Portable hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion for organ preservation in liver transplantation: A randomized, open-label, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In liver transplantation, cold preservation induces ischemia, resulting in significant reperfusion injury. Hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion (HMP-O 2 ) has shown benefits compared to static cold storage (SCS) by limiting ischemia-reperfusion injury. This study reports outcomes using a novel portable HMP-O 2 device in the first US randomized control trial. APPROACH AND RESULTS: The PILOT trial (NCT03484455) was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial, with participants randomized to HMP-O 2 or SCS. HMP-O 2 livers were preserved using the Lifeport Liver Transporter and Vasosol perfusion solution. The primary outcome was early allograft dysfunction. Noninferiority margin was 7.5%. From April 3, 2019, to July 12, 2022, 179 patients were randomized to HMP-O 2 (n=90) or SCS (n=89). The per-protocol cohort included 63 HMP-O 2 and 73 SCS. Early allograft dysfunction occurred in 11.1% HMP-O 2 (N=7) and 16.4% SCS (N=12). The risk difference between HMP-O 2 and SCS was -5.33% (one-sided 95% upper confidence limit of 5.81%), establishing noninferiority. The risk of graft failure as predicted by Liver Graft Assessment Following Transplant score at seven days (L-GrAFT 7 ) was lower with HMP-O 2 [median (IQR) 3.4% (2.4-6.5) vs. 4.5% (2.9-9.4), p =0.024]. Primary nonfunction occurred in 2.2% of all SCS (n=3, p =0.10). Biliary strictures occurred in 16.4% SCS (n=12) and 6.3% (n=4) HMP-O 2 ( p =0.18). Nonanastomotic biliary strictures occurred only in SCS (n=4). CONCLUSIONS: HMP-O 2 demonstrates safety and noninferior efficacy for liver graft preservation in comparison to SCS. Early allograft failure by L-GrAFT 7 was lower in HMP-O 2 , suggesting improved early clinical function. Recipients of HMP-O 2 livers also demonstrated a lower incidence of primary nonfunction and biliary strictures, although this difference did not reach significance.

Acceptable outcomes of liver transplantation in uninsured patients under the coverage of a state assistance program.

The lack of health insurance is a major barrier to access to health care, even in the case of life-saving procedures such as liver transplantation (LT). Concerns about worse outcomes in uninsured patients have also discouraged the evaluation and transplantation of patients without adequate health insurance coverage. The aim of this study is to evaluate outcomes from the largest cohort of uninsured patients who underwent LT with the support of a state payment assistance program (also called charity care). This study included all consecutive patients who underwent LT at a single center from 2002 to 2020. Demographic, clinical, and social variables and outcome metrics were collected and compared between insured and uninsured patients. Among a total of 978 LT recipients, 594 had private insurance, 324 government insurance (Medicare/Medicaid), and 60 were uninsured and covered under a state charity care program. In the charity care group, there was a higher proportion of Hispanic subjects, single marital status, younger age, and high-MELD score patients. The 1- and 3-year patient survival rates were 89.0% and 81.8% in private insurance patients, 88.8% and 80.1% in government insurance recipients, and 93.3% and 79.6% in those with charity care ( p =0.49). There was no difference in graft survival between insured and uninsured patients ( p =0.62). The 3 insurance groups presented similar hospital length-of-stay and 30-day readmission rates. In both univariate and multivariate analysis, uninsured status (charity care) was not associated with worse patient survival (HR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.84-1.80, p =0.29) or graft survival (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.84-1.78, p =0.29). In conclusion, there was no difference in outcomes after LT between insured and uninsured patients. A charity care program may be an effective tool to mitigate socioeconomic disparities in both outcomes and access to LT.

Novel Benchmark Values for Redo Liver Transplantation: Does the Outcome Justify the Effort?

OBJECTIVE: To define benchmark cutoffs for redo liver transplantation (redo-LT). BACKGROUND: In the era of organ shortage, redo-LT is frequently discussed in terms of expected poor outcome and wasteful resources. However, there is a lack of benchmark data to reliably evaluate outcomes after redo-LT. METHODS: We collected data on redo-LT between January 2010 and December 2018 from 22 high-volume transplant centers. Benchmark cases were defined as recipients with model of end stage liver disease (MELD) score ≤25, absence of portal vein thrombosis, no mechanical ventilation at the time of surgery, receiving a graft from a donor after brain death. Also, high-urgent priority and early redo-LT including those for primary nonfunction (PNF) or hepatic artery thrombosis were excluded. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of the medians of all benchmark centers. RESULTS: Of 1110 redo-LT, 373 (34%) cases qualified as benchmark cases. Among these cases, the rate of postoperative complications until discharge was 76%, and increased up to 87% at 1-year, respectively. One-year overall survival rate was excellent with 90%. Benchmark cutoffs included Comprehensive Complication Index CCI ® at 1-year of ≤72, and in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates of ≤13% and ≤15%, respectively. In contrast, patients who received a redo-LT for PNF showed worse outcomes with some values dramatically outside the redo-LT benchmarks. CONCLUSION: This study shows that redo-LT achieves good outcome when looking at benchmark scenarios. However, this figure changes in high-risk redo-LT, as for example in PNF. This analysis objectifies for the first-time results and efforts for redo-LT and can serve as a basis for discussion about the use of scarce resources.

Liver Transplantation for Cholangiocarcinoma: Insights into the Prognosis and the Evolving Indications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare malignancy of the biliary ducts that can be classified as intrahepatic, perihilar, or distal based on anatomic location. Although surgical resection can be curative, complete excision with negative margins is often difficult to achieve. In patients with unresectable disease, long-term survival is rarely seen with medical therapy alone. A multimodal treatment approach, including liver transplantation (LT) for select patients with unresectable CCA, should be considered. RECENT FINDINGS: While currently only an approved indication for early, liver-limited, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, promising results have been achieved for LT in localized intrahepatic disease. The absolute indication for transplant for intrahepatic tumors is currently the subject of multiple investigations. Continued advances in neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy and better understanding of tumor biology may further augment the number of candidates for surgical therapies, with liver transplant acting as a promising tool to improve patient outcomes. Thorough consideration for any expansion in the indication for liver transplant in malignancy is necessary in order to balance patient outcomes with utilization of the scarce donor organ resources.

Clinical Implications of Donor Warm and Cold Ischemia Time in Donor After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation.

The use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts has been constrained by limitations in the duration of donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), donor agonal time (DAT), and cold ischemia time (CIT). The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of longer DWIT, DAT, and CIT on graft survival and other outcomes in DCD liver transplants. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was queried for adult liver transplants from DCD donors between 2009 and 2015. Donor, recipient, and center variables were included in the analysis. During the study period, 2107 patients underwent liver transplant with DCD allografts. In most patients, DWIT and DAT were <30 minutes. DWIT was <30 minutes in 1804 donors, between 30 and 40 minutes in 248, and >40 minutes in 37. There was no difference in graft survival, duration of posttransplant hospital length of stay, and readmission rate between DCD liver transplants from donors with DWIT <30 minutes and DWIT between 30 and 40 minutes. Similar outcomes were noted for DAT. In the multivariate analysis, DAT and DWIT were not associated with graft loss. The predictors associated with graft loss were donor age, donor sharing, CIT, recipient admission to the intensive care unit, recipient ventilator dependence, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and low-volume transplant centers. Any CIT cutoff >4 hours was associated with increased risk for graft loss. Longer CIT was also associated with a longer posttransplant hospital stay, higher rate of primary nonfunction, and hyperbilirubinemia. In conclusion, slightly longer DAT and DWIT (up to 40 minutes) were not associated with graft loss, longer posttransplant hospitalization, or hospital readmissions, whereas longer CIT was associated with worse outcomes after DCD liver transplants.

Hepatitis C transmission from seropositive, nonviremic donors to non-hepatitis C liver transplant recipients.

Breakthroughs in hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment and rising rates of intravenous drug use have led to an increase in the number of organ donors who are HCV antibody-positive but serum nucleic acid test (NAT)-negative. The risk of HCV transmission from the liver grafts of these donors to recipients is unknown. To estimate the incidence of HCV transmission, we prospectively followed 26 consecutive HCV antibody-negative (n = 25) or NAT-negative (n = 1) transplant recipients who received a liver graft from donors who were HCV antibody-positive but serum NAT-negative between March 2016 and March 2017. HCV transmission was considered to have occurred if recipients exhibited a positive HCV PCR test by 3 months following transplantation. Drug overdose was listed as the cause of death in 15 (60%) of the donors. One recipient died 18 days after transplantation from primary graft nonfunction and was excluded. Of the remaining 25 recipients, HCV transmission occurred in 4 (16%), at a median follow-up of 11 months, all from donors who died of drug overdose. Three of these patients were treated with direct-acting antiviral therapy, with two achieving a sustained virologic response and one an end-of-treatment response. One patient with HCV transmission died after a complicated postoperative course and did not receive antiviral therapy. CONCLUSION: In this prospective cohort of non-HCV liver recipients receiving grafts from HCV antibody-positive/NAT-negative donors, the incidence of HCV transmission was 16%, with the highest risk conferred by donors who died of drug overdose; given the availability of safe and highly effective antiviral therapies, use of such organs could be considered to expand the donor pool. (Hepatology 2018;67:1673-1682).

Transplanting Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Versus Uninfected Kidneys Into Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Recipients: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Background: Direct-acting antiviral agents are now available to treat chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Objective: To examine whether it is more cost-effective to transplant HCV-infected or HCV-uninfected kidneys into HCV-infected patients. Design: Markov state-transition decision model. Data Sources: MEDLINE searches and bibliographies from relevant English-language articles. Target Population: HCV-infected patients with ESRD receiving hemodialysis in the United States. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Health care system. Intervention: Transplant of an HCV-infected kidney followed by HCV treatment versus transplant of an HCV-uninfected kidney preceded by HCV treatment. Outcome Measures: Effectiveness, measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs, measured in 2017 U.S. dollars. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Transplant of an HCV-infected kidney followed by HCV treatment was more effective and less costly than transplant of an HCV-uninfected kidney preceded by HCV treatment, largely because of longer wait times for uninfected kidneys. A typical 57.8-year-old patient receiving hemodialysis would gain an average of 0.50 QALY at a lifetime cost savings of $41 591. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Transplant of an HCV-infected kidney followed by HCV treatment continued to be preferred in sensitivity analyses of many model parameters. Transplant of an HCV-uninfected kidney preceded by HCV treatment was not preferred unless the additional wait time for an uninfected kidney was less than 161 days. Limitation: The study did not consider the benefit of decreased HCV transmission from treating HCV-infected patients. Conclusion: Transplanting HCV-infected kidneys into HCV-infected patients increased quality-adjusted life expectancy and reduced costs compared with transplanting HCV-uninfected kidneys into HCV-infected patients. Primary Funding Source: Merck Sharp & Dohme and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Cost of achieving equivalent outcomes in sicker patients after liver transplant.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to characterize variability in cost after straightforward orthotopic liver transplant (OLT). METHODS: Using the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases, we identified patients who underwent OLT between 2011 and 2014. Patients meeting criteria for straightforward OLT, defined as length of stay < 14 days with discharge to home, were selected (n = 5763) and grouped into tertiles (low, medium, high) according to cost of perioperative stay. RESULTS: Patients undergoing straightforward OLT were of similar demographics regardless of cost. High cost patients were more likely to require preoperative hemodialysis, had higher severity of illness, and higher model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) (p < 0.01). High cost patients required greater utilization of resources including lab tests, blood transfusions, and opioids (p < 0.01). Despite having higher burden of disease and requiring increased resource utilization, high cost OLT patients with a straightforward perioperative course were shown to have identical 2-year graft and overall survival compared to lower cost patients (p = 0.82 and p = 0.63), respectively. CONCLUSION: Providing adequate perioperative care for OLT patients with higher severity of illness and disease burden requires increased cost and resource utilization; however, doing so provides these patients with long term survival equivalent to more routine patients.

Variation by center and economic burden of readmissions after liver transplantation.

The rate and causes of hospital readmissions after liver transplantation (LT) remain largely unknown in the United States. Adult patients (n = 11,937; 43.1% of all LT cases) undergoing LT from 2007 to 2011 were examined with a linkage of the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases to determine the incidence and risk factors for 30-day readmissions and utilization metrics 90 days after LT. The overall 30-day hospital readmission rate after LT was 37.9%, with half of patients admitted within 7 days after discharge. Readmitted patients had worse overall graft and patient survival with a 2-year follow-up. Multivariate analysis identified risk factors associated with 30-day hospital readmission, including a higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, diabetes at LT, dialysis dependence, a high donor risk index allograft, and discharge to a rehabilitation facility. After adjustments for donor, recipient, and geographic factors in a hierarchical model, we found significant variation in readmission rates among hospitals ranging from 26.3% to 50.8% (odds ratio, 0.53-1.90). In the 90-day analysis after LT, readmissions accounted for $43,785 of added costs in comparison with patients who were not readmitted in the first 90 days. This is the first national report showing that more than one-third of LT recipients are readmitted to their center within 30 days and that readmissions are associated with center variation and increased resource utilization.

Effect of pretransplant diabetes on short-term outcomes after liver transplantation: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We sought to analyse the effect of pretransplant diabetes on post-operative outcomes and resource utilization following liver transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was designed using a linkage between the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases. We identified 12 442 patients who underwent liver transplantation at 63 centres from 2007-2011 and separated cohorts of patients with diabetes (n = 2971; 24%) and without (n = 9471; 76%) at the time of transplant. We analysed transplant related outcomes and short-term survival. RESULTS: Diabetic recipients were more likely to be male (70% vs 67%), non-white (32% vs 26%), older (age ≥60; 41% vs 28%), and have a higher BMI (29 vs 27; P < 0.001). More diabetic patients were on haemodialysis (10% vs 7%), had cirrhosis caused by NASH (24% vs 9%; P < 0.001), and received liver allografts from older donors (≥ 60 years; 19% vs 15%) with a higher donor risk index (>1.49; 46% vs 42%; P < 0.001). Post-transplant, diabetic recipients had longer hospital length of stay (10 vs 9 days), higher peri-transplant mortality (5% vs 4%) and 30-day readmission rates (41% vs 37%), were less often discharged to home (83% vs 87%; P < 0.05), and had inferior graft and patient survival. Liver transplant was more expensive for type 1 vs type 2 diabetics ($105 078 vs $100 624, P < 0.001). Poorly controlled diabetic recipients were less likely discharged home following transplant (75% vs 82%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This national study indicates that pretransplant diabetes is associated with inferior post-operative outcomes and increased resource utilization after liver transplantation.

Impact of recipient morbid obesity on outcomes after liver transplantation.

The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of morbid obesity in recipients on peritransplant resource utilization and survival outcomes. Using a linkage between the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases, we identified 12 445 patients who underwent liver transplantation (LT) between 2007 and 2011 and divided them into two cohorts based on recipient body mass index (BMI; <40 vs. ≥40 kg/m²). Recipients with BMI ≥40 comprised 3.3% (n = 416) of all LTs in the studied population. There were no significant differences in donor characteristics between two groups. Recipients with BMI ≥40 were significant for being female, diabetic, and with NASH cirrhosis. Patients with a BMI ≥40 had a higher median MELD score, limited physical capacity, and were more likely to be hospitalized at LT. BMI ≥40 recipients had higher post-LT length of stay and were less often discharged to home. With a median follow-up of 2 years, patient and graft survival were equivalent between the two groups. In conclusion, morbidly obese LT recipients appear sicker at time of LT with an increase in resource utilization but have similar short-term outcomes.

Is liver transplantation safe and effective in elderly (≥70 years) recipients? A case-controlled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients are evaluated for liver transplantation (LT) with increasing frequency, but outcomes in this group have not been well defined. METHODS: A linkage of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) databases identified 12,445 patients who underwent LT during 2007-2011. Two cohorts were created consisting of, respectively, elderly recipients aged ≥70 years (n = 323) and recipients aged 18-69 years (n = 12,122). A 1:1 case-matched analysis was performed based on propensity scores. RESULTS: Elderly recipients had lower Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores at LT (median 15 versus 19; P < 0.0001), more often underwent transplantation at high-volume centres (46% versus 33%; P < 0.0001) and more often received grafts from donors aged >60 years (24% versus 15%; P < 0.0001). The two cohorts had similar hospital lengths of stay, in-hospital mortality, hospital costs and 30-day readmission rates. There were no differences in graft survival between the two cohorts (P = 0.10), but elderly recipients had worse longterm overall survival (P = 0.009). However, a case-controlled analysis confirmed similar perioperative hospital outcomes, graft survival and longterm patient survival in the two matched cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly LT recipients accounted for <3% of all LTs performed during 2007-2011. Selected elderly recipients have perioperative outcomes and survival similar to those in younger adults.

Pre-transplant Biomarkers of Immune Dysfunction Improve Risk Assessment of Post-transplant Mortality Compared to Conventional Clinical Risk Scores.

Introduction: There is a critical need to accurately stratify liver transplant (LT) candidates' risk of post-LT mortality prior to LT to optimize patient selection and avoid futility. Here, we compare previously described pre-LT clinical risk scores with the recently developed Liver Immune Frailty Index (LIFI) for prediction of post-LT mortality. LIFI measures immune dysregulation based on pre-LT plasma HCV IgG, MMP3 and Fractalkine. LIFI accurately predicts post-LT mortality, with LIFI-low corresponding to 1.4% 1-year post-LT mortality compared with 58.3% for LIFI-high (C-statistic=0.85). Methods: LIFI was compared to MELD, MELD-Na, MELD 3.0, D-MELD, MELD-GRAIL, MELD-GRAIL-Na, UCLA-FRS, BAR, SOFT, P-SOFT, and LDRI scores on 289 LT recipients based on waitlist data at the time of LT. Survival, hazard of early post-LT death, and discrimination power (C-statistic) were assessed. Results: LIFI showed superior discrimination (highest C-statistic) for post-LT mortality when compared to all other risk scores, irrespective of biologic MELD. On univariate analysis, the LIFI showed a significant correlation with mortality 6-months, as well as 1-, 3-, and 5-years. No other pre-LT scoring system significantly correlated with post-LT mortality. On bivariate adjusted analysis, African American race (p<0.05) and pre-LT cardiovascular disease (p=0.053) were associated with early- and long-term post-LT mortality. Patients who died within 1-yr following LT had a significantly higher incidence of infections, including 30-day and 90-day incidence of any infection, pneumonia, abdominal infections, and UTI (p<0.05). Conclusions: LIFI, which measures pre-LT biomarkers of immune dysfunction, more accurately predicts risk of post-LT futility compared with current clinical predictive models. Pre-LT assessment of immune dysregulation may be critical in predicting mortality after LT and may optimize selection of candidates with lowest risk of futile outcomes.

Expanding indications for liver transplantation in the era of liver transplant oncology.

Despite numerous advances and emerging data, liver transplantation in the setting of gastrointestinal malignancies remains controversial outside of certain accepted indications. In an era of persistent organ shortage and increasing organ demand, allocation of liver grafts must be considered carefully. While hepatocellular carcinoma and hilar cholangiocarcinoma have become accepted indications for transplantation, tumor size and standardized multi-disciplinary treatment protocols are necessary to ensure optimal patient outcomes. As more studies seeking to expand the oncologic indications for liver transplantation are emerging, it is becoming increasingly clear that tumor biology and response to therapy are key factors for optimal oncologic outcomes. In addition, time from diagnosis to transplantation appears to correlate with survival, as stable disease over time portends better outcomes post-operatively. Identifying aggressive disease pre-transplant remains difficult with current imaging and tissue sampling techniques. While tumor size and stage are important prognostic predictors for most malignancies, patient and tumor selection protocols are necessary. As the fields of medical and surgical oncology continue to evolve, it is clear that a protocolized interdisciplinary treatment approach is necessary for combatting any cancer effectively. Disease stability over time and response to neoadjuvant therapy may be the best predictors for successful patient outcomes and can be easily incorporated in our treatment paradigms. Current data evaluating liver transplantation for expanded oncologic indications such as: expanded criteria hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, mixed tumors, and liver limited metastatic colorectal carcinomas, incorporate multi-modal therapies and evaluation of tumor treatment response. While further investigation is necessary, initial results suggest there is an expanded role for transplant surgery in malignancy in a new era of liver transplant oncology.

Liver Transplantation Beyond Milan Criteria.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide, being the fifth most common cancer and the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality. The incidence of HCC has been rising in the USA over the last 20 years. Liver transplantation is an optimal treatment option, as it eliminates HCC as well as the underlying liver disease. The Milan criteria (1 lesion greater than or equal to 2 cm and less than or equal to 5 cm, or up to 3 lesions, each greater than or equal to 1 cm and less than or equal to 3 cm) have been adopted by many transplant societies worldwide as the criteria to determine whether patients with HCC can move forward with liver transplantation. However, many believe that the Milan criteria may be too strict in regard to its size requirements for lesions. This has led to a number of expanded criteria for liver transplantation, concerning both overall size and number of lesions, as well as incorporation of other markers of tumor biology. Tumor markers, such as alpha-fetoprotein, can also be used to follow treatment of HCC and possibly exclude patients from transplant. HCC presenting beyond Milan criteria can also be down-staged with locoregional therapy. Monitoring response to locoregional therapy and longer wait times after locoregional therapy prior to transplant can serve as surrogate markers of tumor biology as well.

A Case Report of Alloimmune Hepatitis after Direct-acting Antiviral Treatment in a Liver Transplant Patient.

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy is often well-tolerated, and adverse events from DAA therapy are uncommon. We report a case of a woman who underwent orthotopic liver transplant for chronic hepatitis C infection and later developed alloimmune hepatitis shortly after starting DAA therapy for recurrent hepatitis C infection. The patient developed acute alloimmune hepatitis approximately 2 weeks after starting treatment with sofosbuvir, velpatasvir, and voxilaprevir. This case report proposes a dysregulation of immune surveillance due to the DAA stimulation of host immunity and rapid elimination of hepatitis C viral load as a precipitating factor for the alloimmune process, leading to alloimmune hepatitis in a post-transplant patient who starts on DAA.