Liver transplant outcomes using late allocation grafts.

Post-cross clamp late allocation (LA) liver allografts are at increased risk for discard for many reasons including logistical complexity. Nearest neighbor propensity score matching was used to match 2 standard allocation (SA) offers to every 1 LA liver offer performed at our center between 2015 and 2021. Propensity scores were based on a logistic regression model including recipient age, recipient sex, graft type (donation after circulatory death vs. donation after brain death), Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD), and DRI score. During this time, 101 liver transplants (LT) were performed at our center using LA offers. In comparing LA and SA offers, there were no differences in recipient characteristics including indication for transplant ( p = 0.29), presence of PVT ( p = 0.19), TIPS ( p = 0.83), and HCC status ( p = 0.24). LA grafts came from younger donors (mean age 43.6 vs. 48.9 y, p = 0.009) and were more likely to come from regional or national Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) ( p < 0.001). Cold ischemia time was longer for LA grafts (median 8.5 vs 6.3 h, p < 0.001). Following LT, there were no differences between the 2 groups in intensive care unit ( p = 0.22) and hospital ( p = 0.49) lengths of stay, need for endoscopic interventions ( p = 0.55), or biliary strictures ( p = 0.21). Patient (HR 1.0, 95% CI, 0.47-2.15, p = 0.99) and graft (HR 1.23, 95% CI, 0.43-3.50, p = 0.70) survival did not vary between the LA and SA cohorts. One-year LA and SA patient survival was 95.1% and 95.0%; 1-year graft survival was 93.1% and 92.1%, respectively. Despite the additional logistical complexity and longer cold ischemia time, LT outcomes utilizing LA grafts are similar to those allocated by means of SA. Improving allocation policies specific to LA offers, as well as the sharing of best practices between transplant centers and OPOs, are opportunities to further help minimize unnecessary discards.

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.