Regulations and Procurement Surgery in DCD Liver Transplantation: Expert Consensus Guidance From the International Liver Transplantation Society.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors are an increasingly more common source of livers for transplantation in many parts of the world. Events that occur during DCD liver recovery have a significant impact on the success of subsequent transplantation. This working group of the International Liver Transplantation Society evaluated current evidence as well as combined experience and created this guidance on DCD liver procurement. Best practices for the recovery and transplantation of livers arising through DCD after euthanasia and organ procurement with super-rapid cold preservation and recovery as well as postmortem normothermic regional perfusion are described, as are the use of adjuncts during DCD liver procurement.

A Less Restrictive Policy for Liver Transplantation in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Positive Patients, Based Upon Cycle Threshold Values.

Coronavirus disease 2019 drastically impacted solid organ transplantation. Lacking scientific evidence, a very stringent but safer policy was imposed on liver transplantation (LT) early in the pandemic. Restrictive transplant guidelines must be reevaluated and adjusted as data become available. Before LT, the prevailing policy requires a negative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of donors and recipients. Unfortunately, prolonged viral RNA shedding frequently hinders transplantation. Recent data reveal that positive test results for viral genome are frequently due to noninfectious and prolonged convalescent shedding of viral genome. Moreover, studies demonstrated that the cycle threshold of quantitative RT-PCR could be leveraged to inform clinical transplant decision-making. We present an evidence-adjusted and significantly less restrictive policy for LT, where risk tolerance is tiered to recipient acuity. In addition, we delineate the pretransplant clinical decision-making, intra- and postoperative management, and early outcome of 2 recipients of a liver graft performed while their RT-PCR of airway swabs remained positive. Convalescent positive RT-PCR results are common in the transplant arena, and the proposed policy permits reasonably safe LT in many circumstances.

Current status of liver transplantation in Latin America.

The lack of adequate financial coverage, education, and the organization has been the main limiting factor for the development of transplantation in Latin America. As occurred worldwide, the number of patients on liver waiting lists in Latin America grows disproportionately compared to the number of liver transplantations (LTs) performed. Although many law modifications have been made in the last year, most countries lack social awareness about the importance of donation and the irreversibility of brain death. The mechanisms and norms for organ procurement and infrastructure development, capable of supporting this high demand, are still in slow progress in most countries. Access to LT in the region is very heterogeneous. While some countries have no active LT programs so far, others are an international model of a public transplantation system (Brazil) or a national information system (Argentina). While some countries have only a few LT centers, others have too many LT centers performing an inadequate low number of LTs. Disparity to access transplantation remains the major challenge in the region. Cultural and educational efforts have to be accompanied by transparent public policies that will likely increase organ donation and activity in transplantation. The purpose of this article is to review the trends and current activity in LT within Latin America, based on prior publications and the information available in each country of the region.

Constitutional Challenges to Liver Transplant Policy.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplant candidacy determination can be contentious. When transplantation is declined for reasons perceived as violating fundamental rights or discriminating against a protected class-for example, age, race, religion, nationality-the case may involve a constitutional claim. Judicial review of such cases may result in decisions with sweeping implications for transplant policy. METHODS: We reviewed all published court opinions involving liver transplantation in 2 legal databases (Lexis Nexus and WestLaw). We included all cases that involved a denial of liver transplant candidacy in violation of constitutional rights. RESULTS: The search returned 1562 cases: 290 involved the denial of insurance coverage for a transplant due to a patient's failure to abstain from drinking, 273 cases involved incarcerated inmates who were denied a liver transplant, 2 involved a constitutional claim for patient requesting a bloodless transplant for religious reasons, and 2 cases arose from age discrimination in transplant criteria. These cases highlight legal pitfalls related to the First Amendment (religious freedom), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), and the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection and due process). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of a constitutional claim highlights concrete steps needed to ensure the equity of transplant policy. These include efforts to standardize transplant candidacy criteria across payers for candidates with alcohol-related liver disease and advanced age. Efforts to constrain emerging liabilities related to the citizenship of transplant candidates and the definition of donor service areas are also discussed.

State-Based Liver Distribution: Broad Sharing With Less Harm to Vulnerable and Underserved Communities Compared With Concentric Circles.

Allocation of livers for transplantation faces regulatory pressure to move toward broader sharing. A current proposal supported by the United Network for Organ Sharing Board of Directors relies on concentric circles, but its effect on socioeconomic inequities in access to transplant services is poorly understood. In this article, we offer a proposal that uses the state of donation as a unit of distribution, given that the state is a recognized unit of legal jurisdiction and socioeconomic health in many contexts. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients liver simulated allocation model algorithm was used to generate comparative estimates of regional transplant volume and the impact of these considered changes with regard to vulnerable and high-risk patients on the waiting list and to disparities in wait-list access. State-based liver distribution outperforms the concentric circle models in overall system efficiency, reduced discards, and minimized flights for organs. Furthermore, the efflux of organs from areas of greater sociodemographic vulnerability and lesser wait-list access is more than 2-fold lower in a state-based model than in concentric circle alternatives. In summary, we propose that a state-based system offers a legally defensible, practical, and ethically sound alternative to geometric zones of organ distribution.

Similarities and Differences in Allocation Policies for Pediatric Liver Transplantation Across the World.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate national allocation policies for pediatric liver transplantation (LT). METHOD: A survey was prepared by the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition Hepatology Committee in collaboration with the North American Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplantation consortium. The survey was sent to pediatric hepatologists and transplant surgeons worldwide. National data were obtained from centrally based registries. RESULTS: Replies were obtained from 15 countries from 5 of the world continents. Overall donation rate varied between 9 and 35 per million inhabitants. The number of pediatric LTs was 4 to 9 per million inhabitants younger than 18 years for 13 of the 15 respondents. In children younger than 2 years mortality on the waiting list (WL) varied between 0 and 20%. In the same age group, there were large differences in the ratio of living donor LT to deceased donor LT and in the ratio of split liver segments to whole liver. These differences were associated with possible discrepancies in WL mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities but also differences between countries were detected. The described data may be of importance when trying to reduce WL mortality in the youngest children.

Changes in Simultaneous Liver-kidney Transplant Allocation Policy May Impact Postliver Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Previous simultaneous liver-kidney (SLK) transplant allocation was based on serum creatinine, a metric that disadvantaged women relative to men. A recent SLK transplant policy change uses estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), which accounts for sex-based differences in creatinine. METHODS: To understand the impact of this new policy, we analyzed nonstatus 1 adults listed for liver transplantation (LT) from May 2007 to July 2014, excluding those with exceptions. We defined patients who met the new SLK policy as having an eGFR <60 mL/min for 90 days, with a final eGFR <30 mL/min. RESULTS: Of 40979 candidates, 1683 would have met only the new criteria (N-SLK), 2452 would have met only the old criteria (O-SLK), and 1878 would have met both criteria (B-SLK). Compared to those in the B-SLK or O-SLK groups, those in the N-SLK group were significantly more likely to be female (52% versus 36% versus 39%, P < 0.001). Cox-regression analysis demonstrated that in adjusted analysis those in the N-SLK group were significantly less likely to die postliver transplant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.0; P < 0.001). Further, in Cox regression subgroup analyses, both in women (HR 0.04; P < 0.001) and in men (HR, 0.02, P < 0.001) those in the N-SLK group who underwent liver transplant were significantly less likely to die postliver transplant, even after adjustment for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that implementation of the new SLK policy will increase the proportion of women and decrease the proportion of men who are listed for SLK but may not improve posttransplant survival. Our data highlight the need for monitoring of SLK outcomes after implementation of the new policy.

Swaps and Chains and Vouchers, Oh My!: Evaluating How Saving More Lives Impacts the Equitable Allocation of Live Donor Kidneys.

Live kidney donation involves a delicate balance between saving the most lives possible and maintaining a transplant system that is fair to the many thousands of patients on the transplant waiting list. Federal law and regulations require that kidney allocation be equitable, but the pressure to save patients subject to ever-lengthening waiting times for a transplant has been swinging the balance toward optimizing utility at the expense of justice. This article traces the progression of innovations created to make optimum use of a patient's own live donors. It starts with the simplest - direct donation by family members - and ends with voucher donations, a very recent and unique innovation because the donor can donate 20 or more years before the intended recipient is expected to need a kidney. In return for the donation, the intended recipient receives a voucher that can be redeemed for a live kidney when it is needed. Other innovations that are discussed include kidney exchanges and list paired donation, which are used to facilitate donor swaps when donor/recipient pairs have incompatible blood types. The discussion of each new innovation shows how the equity issues build on each other and how, with each new innovation, it becomes progressively harder to find an acceptable balance between utility and justice. The article culminates with an analysis of two recent allocation methods that have the potential to save many additional lives, but also affirmatively harm some patients on the deceased donor waiting list by increasing their waiting time for a life-saving kidney. The article concludes that saving additional lives does not justify harming patients on the waiting list unless that harm can be minimized. It also proposes solutions to minimize the harm so these new innovations can equitably perform their intended function of stimulating additional transplants and extending the lives of many transplant patients.

Ethical Analysis and Policy Recommendations Regarding Domino Liver Transplantation.

Due to the widening gap between supply and demand, patients who need a liver transplant due to metabolic disease may be asked to serve as domino liver donors-to have their native liver transplanted into another candidate. We here analyze the ethical problems surrounding informed consent for the implant and explant procedures in transplant candidates who will serve as domino donors, using the case of a child with maple syrup urine disease. We discuss the need for 2 distinct consent processes separated in time to ensure that potential domino donors (or their surrogates) give a truly voluntary consent. We propose a Domino Donor Advocate-based on the concept of the independent living donor advocate to help the patient and/or his or her surrogates consider the risks, benefits and alternatives. Finally, we evaluate the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policy regarding "therapeutic organ donation" and propose several modifications to ensure that the decision by the potential domino donor (and/or his or her surrogate) is voluntary and informed.

New paradigms for organ allocation and distribution in liver transplantation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The 'Final Rule,' issued by the Health Resources and Service Administration in 2000, mandated that liver allocation policy should be based on disease severity and probability of death, and - among other factors - should be independent of a candidate's residence or listing. As a result, the Organ Procurement Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) has explored policy changes addressing geographic disparities without compromising outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Major paradigm shifts are underway in U.S. liver allocation policy. New hepatocellular carcinoma exception policy incorporates tumor characteristics associated with posttransplantation outcomes, whereas a National Liver Review Board will promote a standardized process for awarding exception points. Meanwhile, following extensive debate, new allocation policy aims to reduce geographic disparity by broadening sharing to the UNOS region and 150-mile circle around the donor hospital for liver transplant candidates with a calculated model for end-stage liver disease score at least 32. Unnecessary organ travel will be reduced by granting 3 'proximity points' to candidates within the same donation service area (DSA) as a liver donor or within 150 nautical miles of the donor hospital, regardless of DSA or UNOS region. SUMMARY: This review provides an evaluation of major policy changes in liver allocation from 2016 to 2018.

Liver Simulated Allocation Modeling: Were the Predictions Accurate for Share 35?

BACKGROUND: The liver simulated allocation model (LSAM) can be used to study likely effects of liver transplant allocation policy changes on organ offers, acceptance, waitlist survival, and posttransplant survival. Implementation of Share 35 in June 2013 allowed for testing how well LSAM predicted actual changes. METHODS: LSAM projections for 1 year of liver transplants before and after the Share 35 policy change were compared with observed data during the same period. Numbers of organs recovered, organ sharing, transplant rates, and waitlist mortality rates (per 100 waitlist years) were evaluated by LSAM and compared with observed data. RESULTS: Candidate, recipient, and donor characteristics in the LSAM cohorts were similar to those in the observed population before and after Share 35. LSAM correctly predicted more accepted organs and fewer discarded organs with Share 35. LSAM also predicted increased regional and national sharing, consistent with observed data, although the magnitude was overestimated. Transplant rates were correctly projected to increase and waitlist death rates to decrease. CONCLUSIONS: Although the absolute number of transplants was underestimated and waitlist deaths overestimated, the direction of change was consistent with observed data. LSAM correctly predicted change in discarded organs, regional and national sharing, waitlist mortality, and transplants after Share 35 implementation.

Liver transplantation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The first liver transplantation (LT) in Saudi Arabia was performed in 1991; however, it was not until 1994 that the first structured LT program was launched. Until 1997, all LTs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) were deceased donor liver transplantations. Programs performing LTs needed the authorization of the Saudi Center for Organ Transplantation (SCOT), which provides the essential support for organ procurement and allocation as well as regulatory support for organ transplantation in the country. Currently, there are 4 LT centers in the KSA. Three centers are in Riyadh, the capital city of KSA, and 1 is in the city of Dammam in the Eastern province. Pediatric living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) began in 1997, while the adult LDLT program started 4 years later in 2001. Currently, more than 2000 LTs have been performed by the 4 centers in the KSA. Over 50% of those were performed at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center in Riyadh. The outcomes of these transplants have been comparable with the international standards. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of LT in KSA. Liver Transplantation 23 1312-1317 2017 AASLD.

New Organ Allocation System for Combined Liver-Kidney Transplants and the Availability of Kidneys for Transplant to Patients with Stage 4-5 CKD.

A new proposal has been created for establishing medical criteria for organ allocation in recipients receiving simultaneous liver-kidney transplants. In this article, we describe the new policy, elaborate on the points of greatest controversy, and offer a perspective on the policy going forward. Although we applaud the fact that simultaneous liver-kidney transplant activity will now be monitored and appreciate the creation of medical criteria for allocation in simultaneous liver-kidney transplants, we argue that some of the criteria proposed, especially those for allocating a kidney to a liver recipient with AKI, are too liberal. We call on the nephrology community to follow the consequences of this new policy and push for a re-examination of the longstanding policy of allocating kidneys to multiorgan transplant recipients before all other candidates. The charge to protect our system of equitable organ allocation is very challenging, but it is a challenge that we must embrace.

Global lessons in graft type and pediatric liver allocation: A path toward improving outcomes and eliminating wait-list mortality.

Current literature and policy in pediatric liver allocation and organ procurement are reviewed here in narrative fashion, highlighting historical context, ethical framework, technical/procurement considerations, and support for a logical way forward to an equitable pediatric liver allocation system that will improve pediatric wait-list and posttransplant outcomes without adversely affecting adults. Where available, varying examples of successful international pediatric liver allocation and split-liver policy will be compared to current US policy to highlight potential strategies that can be considered globally. Liver Transplantation 23:86-95 2017 AASLD.

Biliary atresia: Indications and timing of liver transplantation and optimization of pretransplant care.

Biliary atresia (BA) is a progressive, fibro-obliterative disorder of the intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile ducts in infancy. The majority of affected children will eventually develop end-stage liver disease and require liver transplantation (LT). Indications for LT in BA include failed Kasai portoenterostomy, significant and recalcitrant malnutrition, recurrent cholangitis, and the progressive manifestations of portal hypertension. Extrahepatic complications of this disease, such as hepatopulmonary syndrome and portopulmonary hypertension, are also indications for LT. Optimal pretransplant management of these potentially life-threatening complications and maximizing nutrition and growth require the expertise of a multidisciplinary team with experience caring for BA. The timing of transplant for BA requires careful consideration of the potential risk of transplant versus the survival benefit at any given stage of disease. Children with BA often experience long wait times for transplant unless exception points are granted to reflect severity of disease. Family preparedness for this arduous process is therefore critical. Liver Transplantation 23:96-109 2017 AASLD.

Liver transplantation after share 35: Impact on pretransplant and posttransplant costs and mortality.

Share 35 was implemented in 2013 to direct livers to the most urgent candidates by prioritizing Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥ 35 patients. We aim to evaluate this policy's impact on costs and mortality. Our study includes 834 wait-listed patients and 338 patients who received deceased donor, solitary liver transplants at Mayo Clinic between January 2010 and December 2014. Of these patients, 101 (30%) underwent transplantation after Share 35. After Share 35, 29 (28.7%) MELD ≥ 35 patients received transplants, as opposed to 46 (19.4%) in the pre-Share 35 era (P = 0.06). No significant difference in 90-day wait-list mortality (P = 0.29) nor 365-day posttransplant mortality (P = 0.68) was found between patients transplanted before or after Share 35. Mean costs were $3,049 (P = 0.30), $5226 (P = 0.18), and $10,826 (P = 0.03) lower post-Share 35 for the 30-, 90-, and 365-day pretransplant periods, and mean costs were $5010 (P = 0.41) and $5859 (P = 0.57) higher, and $9145 (P = 0.54) lower post-Share 35 for the 30-, 90-, and 365-day posttransplant periods. In conclusion, the added cost of transplanting more MELD ≥ 35 patients may be offset by pretransplant care cost reduction. Despite shifting organs to critically ill patients, Share 35 has not impacted mortality significantly. Liver Transplantation 23:11-18 2017 AASLD.

Liver transplantation in Japan.

As of December 31, 2014, 7937 liver transplants (7673 living donor transplants and 264 deceased donor liver transplantations [DDLTs; 261 from heart-beating donors and 3 from non-heart-beating donors]) have been performed in 67 institutions in Japan. The revised Organ Transplant Law in Japan came into effect in July 2010, which allows organ procurement from brain-dead individuals, including children, with family consent if the patient had not previously refused organ donation. However, the number of deceased donor organ donations has not increased as anticipated. The rate of deceased organ donations per million population (pmp) has remained at less than 1. To maximize the viability of the limited numbers of donated organs, a system has been adopted that includes the partnership of well-trained transplant consultant doctors and local doctors. For compensating for the decreased opportunity of on-site training, an educational system regarding quality organ procurement for transplant surgeons has also been established. Furthermore, experts in the field of liver transplantation are currently discussing adoption of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score for allocation, promoting split-liver transplantation, arranging in-house coordinators, and improving the frequency of proposing the option to donate organs to the families. To overcome the shortage of donors during efforts to promote organ donation, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been developed in Japan. Continuous efforts to increase DDLT in addition to the successful experience of LDLT will increase the benefits of liver transplantation for more patients. Liver Transplantation 22 1401-1407 2016 AASLD.

Liver transplantation in the United Kingdom.

Liver transplantation (LT) services in the United Kingdom are provided by 7 designated transplant centers for a population of approximately 64 million. The number of deceased organ donors has grown, and in 2014-2015 it was 1282 (570 donation after circulatory death and 772 donation after brain death). Donor risk is increasing. In 2014-2015, there were 829 LTs from deceased and 38 from living donors. The common causes for transplantation are liver cell cancer, viral hepatitis, and alcohol-related liver disease. Livers are allocated first nationally to super-urgent listed patients and then on a zonal basis. The United Kingdom will be moving toward a national allocation scheme. The median interval between listing and transplantation is 152 days for adults awaiting their first elective transplant. Of the adults listed for the first elective transplant, 68% underwent transplantation at < 1 year; 17% are waiting; and 4% and 11% were removed or died, respectively. The 1- and 5-year adult patient survival rate from listing is 81% and 68%, respectively, and from transplantation is 92% and 80%, respectively. The transplant program is funded through general taxation and is free at the point of care to those who are eligible for National Health Service (NHS) treatment; some have to pay for medication (up to a maximum payment of US $151/year). The competent authority is the Human Tissue Authority which licenses donor characterization, retrieval, and implantation; transplant units are commissioned by NHS England and NHS Scotland. National Health Service Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) promotes organ donation, maintains the organ donor register, obtains consent, and undertakes donor characterization and offering. NHSBT also maintains the national waiting list, develops and applies selection and allocation policies, monitors outcomes, and maintains the UK National Transplant Registry and commissions a national organ retrieval service. Liver Transplantation 22 1129-1135 2016 AASLD.