Long-term outcomes after hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion and transplantation of 1,202 donor livers in a real-world setting (HOPE-REAL study).

BACKGROUND & AIM: We aimed to assess long-term outcome after transplantation of HOPE-treated donor livers based on real-world data (i.e., IDEAL-D stage 4). METHODS: In this international, multicentre, observational cohort study, we collected data from adult recipients of a HOPE-treated liver transplanted between January 2012 and December 2021. Analyses were stratified for brain-dead (DBD) and circulatory-dead (DCD) donor livers, sub-divided by their respective risk categories. The primary outcome was death-censored graft survival. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of primary non-function (PNF) and ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). RESULTS: We report on 1202 liver transplantations (64% DBD) performed at 22 European centres. For DBD, a total number of 99 benchmark (8%), 176 standard (15%), and 493 extended-criteria (41%) cases were included. For DCD, 117 transplants were classified as low-risk (10%), 186 as high-risk (16%), and 131 as futile (11%), with significant risk profile variations among centres. Actuarial 1-, 3-, and 5-year death-censored graft survival for DBD and DCD was 95%, 92%, and 91%, vs. 92%, 87%, and 81%, respectively (logrank p=0.003). Within DBD and DCD-strata, death-censored graft survival was similar among risk groups (logrank p=0.26, p=0.99). Graft loss due to PNF or IC was 2.3% and 0.4% (DBD), and 5% and 4.1% (DCD). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows excellent 5-year survival after transplantation of HOPE-treated DBD and DCD livers with low rates of graft loss due to PNF or IC, irrespective of their individual risk profile. HOPE-treatment has now reached IDEAL-D stage 4, which further supports the implementation of HOPE in routine clinical practice. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: This study demonstrates the excellent long-term performance of HOPE-treatment of DCD and DBD liver grafts irrespective of their individual risk profile in a real-world setting, outside the evaluation of randomized controlled trials. While previous studies have established safety, feasibility, and efficacy against the current standard, according to the IDEAL-D evaluation framework, HOPE-treatment has now reached the final IDEAL-D Stage 4, which further supports the implementation of HOPE in routine clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05520320.

Comparison of prophylaxis and preemptive strategy as cytomegalovirus prevention in liver transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVES: Prophylaxis (P) or pre-emptive strategy (PS) in high-risk liver transplant recipients (LTRs) are either recommended. We compared the results of each strategy. METHODS: Two groups of LTR transplanted during two consecutive periods were compared. Only cytomegalovirus (CMV)-mismatched LTR (Donor +/ Recipient -) were included. The primary endpoints were: the onset of polymerase chain reaction-based DNAemia and the proportion of patients with CMV disease. A number of episodes of CMV infection, antiviral therapy, ganciclovir resistance, infectious or immunological complications, cost of both strategies, and survival (1, 5, and 10 years) were also compared. RESULTS: Forty-eight and 60 patients were respectively included in the P and PS groups. Eighteen (38%) in the P group and 56 (93%) in the PS group had CMV DNAemia (p <.0001) with a similar CMV disease rate (16.7% and 15%). Duration of curative therapy was longer in the PS group: 91 days versus 16 (p <.0001). Acute rejection was less frequent (p = .04) and more patients experienced a ganciclovir-resistant CMV infection in the PS group (10% vs. 0, p = .03). The drug-associated cost of PS was higher (10 004 vs. 4804€) and the median number of rehospitalization days tended to be higher (6 vs. 4, p = .06). Survival at any time was similar. CONCLUSION: We reported more CMV DNAemias and ganciclovir-resistant CMV events with PS. The cost of the PS strategy was higher.

Comparing indications, complexity and outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection between centers with and without a liver transplant program: a French nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: There are no data to evaluate the difference in populations and impact of centers with liver transplant programs in performing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). METHODS: This was a multicenter study including patients undergoing LLR for benign and malignant tumors at 27 French centers from 1996 to 2018. The main outcomes were postoperative severe morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3154 patients were included, and 14 centers were classified as transplant centers (N = 2167 patients, 68.7 %). The transplant centers performed more difficult LLRs and more resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who more frequently had cirrhosis. A higher rate of performing the Pringle maneuver, a lower rate of blood loss and a higher rate of open conversion (all p < 0.05) were observed in the transplant centers. There was no association between the presence of a liver transplant program and either postoperative severe morbidity (<10 % in each group; p = 0.228) or mortality (1 % in each group; p = 0.915). CONCLUSIONS: Most HCCs, difficult LLRs, and cirrhotic patients are treated in transplant centers. We show that all centers can achieve comparable safety and quality of care in LLR independent of the presence of a liver transplant program.