RESUMO
Given liver transplantation organ scarcity, selection of recipients and donors to maximize post-transplant benefit is paramount. Several scores predict post-transplant outcomes by isolating elements of donor and recipient risk, including the donor risk index, Balance of Risk, pre-allocation score to predict survival outcomes following liver transplantation/survival outcomes following liver transplantation (SOFT), improved donor-to-recipient allocation score for deceased donors only/improved donor-to-recipient allocation score for both deceased and living donors (ID2EAL-D/-DR), and survival benefit (SB) models. No studies have examined the performance of these models over time, which is critical in an ever-evolving transplant landscape. This was a retrospective cohort study of liver transplantation events in the UNOS database from 2002 to 2021. We used Cox regression to evaluate model discrimination (Harrell's C) and calibration (testing of calibration curves) for post-transplant patient and graft survival at specified post-transplant timepoints. Sub-analyses were performed in the modern transplant era (post-2014) and for key donor-recipient characteristics. A total of 112,357 transplants were included. The SB and SOFT scores had the highest discrimination for short-term patient and graft survival, including in the modern transplant era, where only the SB model had good discrimination (C ≥ 0.60) for all patient and graft outcome timepoints. However, these models had evidence of poor calibration at 3- and 5-year patient survival timepoints. The ID2EAL-DR score had lower discrimination but adequate calibration at all patient survival timepoints. In stratified analyses, SB and SOFT scores performed better in younger (< 40 y) and higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (≥ 25) patients. All prediction scores had declining discrimination over time, and scores relying on donor factors alone had poor performance. Although the SB and SOFT scores had the best overall performance, all models demonstrated declining performance over time. This underscores the importance of periodically updating and/or developing new prediction models to reflect the evolving transplant field. Scores relying on donor factors alone do not meaningfully inform post-transplant risk.
Assuntos
Doença Hepática Terminal , Sobrevivência de Enxerto , Transplante de Fígado , Humanos , Transplante de Fígado/efeitos adversos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Feminino , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medição de Risco/estatística & dados numéricos , Medição de Risco/métodos , Doença Hepática Terminal/cirurgia , Doença Hepática Terminal/mortalidade , Doença Hepática Terminal/diagnóstico , Adulto , Fatores de Risco , Fatores de Tempo , Doadores Vivos/estatística & dados numéricos , Seleção do Doador/normas , Seleção do Doador/métodos , Seleção do Doador/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Obtenção de Tecidos e Órgãos/estatística & dados numéricos , Obtenção de Tecidos e Órgãos/métodos , Obtenção de Tecidos e Órgãos/normas , Resultado do Tratamento , Doadores de Tecidos/estatística & dados numéricos , Bases de Dados Factuais/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
Background: In liver transplantation, advances in ex situ normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) have improved outcomes compared with traditional static cold storage (SCS) in donation after circulatory death (DCD) organs. We aimed to characterize trends in the utilization of NMP versus SCS in DCD liver transplantation in the United States. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database to identify recipient-donor adult liver transplant pairs from DCD donors from January 2016 to June 2022. Utilization of NMP and changes in donor risk index (DRI) and components between NMP and SCS were assessed across transplant year eras (2016-2018, 2019-2020, and 2021-2022). Statistical comparisons were made using the Kruskal-Wallis test or the chi-square test. Results: A total of 3937 SCS and 127 NMP DCD donor transplants were included. Utilization of NMP ranged from ~0.4% to 3.5% from 2016 to 2021 and rose significantly to 11.2% in early 2022. Across transplant eras, median DRI increased significantly for SCS and NMP, but the magnitude of the increase was larger for NMP. With NMP DCDs, there were significant increases in median donor age, national share proportion, and "cold ischemic time" over time. Finally, there was a shift toward including higher DRI donors and higher model for end-stage liver disease score transplant recipients with NMP in later transplant eras. Conclusions: In recent years, NMP utilization has increased and expanded to donors with higher DRI and recipients with higher model for end-stage liver disease score at transplant, suggesting increasing familiarity and risk tolerance with NMP technology. As NMP remains a relatively new technique, ongoing study of patient outcomes, organ allocation practices, and utilization patterns is critical.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The demand for liver transplantation has led to the utilization of marginal grafts including moderately macrosteatotic livers (macrosteatosis ≥30% [Mas30]), which are associated with an elevated risk of graft failure. Machine perfusion (MP) has emerged as a technique for organ preservation and viability testing; however, little is known about MP in Mas30 livers. This study evaluates the utilization and outcomes of Mas30 livers in the era of MP. METHODS: The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database was queried to identify biopsy-proven Mas30 deceased donor liver grafts between June 1, 2016, and June 23, 2023. Univariable and multivariable models were constructed to study the association between MP and graft utilization and survival. RESULTS: The final cohort with 3317 Mas30 livers was identified, of which 72 underwent MP and were compared with 3245 non-MP livers. Among Mas30 livers, 62 (MP) and 1832 (non-MP) were transplanted (utilization of 86.1% versus 56.4%, Pâ <â 0.001). Donor and recipient characteristics were comparable between MP and non-MP groups. In adjusted analyses, MP was associated with significantly increased Mas30 graft utilization (odds ratio, 7.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.76-16.58; Pâ <â 0.001). In log-rank tests, MP was not associated with 1- and 3-y graft failure (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.12-1.99; Pâ =â 0.319 and hazard ratio 0.43; 95% CI, 0.11-1.73; Pâ =â 0.235, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The utilization rate of Mas30 grafts increases with MP without detriment to graft survival. This early experience may have implications for increasing the available donor pool of Mas30 livers.
RESUMO
Background: The prevalence of obesity is rising in the general population. Donor obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) may potentially reduce the donor pool and impact outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Methods: We utilized the national transplant database to investigate the impact of donor obesity on donor and recipient outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study of all LDLTs performed in the United States between January 2010 and June 2023. Outcomes of interest were analyzed by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Patient and graft survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional analysis. Results: Six hundred seventy-four donors with obesity and 3498 donors without obesity were analyzed. Donors with obesity had higher rates of readmission within 1 y of donation (15.9% versus 11.6%; P = 0.003). The risk of readmission was significantly different between 6 wk and 6 mo of donation (8.8% versus 5.9%; P = 0.036). Donor body mass index (odds ratio [OR], 1.460; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.129-1.999; P = 0.004) and preoperative alkaline phosphatase levels (OR, 1.005; 95% CI, 1.000-1.011; P = 0.038) were independent predictors of donor readmission. High LDLT center volume was associated with reduced odds of donor readmission (OR, 0.509; 95% CI, 0.373-0.694; Pâ <â 0.001). Graft and recipient survival was comparable. Conclusions: Selection of living donors with obesity may be a potential avenue to increase the available donor pool without compromising recipient outcomes; however, they are at an increased risk for readmission between 6 wk and 6 mo of donation. The reason for readmission requires further study.