Solid Organ Transplant Litigation at One of Europe's Largest University Hospitals.

Due to its intrinsic complexity and the principle of collective solidarity that governs it, solid organ transplantation (SOT) seems to have been spared from the increase in litigation related to medical activity. Litigation relating to solid organ transplantation that took place in the 29 units of the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and was the subject of a judicial decision between 2015 and 2022 was studied. A total of 52 cases of SOT were recorded, all in adults, representing 1.1% of all cases and increasing from 0.71% to 1.5% over 7 years. The organs transplanted were 25 kidneys (48%), 19 livers (37%), 5 hearts (9%) and 3 lungs (6%). For kidney transplants, 11 complaints (44%) were related to living donor procedures and 6 to donors. The main causes of complaints were early post-operative complications in 31 cases (60%) and late complications in 13 cases (25%). The verdicts were in favour of the institution in 41 cases (79%). Solid organ transplants are increasingly the subject of litigation. Although the medical institution was not held liable in almost 80% of cases, this study makes a strong case for patients, living donors and their relatives to be better informed about SOT.

Liver Transplant in Colombia.

Liver transplantation began in Colombia in 1979. It is one of the most active countries in this field in Latin America but has faced problems with the regulation and appropriate management of solid organ transplantations, including transplant tourism, which is a worldwide problem. There is a well-structured donation and transplant network regulated by the government in all the stages of the process. In 2017, the country was ranked fourth for the number of liver transplantations (LTs) performed in Latin America, after Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay, with a rate of 5.6 LTs per million population. Current regulatory bodies were created to coordinate and provide transparency and equality to transplant recipients. This article describes the evolution, government commissions, assignation criteria, and current status of LT in Colombia.

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.

Drs Bramhall and Bawa-Garba and the rightful domain of the criminal law.

In the wake of two recent high-profile, controversial cases involving the prosecution and conviction of Drs Bramhall and Bawa-Garba, this article considers when it is socially desirable to criminalise doctors' behaviour, exploring how the matters of harm, public wrongs and the public interest can play out to justify-or not, as the case may be-the criminal law's intervention. Dr Bramhall branded his initials on patients' livers during transplant surgery, behaviour acknowledged not to have caused his patients any harm by way of injury to their organs. Dr Bawa-Garba misdiagnosed and failed to properly assess a 6-year-old boy with pneumonia and sepsis under her care, who subsequently died. Taking account of contextual and public interest concerns, can and should there be exceptions to imposing criminal liability where a doctor's behaviour is deemed grossly negligent and a significant contribution to a patient's death? And is it really appropriate to subject a doctor to penal sanction where he may have committed a private wrong against a patient, but does not set back their interests?

Quality measurement and improvement in liver transplantation.

There is growing interest in the quality of health care delivery in liver transplantation. Multiple stakeholders, including patients, transplant providers and their hospitals, payers, and regulatory bodies have an interest in measuring and monitoring quality in the liver transplant process, and understanding differences in quality across centres. This article aims to provide an overview of quality measurement and regulatory issues in liver transplantation performed within the United States. We review how broader definitions of health care quality should be applied to liver transplant care models. We outline the status quo including the current regulatory agencies, public reporting mechanisms, and requirements around quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) activities. Additionally, we further discuss unintended consequences and opportunities for growth in quality measurement. Quality measurement and the integration of quality improvement strategies into liver transplant programmes hold significant promise, but multiple challenges to successful implementation must be addressed to optimise value.

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.

Transplanting Patients with Alcohol-related Liver Disease in the National Health System: New Rules and Decisions.

AIMS: The UK has a socialized healthcare system that provides treatment that is free at the point of care for acute and chronic health disorders (the National Health Service-NHS), which is currently experiencing a period of unprecedented challenge. METHODS: A narrative review that discusses present and future arrangements for transplantation of alcohol-related liver disease (ArLD) in the UK. RESULTS: Liver disease in the UK is reaching epidemic proportions due to obesity and metabolic disease compounding alcohol-mediated liver damage. Unfortunately, hepatology services in the UK are geographically disparate and subject to significant variations in liver morbidity and mortality, prompting concerns that this may negatively impair access to transplantation. In an attempt to improve referrals to tertiary liver services, the UK listing criteria for alcohol-associated liver disease were revised in 2016 by a working party under the aegis of the UK-Liver Advisory Group with the ambition of increasing opportunities for disease evaluation and improving the condition of candidates referred for assessment. CONCLUSION: Liver transplantation for ArLD is well established in the UK. Recent organizational changes seek to reduce inequities in access to transplant services. SHORT SUMMARY: Liver disease in the UK is reaching epidemic proportions. Concerns over equity of access to liver transplantation prompted revision of the UK listing criteria for alcohol-associated liver disease in 2016, to improve to the availability of tertiary hepatology services. Transplanting patients with alcohol-related liver disease in the National Health System: New Rules and Decisions '…The second property of your excellent sherris is, the warming of the blood; which, before cold and settled, hath left the liver white and pale…'Falstaff; Henry IV Part 2: Act 4, Scene 3.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ABO-Nonidentical Liver Transplantation in the United States.

Under the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) policy, deceased donor livers may be offered to ABO-nonidentical candidates at each given Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and to blood type B candidates at MELD ≥30. To evaluate ABO-nonidentical liver transplantation (LT) in the United States, we examined all adult LT non-status 1 candidates, recipients and deceased liver donors from 2013 to 2015. There were 34 920 LT candidates (47% type O, 38% type A, 12% type B, 3% type AB) and 10 479 deceased liver donors (47% type O, 38% type A, 12% type B, 3% type AB). ABO-nonidentical LT occurred in 2%, 3%, 20% and 36% of types O, A, B and AB recipients, respectively, which led to a net liver loss of 6% for type O and 2% for type A recipients but a net liver gain of 14% for type B and 55% for type AB recipients. The LT MELD scores of ABO-identical versus -nonidentical recipients were 29 versus 34 for type O, 29 versus 19 for type A, 25 versus 38 for type B, and 22 versus 28 for type AB (p < 0.01). ABO-nonidentical LT increased liver supply for candidates with blood types B and AB but decreased supply for type O and A candidates. We urge refinement of UNOS policy surrounding ABO-nonidentical LT.

Changes in liver acceptance patterns after implementation of Share 35.

The Share 35 policy was implemented June 2013. We sought to evaluate liver offer acceptance patterns of centers under this policy. We compared three 1-year eras (1, 2, and 3) before and 1 era (4) after the implementation date of the Share 35 policy (June 18, 2013). We evaluated all offers for liver-only recipients including only those offers for livers that were ultimately transplanted. Logistic regression was used to develop a liver acceptance model. In era 3, there were 4809 offers for Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score ≥ 35 patients with 1071 acceptances (22.3%) and 10,141 offers and 1652 acceptances (16.3%) in era 4 (P < 0.001). In era 3, there were 42,954 offers for MELD score < 35 patients with 4181 acceptances (9.7%) and 44,137 offers and 3882 acceptances (8.8%) in era 4 (P < 0.001). The lower acceptance rate persisted across all United Network for Organ Sharing regions and was significantly less in regions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Mean donor risk index was the same (1.3) for all eras for MELD scores ≥ 35 acceptances and the same (1.4) for MELD score < 35 acceptances. Refusal reasons did not vary throughout the eras. The adjusted odds ratio of accepting a liver for a MELD score of 35 + compared to a MELD score < 35 patient was 1.289 before the policy and 0.960 after policy implementation. In conclusion, the Share 35 policy has resulted in more offers to patients with MELD scores ≥ 35. Overall acceptance rates were significantly less compared to the same patient group before the policy implementation. Centers are less likely to accept a liver for a patient with a MELD score of 35 + after the policy change. Decreased donor acceptance rates could reflect more programmatic selectivity and ongoing donor and recipient matching.

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 Brazil.

Over 1700 liver transplantations (LTs) are performed annually in Brazil. In absolute terms, the country performs more LT surgeries than anywhere else in Latin America and is third worldwide. However, due to its increasing population and inadequate donor organ supply, the country averages 5-10 LTs per million population, far lower than required. There is a marked heterogeneity in organ donation and LT activity throughout the country. Access to LT in the underprivileged North, Midwest, and Northeast regions of Brazil is scarce. Major challenges for the future of LT in Brazil will be to increase organ donation and access to LT. The reduction of those geographical disparities in donation, organ procurement, and LT due to political and financial constraints is of utmost importance. Liver Transplantation 22 1254-1258 2016 AASLD.

Liver transplantation in Spain.

Liver transplantation (LT) activity started in Spain in 1984 and has exceeded 23,700 interventions, with more than 1000 transplants performed yearly. Every hospital needs official authorization to perform a LT, which implies the obligation to register all patients on the national waiting list. The Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT) provides essential support for organ procurement, allocation, and management of the waiting list at a national level. Liver allocation is center-oriented as all available organs are referred to the ONT for the whole country. The allocation rules for LT are made according to disease severity after consensus among professionals from every transplant center and ratified by representatives of the regional health authorities. Authorization and location/distribution of transplant centers are regulated by the country (Spain) and by the different regions according to the Real Decreto 1723/2012. For a total population of 47,850,795 inhabitants, there are 24 centers for LT for adults (1 team/2 million people) and 5 for LT for children (1 team/9.5 million people). Nonbiliary cirrhosis, particularly alcohol- and hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis (60%), and tumors, mainly hepatocellular carcinoma (19%), are the most common indications for LT in Spain. Unusual causes of LT include metabolic diseases like Wilson's disease, familial amyloid polyneuropathy and hyperoxaluria type I, polycystic kidney and liver disease, and some tumors (epithelioid hemangioendothelioma and neuroendocrine tumors). Important efforts are now being undertaken to improve the quality and transplantability of extended criteria livers, in particular those arising from DCD, which represent the greatest opportunity to expand the donor pool. These efforts have to be addressed to adapt the organ preservation procedures, be it through the application of regional perfusion in situ or the use of machine perfusion preservation ex situ. Liver Transplantation 22 1259-1264 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.

Liver transplantation in Germany.

Liver transplantation (LT) is a well-accepted procedure for end-stage liver disease in Germany. In 2015, 1489 patients were admitted to the waiting list (including 1308 new admissions), with the leading etiologies being fibrosis and cirrhosis (n = 349), alcoholic liver disease (n = 302), and hepatobiliary malignancies (n = 220). Organ allocation in Germany is regulated within the Eurotransplant system based on urgency as expressed by the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. In 2015, only 894 LTs (n = 48 from living donors) were performed at 23 German transplant centers, reflecting a shortage of organs. Several factors may contribute to the low number of organ donations. The German transplant legislation only accepts donation after brain death (not cardiac death), whereas advances in neurosurgery and a more frequently requested "palliative care" approach render fewer patients suitable as potential donors. The legislation further requires the active consent of the donor or first-degree relatives before donation. Ongoing debates within the German transplant field address the optimal management of patients with alcoholic liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and cholangiocarcinoma and measures to increase living donor transplantations. As a result of irregularities at mainly 4 German transplant centers that were exposed in 2012, guiding principles updated by the German authorities have since implemented strict rules (including internal and external auditing, the 8-eyes principle, mandatory repeated testing for alcohol consumption) to prohibit any manipulations in organ allocation. In conclusion, we will summarize important aspects on the management of LT in Germany, discuss legal and organizational aspects, and highlight challenges mainly related to the relative lack of organ donations, increasing numbers of extended criteria donors, and the peculiarities of the recipient patients. Liver Transplantation 22 1136-1142 2016 AASLD.