The impact of normothermic machine perfusion and acuity circles on waitlist time, mortality, and cost in liver transplantation: A multicenter experience.

Ex situ normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) helps increase the use of extended criteria donor livers. However, the impact of an NMP program on waitlist times and mortality has not been evaluated. Adult patients listed for liver transplant (LT) at 2 academic centers from January 1, 2015, to September 1, 2023, were included (n=2773) to allow all patients ≥6 months follow-up from listing. Routine NMP was implemented on October 14, 2022. Waitlist outcomes were compared from pre-NMP pre-acuity circles (n=1460), pre-NMP with acuity circles (n=842), and with NMP (n=381). Median waitlist time was 79 days (IQR: 20-232 d) at baseline, 49 days (7-182) with acuity circles, and 14 days (5-56) with NMP ( p <0.001). The rate of transplant-per-100-person-years improved from 61-per-100-person-years to 99-per-100-person-years with acuity circles and 194-per-100-person-years with NMP ( p <0.001). Crude mortality without transplant decreased from 18.3% (n=268/1460) to 13.3% (n=112/843), to 6.3% (n=24/381) ( p <0.001) with NMP. The incidence of mortality without LT was 15-per-100-person-years before acuity circles, 19-per-100 with acuity circles, and 9-per-100-person-years after NMP ( p <0.001). Median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease at LT was lowest with NMP, but Model for End-Stage Liver Disease at listing was highest in this era ( p <0.0001). The median donor risk index of transplanted livers at baseline was 1.54 (1.27-1.82), 1.66 (1.42-2.16) with acuity circles, and 2.06 (1.63-2.46) with NMP ( p <0.001). Six-month post-LT survival was not different between eras ( p =0.322). The total cost of health care while waitlisted was lowest in the NMP era ($53,683 vs. $32,687 vs. $23,688, p <0.001); cost-per-day did not differ between eras ( p =0.152). The implementation of a routine NMP program was associated with reduced waitlist time and mortality without compromising short-term survival after liver transplant despite increased use of riskier grafts. Routine NMP use enables better waitlist management with reduced health care costs.

Impact of Back-to-Base Normothermic Machine Perfusion on Complications and Costs: A Multicenter, Real-World Risk-Matched Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Assess cost and complication outcomes after liver transplantation (LT) using normothermic machine perfusion (NMP). BACKGROUND: End-ischemic NMP is often used to aid logistics, yet its impact on outcomes after LT remains unclear, as does its true impact on costs associated with transplantation. METHODS: Deceased donor liver recipients at 2 centers (January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2023) were included. Retransplants, splits, and combined grafts were excluded. End-ischemic NMP (OrganOx-Metra) was implemented in October 2022 for extended-criteria donation after brain death (DBDs), all donations after circulatory deaths (DCDs), and logistics. NMP cases were matched 1:2 with static cold storage controls (SCS) using the Balance-of-Risk [donation after brain death (DBD)-grafts] and UK-DCD Score (DCD-grafts). RESULTS: Overall, 803 transplantations were included, 174 (21.7%) receiving NMP. Matching was achieved between 118 NMP-DBDs with 236 SCS; and 37 NMP-DCD with 74 corresponding SCS. For both graft types, median inpatient comprehensive complications index values were comparable between groups. DCD-NMP grafts experienced reduced cumulative 90-day comprehensive complications index (27.6 vs 41.9, P =0.028). NMP also reduced the need for early relaparotomy and renal replacement therapy, with subsequently less frequent major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥IVa). This effect was more pronounced in DCD transplants. NMP had no protective effect on early biliary complications. Organ acquisition/preservation costs were higher with NMP, yet NMP-treated grafts had lower 90-day pretransplant costs in the context of shorter waiting list times. Overall costs were comparable for both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first risk-adjusted outcome and cost analysis comparing NMP and SCS. In addition to logistical benefits, NMP was associated with a reduction in relaparotomy and bleeding in DBD grafts, and overall complications and post-LT renal replacement for DCDs. While organ acquisition/preservation was more costly with NMP, overall 90-day health care costs-per-transplantation were comparable.

Risk assessment in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: long-term follow-up of a two-centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) is a well-established treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but there are ongoing debates regarding outcomes and selection. This study examines the experience of LT for HCC at a high-volume centre. METHODS: A prospectively maintained database was used to identify HCC patients undergoing LT from 2000 to 2020 with more than or equal to 3-years follow-up. Data were obtained from the centre database and electronic medical records. The Metroticket 2.0 HCC-specific 5-year survival scale was calculated for each patient. Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression analyses were employed assessing survival between groups based on Metroticket score and individual donor and recipient risk factors. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-nine patients met criteria. Median follow-up was 96.2 months (8.12 years; interquartile range 59.9-147.8). Three-year recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were 88.6% ( n =504) and 86.6% ( n =493). Five-year RFS and OS were 78.9% ( n =449) and 79.1% ( n =450). Median Metroticket 2.0 score was 0.9 (interquartile range 0.9-0.95). Tumour size greater than 3 cm ( P =0.012), increasing tumour number on imaging ( P =0.001) and explant pathology ( P <0.001) was associated with recurrence. Transplant within Milan ( P <0.001) or UCSF criteria ( P <0.001) had lower recurrence rates. Increasing alpha-fetoprotein (AFP)-values were associated with more HCC recurrence ( P <0.001) and reduced OS ( P =0.008). Chemoembolization was predictive of recurrence in the overall population ( P =0.043) and in those outside-Milan criteria ( P =0.038). A receiver-operator curve using Metroticket 2.0 identified an optimal cut-off of projected survival greater than or equal to 87.5% for predicting recurrence. This cut-off was able to predict RFS ( P <0.001) in the total cohort and predict both, RFS ( P =0.007) and OS ( P =0.016) outside Milan. Receipt of donation after brain death (DBD) grafts (55/478, 13%) or living-donor grafts (3/22, 13.6%) experienced better survival rates compared to donation after cardiac death (DCD) grafts ( n =15/58, 25.6%, P =0.009). Donor age was associated with a higher HCC recurrence ( P =0.006). Both total ischaemia time (TIT) greater than 6hours ( P =0.016) and increasing TIT correlated with higher HCC recurrence ( P =0.027). The use of DCD grafts for outside-Milan candidates was associated with increased recurrence ( P =0.039) and reduced survival ( P =0.033). CONCLUSION: This large two-centre analysis confirms favourable outcomes after LT for HCC. Tumour size and number, pre-transplant AFP, and Milan criteria remain important recipient HCC-risk factors. A higher donor risk (i.e. donor age, DCD grafts, ischaemia time) was associated with poorer outcomes.

Antibiotics for appendicitis! Not so fast.

BACKGROUND: Emerging literature in acute appendicitis favors the nonoperative management of acute appendicitis. However, the actual use of this practice on a national level is not assessed. The aim of this study was to assess the changing trends in nonoperative management of acute appendicitis and its effects on patient outcomes. METHODS: We did an 8-year (2004-2011) retrospective analysis of the National Inpatient Sample database. We included all inpatients with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Patients with a diagnosis of appendiceal abscess or patients who underwent surgery for any other pathology were excluded from the analysis. Jonckheere-Terpstra trend analysis was performed for operative versus nonoperative management and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 436,400 cases of acute appendicitis were identified. Mean age of the population was 33 ± 19.5 years, and 54.5% were male. There was no significant change in the number of acute appendicitis diagnosed over the study period (p = 0.2). During the study period, nonoperative management of acute appendicitis increased significantly from 4.5% in 2004 to 6% in 2011 (p < 0.001). When compared with operatively managed patients, conservatively managed patients had a significantly longer hospital length of stay (3 [2-6] vs. 2 [1-3] days, p < 0.001), and in-hospital complications (27.8% vs. 7%, p < 0.001). On comparison of open and laparoscopic appendectomy, both had shorter hospital length of stay and rate of in-hospital complications. Overall hospital charges were lower in patients managed conservatively (15,441 [8,070-31,688] vs. 20,062 [13,672-29,928] USD, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nonoperative management of appendicitis has increased over time; however, outcomes of nonoperative management did not improve over the study period. A more in-depth analysis of patient and system demographics may reveal this disparity in trends. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic/prognostic study, level III.

Overuse of helicopter transport in the minimally injured: A health care system problem that should be corrected.

BACKGROUND: Mortality benefit has been demonstrated for trauma patients transported via helicopter but at great cost. This study identified patients who did not benefit from helicopter transport to our facility and demonstrates potential cost savings when transported instead by ground. METHODS: We performed a 6-year (2007-2013) retrospective analysis of all trauma patients presenting to our center. Patients with a known mode of transfer were included in the study. Patients with missing data and those who were dead on arrival were excluded from the study. Patients were then dichotomized into helicopter transfer and ground transfer groups. A subanalysis was performed between minimally injured patients (ISS < 5) in both the groups after propensity score matching for demographics, injury severity parameters, and admission vital parameters. Groups were then compared for hospital and emergency department length of stay, early discharge, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 5,202 transferred patients, 18.9% (981) were transferred via helicopter and 76.7% (3,992) were transferred via ground transport. Helicopter-transferred patients had longer hospital (p = 0.001) and intensive care unit (p = 0.001) stays. There was no difference in mortality between the groups (p = 0.6).On subanalysis of minimally injured patients there was no difference in hospital length of stay (p = 0.1) and early discharge (p = 0.6) between the helicopter transfer and ground transfer group. Average helicopter transfer cost at our center was $18,000, totaling $4,860,000 for 270 minimally injured helicopter-transferred patients. CONCLUSION: Nearly one third of patients transported by helicopter were minimally injured. Policies to identify patients who do not benefit from helicopter transport should be developed. Significant reduction in transport cost can be made by judicious selection of patients. Education to physicians calling for transport and identification of alternate means of transportation would be both safe and financially beneficial to our system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III. Therapeutic study, level IV.