Ex-situ machine perfusion in clinical liver transplantation: Current practices and future directions.

Ex-situ machine perfusion of the liver has surmounted traditional limitations associated with static cold storage in the context of organ preservation. This innovative technology has changed the landscape of liver transplantation by mitigating ischemia perfusion injury, offering a platform for continuous assessment of organ quality, and providing an avenue for optimizing use of traditionally marginal allografts. This review summarizes the contemporary clinical applications of machine perfusion devices, and discusses potential future strategies for real-time viability assessment, therapeutic interventions, and modulation of organ function after recovery.

Living Donor Decision-Making and the Complex Interplay of Finances and Other Motivators, Barriers, and Facilitators.

INTRODUCTION: The decision to become a living donor requires consideration of a complex, interactive array of factors that could be targeted for clinical, policy, and educational interventions. Our objective was to assess how financial barriers interact with motivators, other barriers, and facilitators during this process. METHODS: Data were obtained from a public survey assessing motivators, barriers, and facilitators of living donation. We used multivariable logistic regression and consensus k-means clustering to assess interactions between financial concerns and other considerations in the decision-making process. RESULTS: Among 1592 respondents, the average age was 43; 74% were female and 14% and 6% identified as Hispanic and Black, respectively. Among employed respondents (72%), 40% indicated that they would not be able to donate without lost wage reimbursement. Stronger agreement with worries about expenses and dependent care challenges was associated with not being able to donate without lost wage reimbursement (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.0-1.3; OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1-1.3, respectively). Four respondent clusters were identified. Cluster 1 had strong motivators and facilitators with minimal barriers. Cluster 2 had barriers related to health concerns, nervousness, and dependent care. Clusters 3 and 4 had financial barriers. Cluster 3 also had anxiety related to surgery and dependent care. CONCLUSIONS: Financial barriers interact primarily with health and dependent care concerns when considering living organ donation. Targeted interventions to reduce financial barriers and improve provider communication regarding donation-related risks are needed.

Days alive and out of hospital after liver transplant: comparing a patient-centered outcome between recipients of grafts from donation after circulatory and brain deaths.

We retrospectively compared outcomes between recipients of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) liver allografts using days alive and out of hospital (DAOH), a composite outcome of mortality, morbidity, and burden of care from patient perspective. The initial length of stay and duration of any subsequent readmission for the first year after liver transplantation were recorded. Donor category and perioperative and intraoperative characteristics pertinent to liver transplantation were included. The primary outcome was DAOH365. Secondary outcomes included early allograft dysfunction and hepatic arterial and biliary complications. Although the incidence of both early allograft dysfunction (P < .001) and ischemic cholangiopathy (P < .001) was significantly greater in the recipients of DCD, there were no significant differences in the length of stay and DAOH365. The median DAOH365 was 355 days for recipients of DBD allografts and 353 days for recipients of DCD allografts (P = .34). Increased transfusion burden, longer cold ischemic time, and non-White recipients were associated with decreased DAOH. There were no significant differences in graft failure (P = .67), retransplantation (P = .67), or 1-year mortality (P = .96) between the 2 groups. DAOH is a practical and attainable measure of outcome after liver transplantation. This metric should be considered for quality measurement and reporting in liver transplantation.

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.

Outcomes after liver transplantation using deceased after circulatory death donors: A comparison of outcomes in the UK and the US.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Identifying international differences in utilization and outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) after donation after circulatory death (DCD) donation provides a unique opportunity for benchmarking and population-level insight. METHODS: Adult (≥18 years) LT data between 2008 and 2018 from the UK and US were used to assess mortality and graft failure after DCD LT. We used time-dependent Cox-regression methods to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for risk-adjusted short-term (0-90 days) and longer-term (90 days-5 years) outcomes. RESULTS: One-thousand five-hundred-and-sixty LT receipts from the UK and 3426 from the US were included. Over the study period, the use of DCD livers increased from 15.7% to 23.9% in the UK compared to 5.1% to 7.6% in the US. In the UK, DCD donors were older (UK:51 vs. US:33 years) with longer cold ischaemia time (UK: 437 vs. US: 333 min). Recipients in the US had higher Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, higher body mass index, higher proportions of ascites, encephalopathy, diabetes and previous abdominal surgeries. No difference in the risk-adjusted short-term mortality or graft failure was observed between the countries. In the longer-term (90 days-5 years), the UK had lower mortality and graft failure (adj.mortality HR:UK: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.49-0.80); graft failure HR: UK: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.91). The cumulative incidence of retransplantation was higher in the UK (5 years: UK: 11.9% vs. 4.6%; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: For those receiving a DCD LT, longer-term post-transplant outcomes in the UK are superior to the US, however, significant differences in recipient illness, graft quality and access to retransplantation were seen between the two countries.

Expanding Liver Transplant Opportunities in Older Patients With Nonconventional Grafts.

INTRODUCTION: Broader use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and nonconventional grafts for liver transplant helps reduce disparities in organ availability. Limited data, however, exists on outcomes specific to nonconventional graft utilization in older patients. As such, this study aimed to investigate outcomes specific to conventional and nonconventional graft utilization in recipients > 70 y of age. METHODS: 1-to-3 matching based on recipient sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and donor type was performed on patients ≥70 and <70 y of age who underwent liver transplant alone at Mayo Clinic Arizona between 2015 and 2020. Primary outcomes were posttransplant patient and liver allograft survival for recipients greater than or less than 70 y of age. Secondary outcomes included grafts utilization patterns, hospital length of stay, need for reoperation, biliary complications and disposition at time of hospital discharge. RESULTS: In this cohort, 36.1% of grafts came from DCD donors, 17.4% were postcross clamp offers, and 20.8% were nationally allocated. Median recipient ages were 59 and 71 y (P < 0.01). Recipients had similar Intensive care unit (P = 0.82) and hospital (P = 0.14) lengths of stay, and there were no differences in patient (P = 0.68) or graft (P = 0.38) survival. When comparing donation after brain death and DCD grafts in those >70 y, there were no differences in patient (P = 0.89) or graft (P = 0.71) survival. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes can be achieved in older recipients, even with use of nonconventional grafts. Expanded use of nonconventional grafts can help facilitate transplant opportunities in older patients.

Outcomes with transplanting kidneys offered through expedited allocation.

INTRODUCTION: Expedited out-of-sequence deceased donor kidney allocation is a strategy to avoid discards after early placement attempts have been unsuccessful. Our study aimed to assess outcomes and characteristics of these transplanted kidneys. METHODS: KDPI matching was performed between expedited allocation (EA) and standard allocation (SA) deceased donor kidney transplants performed at our center. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2021, there were 225 EA offers, and 189 (84%) were transplanted. EA recipients were older (p = .007) and had shorter dialysis vintage (p < .0001). EA kidneys were likely to be nationally allocated (p < .001), have AKI (p < .0001) and longer CIT (p < .0001). There were no differences in EA and SA time-zero kidney biopsies (ci, p = .07; ct, p = .89; cv, p = .95; ah, p = .79). EA kidneys had more DGF (p = .0006), but there were no differences in DGF duration (p = .83), hospital length of stay (p = .43), 1- and 2-year eGFR (p = .16, p = .99), patient (p = .34), or death-censored graft (p = .66) survival. CONCLUSION: During this study period, our center transplanted 189 kidneys through EA following local-regional declines. These kidneys often came from AKI donors and had more DGF but had similar outcomes to KDPI-matched SA kidneys. Although it has been suggested that EA has the potential to worsen transplant disparities, transplant center level decisions on organ acceptance contribute to these variations.

Breaking Barriers and Bridging Gaps: Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Kidney Transplant Care for Black and Hispanic Patients in the United States.

Kidney transplantation offers better mortality and quality of life outcomes to patients with end-stage renal failure compared to dialysis. Specifically, living donor kidney transplantation is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease, since it offers the greatest survival benefit compared to deceased donor kidney transplant or dialysis. However, not all patients from all racial/ethnic backgrounds enjoy these benefits. While black and Hispanic patients bear the predominant disease burden within the United States, they represent less than half of all kidney transplants in the country. Other factors such as cultural barriers that proliferate myths about transplant, financial costs that impede altruistic donation, and even biological predispositions create a complex maze and can also perpetuate care inaccessibility. Therefore, blanket efforts to increase the overall donation pool may not extend access to vulnerable populations, who may require more targeted attention and interventions. This review uses US kidney transplantation data to substantiate accessibility differences amongst racial minorities as well as provides examples of successful institutional and national systemic level changes that have improved transplantation outcomes for all.

Effectiveness of a culturally competent care intervention in reducing disparities in Hispanic live donor kidney transplantation: A hybrid trial.

Hispanic patients receive disproportionately fewer living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs) than non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs). The Northwestern Medicine Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program (HKTP), designed to increase Hispanic LDKTs, was evaluated as a nonrandomized, implementation-effectiveness hybrid trial of patients initiating transplant evaluation at two intervention and two similar control sites. Using a mixed method, observational design, we evaluated the fidelity of the HKTP implementation at the two intervention sites. We tested the impact of the HKTP intervention by evaluating the likelihood of receiving LDKT comparing pre-intervention (January 2011-December 2016) and postintervention (January 2017-March 2020), across ethnicity and centers. The HKTP study included 2063 recipients. Intervention Site A exhibited greater implementation fidelity than intervention Site B. For Hispanic recipients at Site A, the likelihood of receiving LDKTs was significantly higher at postintervention compared with pre-intervention (odds ratio [OR] = 3.17 95% confidence interval [1.04, 9.63]), but not at the paired control Site C (OR = 1.02 [0.61, 1.71]). For Hispanic recipients at Site B, the likelihood of receiving an LDKT did not differ between pre- and postintervention (OR = 0.88 [0.40, 1.94]). The LDKT rate was significantly lower for Hispanics at paired control Site D (OR = 0.45 [0.28, 0.90]). The intervention significantly improved LDKT rates for Hispanic patients at the intervention site that implemented the intervention with greater fidelity. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registered (retrospectively) on September 7, 2017 (NCT03276390).

Outcomes and Health Care Utilization After Early Hospital Dismissal in Kidney Transplantation: An Analysis of 1001 Consecutive Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To understand whether reduced lengths of stay after kidney transplantation were associated with excess health care utilization in the first 90 days or long-term graft and patient survival outcomes. BACKGROUND: Reducing length of stay after kidney transplant has an unknown effect on post-transplant health care utilization. We studied this association in a cohort of 1001 consecutive kidney transplants. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 2011-2015 data from a prospectively-maintained kidney transplant database from a single center. RESULTS: A total of 1001 patients underwent kidney transplant, and were dismissed from the hospital in 3 groups: Early [≤2 days] (19.8%), Normal [3-7 days] (79.4%) and Late [>7 days] (3.8%). 34.8% of patients had living donor transplants (Early 51%, Normal 31.4%, Late 18.4%, P < 0.001). Early patients had lower delayed graft function rates (Early 19.2%, Normal 32%, Late73.7%, P = 0.001). By the hospital dismissal group, there were no differences in readmissions or emergency room visits at 30 or 90 days. Glomerular filtration rate at 12 months and rates of biopsy-proven acute rejection were also similar between groups. The timing of hospital dismissal was not associated with the risk-adjusted likelihood of readmission. Early and Normal patients had similar graft and patient survival. Late dismissal patients, who had higher rates of cardiovascular complications, had significantly higher late mortality versus Normal dismissal patients in unadjusted and risk-adjusted models. CONCLUSION: Dismissing patients from the hospital 2 days after kidney transplant is safe, feasible, and improves value. It is not associated with excess health care utilization or worse short or long-term transplant outcomes.

Donation after circulatory death transplant outcomes using livers recovered by local surgeons.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) outcomes have been attributed to multiple variables, including procurement surgeon recovery techniques. Outcomes of 196 DCD LTs at Mayo Clinic Arizona were analyzed based on graft recovery by a surgeon from our center (transplant procurement team [TPT]) versus a local procurement surgeon (non-TPT [NTPT]). A standard recovery technique was used for all TPT livers. The recovery technique used by the NTPT was left to the discretion of that surgeon. A total of 129 (65.8%) grafts were recovered by our TPT, 67 (34.2%) by the NTPT. Recipient age (p = 0.43), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (median 17 vs. 18; p = 0.22), and donor warm ischemia time (median 21.0 vs. 21.5; p = 0.86) were similar between the TPT and NTPT groups. NTPT livers had longer cold ischemia times (6.5 vs. 5.0 median hours; p < 0.001). Early allograft dysfunction (80.6% vs. 76.1%; p = 0.42) and primary nonfunction (0.8% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.47) were similar. Ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) treated with endoscopy occurred in 18.6% and 11.9% of TPT and NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). At last follow-up, approximately half of those requiring endoscopy were undergoing a stent-free trial (58.3% TPT; 50.0% NTPT; p = 0.68). IC requiring re-LT in the first year occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of TPT and 3.0% (n = 2) of NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). There were no differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-5.03; p = 0.23) or graft (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 0.98-4.09; p = 0.10) survival rates. Graft survival at 1 year was 91.5% for TPT grafts and 95.5% for NTPT grafts. Excellent outcomes can be achieved using NTPT for the recovery of DCD livers. There may be an opportunity to expand the use of DCD livers in the United States by increasing the use of NTPT.

Outcomes of dual kidney transplants from high KDPI kidneys are superior compared to single kidney high KDPI transplants at 1 year.

Dual kidney transplantation (DKT), utilizing two adult kidneys from the same donor for one recipient, has been used as a way to expand the available donor pool. These kidneys often come from high Kidney Donor Profile Index donors (KDPI > 85%). Data comparing outcomes between high KDPI DKT and single kidney transplants (SKT) remain limited. We assessed outcomes of 336 high KDPI kidney transplants performed at our center; 11.0% (n = 37) were DKT. Recipients of DKT were older (P = .02) and donors had a higher KDPI score (median 96% vs. 91%, P < .0001). DKT operative time was higher compared to SKT (+1.4 hours, P < .0001). There were no differences in delayed graft function (54.1% vs. 51.5%, P = .77) and hospital length of stay (median 4.0 vs. 3.0 days, P = .21) between DKT and SKT. Grade I Clavien-Dindo complications occurred in 8.1% of DKT and 13.7% of SKT (P = .008). There were no grade IVa, IVb, or V complications in either group. DKT had more glomerulosclerosis (P = .04), interstitial fibrosis (P = .02), tubular atrophy (P = .01), and arterial thickening (P = .03) on 1-year protocol biopsies. Estimated glomerular filtration was higher for DKT at 1- (P = .004) and 2-years post-transplant (P = .01). There were no differences in patient (HR 1.3, 95% CI .5-3.3, P = .58) or graft (HR 1.1, 95% CI .5-2.3, P = .83) survival. Good outcomes can be achieved with DKT using high KDPI kidneys with moderate chronic changes. DKT is a good option to help further utilize high KDPI kidneys and minimize discard.

Kidney donor profile index and post-transplant health care utilization: Implications for value of transplant care delivery.

BACKGROUND: Centers discard high kidney donor profile index (KDPI) allografts, potentially related to delayed graft function and prolonged hospital use by kidney transplant recipients (KTR). We sought to determine whether high KDPI KTRs have excess health care utilization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study from a high-volume center analyzing KTRs from January 3, 2011 to April 12, 2015 (n = 652). We measured differences in hospital use, emergency visits, and outpatient visits within the first 90 days between low (≤85%) versus high KDPI (>85%) KTRs, as well as long-term graft function and patient survival. RESULTS: High (n = 107) and low KDPI (n = 545) KTRs had similar length of stay (median = 3 days, P = .66), and readmission rates at 7, 30, and 90 days after surgery (all, P > .05). High KDPI kidneys were not associated with excess utilization of the hospital, emergency services, outpatient transplant clinics, or ambulatory infusion visits on univariate or multivariate analysis (all, P > .05). Low KDPI KTRs had significantly better eGFR at 2 years (Low vs. High KDPI: 60.35 vs. 41.54 ml/min, P < .001), but similar 3-year patient and graft survival (both, P > .09). CONCLUSIONS: High and low KDPI KTRs demonstrated similar 90-day risk-adjusted health care utilization, which should encourage use of high KDPI kidneys.

Radiation Segmentectomy for the Treatment of Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Outcomes Compared with Those of Surgical Resection.

PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of radiation segmentectomy (RS) versus standard-of-care surgical resection (SR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multisite, retrospective analysis of treatment-naïve patients who underwent either RS or SR was performed. The inclusion criteria were solitary hepatocellular carcinoma ≤8 cm in size, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Cohort performance status of 0-1, and absence of macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic disease. Target tumor and overall progression, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival rates were assessed. Outcomes were censored for liver transplantation. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were included (RS, 57; SR, 66). Tumor size, Child-Pugh class, albumin-bilirubin score, platelet count, and fibrosis stage were significantly different between cohorts (P ≤ .01). Major adverse events (AEs), defined as grade ≥3 per the Clavien-Dindo classification, occurred in 0 patients in the RS cohort vs 13 (20%) patients in the SR cohort (P < .001). Target tumor progression occurred in 3 (5%) patients who underwent RS and 5 (8%) patients who underwent SR. Overall progression occurred in 19 (33%) patients who underwent RS and 21 (32%) patients who underwent SR. The median overall TTP was 21.9 and 29.4 months after RS and SR, respectively (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.5-28.2 and 18.5-40.3, respectively; P = .03). Overall TTP subgroup analyses showed no difference between treatment cohorts with fibrosis stages 3-4 (P = .26) and a platelet count of <150 × 109/L (P = .29). The overall progression hazard ratio for RS versus SR was not significant per the multivariate Cox regression analysis (1.16; 95% CI, 0.51-2.63; P = .71). The median overall survival was not reached for either of the cohorts. Propensity scores were calculated but were too dissimilar for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: RS and SR were performed in different patient populations, which limits comparison. RS approached SR outcomes, with a lower incidence of major AEs, in patients who were not eligible for hepatectomy.

Association of DGF and Early Readmissions on Outcomes Following Kidney Transplantation.

Concerns regarding outcomes and early resource utilization are potential deterrents to broader use of kidneys at risk for delayed graft function (DGF). We assessed outcomes specific to kidneys with DGF that required early readmission following transplant. Three groups were identified: 1) recipients with DGF not requiring readmission, 2) recipients with DGF having an isolated readmission, and 3) recipients with DGF requiring ≥2 readmissions. Most recipients either required a single readmission (26.8%, n = 247) or no readmission (56.1%, n = 517); 17.1% (n = 158), had ≥2 readmissions. Recipients requiring ≥2 readmissions were likely to be diabetic (53.8%, p = 0.04) and have longer dialysis vintage (p = 0.01). Duration of DGF was longer with increasing number of readmissions (p < 0.001). There were no differences in patient survival for those with DGF and 0, 1 and ≥2 readmissions (p = 0.13). Graft survival, however, was lower for those with ≥2 readmissions (p < 0.0001). This remained true when accounting for death-censored graft loss (p = 0.0012). Additional subgroup analysis was performed on mate kidneys with and without DGF and mate kidneys, both with DGF, with and without readmissions. For these subgroups, there were no differences in patient or graft survival. As a whole, patients with DGF have excellent outcomes, however, patients with DGF requiring ≥2 readmissions have lower graft survival. A better understanding of recipient variables contributing to multiple readmissions may allow for improvements in the utilization of DGF at-risk kidneys.

Interventional Radiology Management of Adult Liver Transplant Complications.

Liver transplant remains the definitive therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease. Outcomes have continued to improve, in part owing to interventions used to treat posttransplant complications involving the hepatic arteries, portal vein, hepatic veins or inferior vena cava (IVC), and biliary system. Significant hepatic artery stenosis can be treated with angioplasty or stent placement to prevent thrombosis and biliary ischemic complications. Hepatic arterioportal fistula and hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm are rare complications that can often be treated with endovascular means. Treatment of hepatic artery thrombosis can have mixed results. Portal vein stenosis can be treated with venoplasty or more commonly stent placement. The rarer portal vein thrombosis can also be treated with endovascular techniques. Hepatic venous outflow stenosis of the hepatic veins or IVC is amenable to venoplasty or stent placement. Complications of the bile ducts are the most encountered complication after liver transplant. When not amenable to endoscopic intervention, biliary stricture, bile leak, and ischemic cholangiopathy can be treated with percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography with biliary drainage and other interventions. New techniques have further improved care for these patients. Transsplenic portal vein recanalization has improved transplant candidacy for patients with chronic portal vein thrombosis. Spontaneous splenorenal shunt and splenic artery steal syndrome (nonocclusive hepatic artery hypoperfusion syndrome) remain complicated topics, and the role of endovascular embolization is developing. When patients have recurrence of cirrhosis after transplant, most commonly due to viral hepatitis, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) may be required to treat symptoms of portal hypertension. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2022.

Decreasing Significance of Early Allograft Dysfunction with Rising Use of Nonconventional Donors.

Background and Objectives: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is considered a surrogate marker for adverse post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes. With the increasing use of nonconventional donors, EAD has become a more frequent occurrence. Given this background, we aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of EAD in an updated cohort inclusive of both conventional and nonconventional liver allografts. Materials and Methods: Perioperative and one-year outcomes were assessed for a total of 611 LT recipients with and without EAD from Mayo Clinic Arizona. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: bilirubin > 10 mg/dL on day 7, INR > 1.6 on day 7, or ALT and/or AST > 2000 IU/L within the first 7 days of LT. Results: Within this cohort, 31.8% of grafts (n = 194) came from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, 17.7% (n = 108) were nationally shared, 16.4% (n = 100) were allocated as post-cross clamp, and 8.7% contained moderate steatosis. EAD was observed in 52.2% (n = 321) of grafts in the study cohort (79% in DCD grafts and 40% in DBD grafts). EAD grafts had higher donor risk index (DRI) scores (1.9 vs. 1.6, p < 0.0001), were more likely to come from DCD donors (48% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.0001), were regionally allocated (p = 0.003), and had higher cold ischemia times (median 6.0 vs. 5.5 h, p = 0.001). Primary nonfunction events were rare in both groups (1.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.22). Post-LT acute kidney injury occurred at a similar frequency in recipients with and without EAD (43.6% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.41), and there were no differences in ICU (median 2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.60) or hospital (6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.24) length of stay. For DCD grafts, the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was similar in the two groups (14.9% EAD vs. 17.5% no EAD, p = 0.69). One-year patient survival for grafts with and without EAD was 96.0% and 94.1% (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7−1.8; p = 0.54); one-year graft survival was 92.5% and 92.1% (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7−1.5; p = 0.88). Conclusions: In this cohort, EAD occurred in 52% of grafts. The occurrence of EAD, however, did not portend inferior outcomes. Compared to those without EAD, recipients with EAD had similar post-operative outcomes, as well as one-year patient and graft survival. EAD should be managed supportively and should not be viewed as a deterrent to utilization of non-ideal grafts.

Comparable graft survival is achievable with the usage of donation after circulatory death liver grafts from donors at or above 70 years of age: A long-term UK national analysis.

The aim of the study was to assess the UK donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplant experience from donors ≥70 years. Nationwide UK DCD retrospective analysis was conducted between 2001 and 2015 (n = 1163). Recipients were divided into group 1 vs. group 2 (donors 70≥ vs. <70 years, respectively). group 1 (n = 69, 5.9%) recipients were older (median 59 vs. 55 years, p = .001) and had longer waitlist time (128 vs. 84 days; p = .039). 94.2% of group 1 clustered in London and Birmingham, where the two busiest centers are located. group 1 allografts had higher UKDRI and UK DCD Risk Scores but similar WIT and CIT and were more likely to have been imported. Both groups had similar 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival (group 1, 90%, 81.4%, and 74% vs. group 2, 88.6%, 81.4%, and 78.6%, respectively; p = .54). Both groups had similar ICU stay length (p = .22), 3-month hepatic artery thrombosis rates (4.4% vs 4.0%; p = .9), and 12-month readmission rates for all biliary complications (20.3% vs 25.7%; p = .32). This study demonstrates that acceptable outcomes are achievable using older grafts in a highly selected cohort at experienced centers. Advanced age should not be an absolute contraindication to utilizing a DCD graft from donors aged ≥70 years.

Statin Therapy and the Incidence of Thromboembolism and Vascular Events Following Liver Transplantation.

Statin therapy may reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which may impact solid organ transplant outcomes. We evaluated the incidence of VTE and other complications after liver transplantation stratified by hyperlipidemia status and statin use using a retrospective cohort study approach. We reviewed all primary orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) records from January 2014 to December 2019 from our center. Intraoperative deaths were excluded. Recipient, donor clinical and demographic data were collected. We developed risk-adjusted models to assess the effect of statin use on the occurrence of VTE, hepatic artery complications (HACs), graft failure, and death, accounting for clinical covariates and competing risks. A total of 672 OLT recipients were included in the analysis. Of this cohort, 11.9% (n = 80) received statin therapy. A total of 47 patients (7.0%) had VTE events. HACs occurred in 40 patients (6.0%). A total of 42 (6.1%) patients experienced graft loss, whereas 9.1% (n = 61) of the cohort died during the study interval. Eighty OLT recipients (29.8%) were treated with statins. In the statin treated group, 0% of patients had VTE versus 7.9% of those not on statins (P = 0.02). HACs were identified in 1.2% of the statin group and 6.8% of the nonstatin group. Untreated hyperlipidemia was associated with a 2.1-fold higher risk of HACs versus patients with no hyperlipidemia status (P = 0.05). Statin therapy was associated with significantly better risk-adjusted thromboembolic event-free survival (absence of VTE, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, HACs, and death); hazard ratio, 2.7; P = 0.01. These data indicate that statin therapy is correlated with a lower rate of VTE and HACs after liver transplantation.

Variation in opioid prescribing patterns after abdominal transplant surgery.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are associated with negative transplant outcomes. We sought to identify patient and center effects on over-prescribing of opioids (> 200 OME (oral morphine equivalents)). STUDY DESIGN: Clinical and opioid prescription data (2014-2017) were collected from three academic transplant centers for kidney (KT), liver (LT), and simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (SLK) patients. Multivariable models were used to identify predictors of opioid over-prescribing at discharge and the occurrence of refill prescriptions at 90 days. RESULTS: Three-thousand seven-hundred and two patients underwent transplant in the cohort (KT: n = 2358, LT: n = 1221, SLK: n = 123). More than 80% of recipients were over-prescribed opioids at discharge (Median OME (mOME) = 300 (IQR 225-375). LT and SLK had the largest prescription size (LT mOME 338 (IQR 300-450); SLK mOME 338 (IQR 225-450) and refill rate (LT: 64%, SLK 59%) (all, P < .001). Multivariable analysis indicated that transplant center was a significant predictor of opioid over-prescription after KT and LT (all, P < .001); older age (in KT) and length of stay (LOS) (in LT) were protective factors (both, P < .05). Refill occurrence was associated with initial prescription size and was reduced by older age and initial LOS (all, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation in opioid prescribing patterns has implications for transplant practice innovation, guideline development, and further study.