritional support in newborns with classical MMA or PA.

Outcomes of adult liver re-transplant patients in the model for end-stage liver disease era: is it time to reconsider its indications?

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the outcomes and utility of liver re-transplantation in non-hepatitis C patients, we sought to identify predictors that impact post-transplant patient and graft survival comparing primary liver transplant patients to those receiving subsequent allografts. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using the United Network for Organ Sharing database from February 2002 through December 2012, including non-hepatitis C infected adults (18 yr and older) who underwent primary and repeat liver transplantation. Patient and graft survival were compared between the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate variables associated with both patient and graft survival. RESULTS: We identified 33 176 primary transplant recipients and 2710 re-transplants. Re-transplantation patients were more likely to be on dialysis prior to transplant (18% vs. 10%), hospitalized (26% vs. 16%), in the intensive care unit (ICU) (34% vs. 13%), on a ventilator (17% vs. 3%), and had higher model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (27 vs. 21). Re-transplants also received livers with a lower donor risk index (DRI) (1.57 vs. 1.64). We estimated an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 for patient survival (95% CI: 1.56-1.84) and 1.61 (95% CI: 1.5-1.73) for graft survival. CONCLUSIONS: Liver re-transplantation in non-hepatitis C patients, although life saving, has significantly inferior patient and graft survival compared to primary liver transplantation. Higher quality grafts are used inefficiently in a sicker patient population, suggesting that a more optimal strategy may include restricting their use to patients who obtain a longer term benefit.