Higher retransplantation rate following extended right split-liver transplantation: An analysis from the eurotransplant liver follow-up registry.

Split-liver transplantation has been perceived as an important strategy to increase the supply of liver grafts by creating 2 transplants from 1 allograft. The Eurotransplant Liver Allocation System (ELAS) envisages that the extended right lobes (ERLs) after splitting (usually in the pediatric center) are almost exclusively shipped to a second center. Whether the ELAS policy impacts the graft and patient survival of extended right lobe transplantation (ERLT) in comparison to whole liver transplantation (WLT) recipients remains unclear. Data on all liver transplantations performed between 2007 and 2013 were retrieved from the Eurotransplant Liver Follow-up Registry (n = 5351). Of these, 5013 (269 ERL, 4744 whole liver) could be included. The impact of the transplant type on patient and graft survival was evaluated using univariate and multivariate proportional hazard models adjusting for demographics of donors and recipients. Cold ischemia times were significantly prolonged for ERLTs (P < 0.001). Patient survival was not different between ERLT and WLT. In the univariate analysis, ERLT had a significantly higher risk for retransplantation (P = 0.02). For WLT, the risk for death gradually and significantly increased with laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores of >20. For ERLT, this effect was seen already with laboratory MELD scores of >14. These results mandate a discussion on how to refine the splitting policy to avoid excess retransplant rates in ERL recipients and to further improve transplant outcomes of these otherwise optimal donor organs. Liver Transplantation 24 26-34 2018 AASLD.

Outcome of Liver Transplant Patients With High Urgent Priority: Are We Doing the Right Thing?

BACKGROUND: About 15% of liver transplantations (LTs) in Eurotransplant are currently performed in patients with a high-urgency (HU) status. Patients who have acute liver failure (ALF) or require an acute retransplantation can apply for this status. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of this prioritization. METHODS: Patients who were listed for LT with HU status from January 1, 2007, up to December 31, 2015, were included. Waiting list and posttransplantation outcomes were evaluated and compared with a reference group of patients with laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (labMELD) scores ≥40 (MELD 40+). RESULTS: In the study period, 2299 HU patients were listed for LT. Ten days after listing, 72% of all HU patients were transplanted and 14% of patients deceased. Patients with HU status for primary ALF showed better patient survival at 3 years (69%) when compared with patients in the MELD 40+ group (57%). HU patients with labMELD ≥45 and patients with HU status for acute retransplantation and labMELD ≥35 have significantly inferior survival at 3-year follow-up of 46% and 42%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Current prioritization for patients with ALF is highly effective in preventing mortality on the waiting list. Although patients with HU status for ALF have good outcomes, survival is significantly inferior for patients with a high MELD score or for retransplantations. With the current scarcity of livers in mind, we should discuss whether potential recipients for a second or even third retransplantation should still receive absolute priority, with HU status, over other recipients with an expected, substantially better prognosis after transplantation.

Why offered pancreases are refused in the allocation process-a descriptive study using routine data from eurotransplant.

BACKGROUND: The majority of pancreases, offered in allocation, are discarded. This pancreas underutilization is not well understood yet. METHODS: We analyzed the detailed allocation protocols of all Eurotransplant-registered German whole-pancreas donors (2005-2009; n=1758). Outcome measures included donor characteristics, number of refusals per organ, and proportion of different refusal reasons in the whole sample and subgroups. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of offered pancreases were transplanted; among these, 62% of pancreases were of potentially high quality (favorable donor age and pre-procurement pancreas allocation suitability score, no malignancy, n=290). A pancreas was placed after four offers (median) or withdrawn after eight offers (median). Seventy-five percent of refusal reasons were donor related (e.g., "lab results", "age", "macroscopy", and "long intensive care unit [ICU] stay"). Among pancreases refused for "diabetes" or "malignancy" at least once, the proportion of transplanted organs was less than 10%; pancreases refused due to "trauma", "age", or "resuscitation" were later transplanted in 48%, 32%, and 28%, respectively. The impact of donor age and ICU stay on organ refusal varied substantially: organs were refused due to length of ICU stay even if donors stayed 7 days or less; some organs were transplanted without ever being refused due to ICU stay in donors who stayed 8 days or more in ICU. There were no clinically significant disparities between donors of used and unused pancreases, except age (median, 31 vs. 42 years). DISCUSSION: The loss of several pancreases seems avoidable. Many refusal reasons are not plausible, because there is no evidence supporting the refusal and because many of these organs were transplanted by other centers. This increases inefficiency in the allocation system.