Comparing Functional Frailty and Radiographic Sarcopenia as Predictors of Outcomes After Liver Transplant.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty and sarcopenia are associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and mortality in patients with end-stage liver disease. The ability to identify frail patients at risk of adverse outcomes could help optimize liver transplant (LT) evaluations and pre-transplant care. This study compared sarcopenia, via L3-psoas muscle index (L3-PMI), to frailty, via liver frailty index (LFI) and analyzed associated outcomes after liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive LT-recipients with cross-sectional abdominal/pelvic imaging were reviewed over 5 years at a single transplant center. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-six patients underwent transplant during this study interval; 31% of patients were sarcopenic. Two hundred eight patients underwent LFI evaluation: 25% were frail, 59% were prefrail, and 16% were robust. Sarcopenic patients had higher LFI scores indicating greater frailty (p = 0.02). Both sarcopenia and LFI-frailty were associated with significantly higher MELD-Na scores. Length of post-LT hospital stay was increased in sarcopenic (mean 14 vs. nonsarcopenic 11 days, p = 0.02) and LFI-frail patients (mean 13 vs. 10 prefrail, 8 robust, p = 0.04). As a categorical variable, neither LFI-frailty nor sarcopenia were significantly associated with reduced survival at 1-year (robust 100%, prefrail 93.5%, frail 91.1%, p = 0.31) (nonsarcopenic 94.4%, sarcopenic 91.4%, p = 0.30). However, LFI score was significantly associated with mortality at 1-year (OR 2.133, p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Radiographic sarcopenia is a suitable proxy for in-person frailty assessment as both L3-PMI and LFI capture frail patients' pre-LT. However, physical assessment with frailty better predicts 1-year mortality post-LT than the measurement of muscle mass.

Factors Associated With Recurrence of Underlying Diseases Among Liver Transplant Recipients: A Single-Center Study.

OBJECTIVES: The recurrence of underlying diseases remains a major cause of graft failure after liver transplant. This study aimed to identify factors associated with the recurrence of underlying diseases and investigate the incidence of these factors and recurrence at the main liver transplant center in Iran. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included adult liver transplant recipients followed at Shiraz Transplant Center between 2011 and 2018 with a confirmed diagnosis of recurrence of underlying disease in our study. We reviewed medical records and extracted data on demographic characteristics, clinical and paraclinical features, medication use, and current status. We used a systematic random sampling method to select a control group of 95 transplant recipients who did not have recurrence. Of 3022 total transplant recipients, 76 recipients experienced a recurrence of their underlying disease. RESULTS: Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, underlying disease, recipient blood group, donor sex, donor blood group, and rejection frequency were significantly different between study groups with and without recurrence of underlying diseases. Liver transplant recipients with recurrence had lower mean Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. Recipients with recurrence also had higher rate of drug consumption (eg, prednisolone, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, sirolimus). Regression analysis showed that donor sex and rejection frequency had an effect on disease recurrence. Death occurred more frequently in liver transplant recipients with recurrence than in the control group (39.5% vs 26.3%), butthe difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Donor sex and acute rejection frequency are independent factors predictive of the recurrence of underlying disease. Modifying risk factors can help minimize the recurrence of underlying diseases after liver transplant.

Relationship between updated MELD and prognosis in alcohol-associated hepatitis: Opportunities for more efficient trial design.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH) is associated with significant mortality. Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is used to predict short-term mortality and aid in treatment decisions. MELD is frequently updated in the course of AH. However, once the most updated MELD is known, it is uncertain if previous ones still have prognostic value, which might be relevant for transplant allocation and trial design. We aimed to investigate the predictive performance of updated MELDs in a prospectively collected cohort of patients with AH by the InTeam consortium. METHODS: Three hundred seven patients (with 859 MELD values within 60 d of admission) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The main endpoint was time to death or transplant up to 90 days. We used a joint model approach to assess the predictive value of updated MELDs. RESULTS: Updated MELD measurements had a strong prognostic value for death/transplant (HR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.14-1.27) (p < 0.0001). Previous MELD values did not add predictive value to the most current MELD. We also showed that MELD at day 28 (MELD28) had a significant predictive value for subsequent mortality/transplant in a landmark analysis (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.12-1.23). We show that the use of an ordinal scale including death, transplant, and MELD28 as a trial outcome could substantially reduce the sample size required to demonstrate short-term benefit of an intervention. CONCLUSION: We show that updated MELDs during the trajectory of AH predict subsequent mortality or the need for transplant. MELD28 inclusion in an ordinal outcome (together with death or transplant) could increase the efficiency of randomized controlled trials.

Validation of MELD3.0 in 2 centers from different continents.

BACKGROUND: MELD3.0 has been proposed to stratify patients on the liver transplant waiting list (WL) to reduce the historical disadvantage of women in accessing liver transplant. Our aim was to validate MELD3.0 in 2 unique populations. METHODS: This study is a 2-center retrospective cohort study from Toronto, Canada, and Valencia, Spain, of all adults added to the liver transplant WL between 2015 and 2019. Listing indications whose short-term survival outcome is not adequately captured by the MELD score were excluded. All patients analyzed had a minimum follow-up of 3 months after inclusion in the WL. RESULTS: Six hundred nineteen patients were included; 61% were male, with a mean age of 56 years. Mean MELD at inclusion was 18.00 ± 6.88, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium (MELDNa) 19.78 ± 7.00, and MELD3.0 20.25 ± 7.22. AUC to predict 90-day mortality on the WL was 0.879 (95% CI: 0.820, 0.939) for MELD, 0.921 (95% CI: 0.876, 0.967) for MELDNa, and 0.930 (95% CI: 0.888, 0.973) for MELD3.0. MELDNa and MELD3.0 were better predictors than MELD (p = 0.055 and p = 0.024, respectively), but MELD3.0 was not statistically superior to MELDNa (p = 0.144). The same was true when stratified by sex, although the difference between MELD3.0 and MELD was only significant for women (p = 0.032), while no statistical significance was found in either sex when compared with MELDNa. In women, AUC was 0.835 (95% CI: 0.744, 0.926) for MELD, 0.873 (95% CI: 0.785, 0.961) for MELDNa, and 0.886 (95% CI: 0.803, 0.970) for MELD3.0; differences for the comparison between AUC in women versus men for all 3 scores were nonsignificant. Compared to MELD, MELD3.0 was able to reclassify 146 patients (24%), the majority of whom belonged to the MELD 10-19 interval. Compared to MELDNa, it reclassified 68 patients (11%), most of them in the MELDNa 20-29 category. CONCLUSIONS: MELD3.0 has been validated in centers with significant heterogeneity and offers the highest mortality prediction for women on the WL without disadvantaging men. However, in these cohorts, it was not superior to MELDNa.

Survival after live donor versus deceased donor liver transplantation: propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: For individuals with advanced liver disease, equipoise in outcomes between live donor liver transplant (LDLT) and deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) is uncertain. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data extracted from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Adults who underwent first-time DDLT or LTDL in the United States between 2002 and 2020 were paired using propensity-score matching with 1:10 ratio without replacement. Patient and graft survival were compared using the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score for stratification. RESULTS: After propensity-score matching, 31 522 DDLT and 3854 LDLT recipients were included. For recipients with MELD scores ≤15, LDLT was associated with superior patient survival (HR = 0.92; 95% c.i. 0.76 to 0.96; P = 0.013). No significant differences in patient survival were observed for MELD scores between 16 and 30. Conversely, for patients with MELD scores >30, LDLT was associated with higher mortality (HR 2.57; 95% c.i. 1.35 to 4.62; P = 0.003). Graft survival was comparable between the two groups for MELD ≤15 and for MELD between 21 and 30. However, for MELD between 16 and 20 (HR = 1.15; 95% c.i. 1.00 to 1.33; P = 0.04) and MELD > 30 (HR = 2.85; 95% c.i. 1.65 to 4.91; P = 0.001), graft survival was considerably shorter after LDLT. Regardless of MELD scores, re-transplantation rate within the first year was significantly higher after LDLT. CONCLUSIONS: In this large propensity score-matched study using national data, comparable patient survival was found between LDLT and DDLT in recipients with MELD scores between 16 and 30. Conversely, for patients with MELD > 30, LDLT was associated with worse outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of transplant selection for patients with high MELD scores.

The impact of MELD exception points for hydrothorax on posttransplant mortality: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic hydrothorax is a challenging complication of end-stage liver disease, and.patients with this complication can receive model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) exception points if they meet specific criteria as defined by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). This research aimed to analyze the effect of receiving MELD exception points for hepatic hydrothorax on posttransplant mortality, using a national transplant database. METHODS: Patients >18 years in the UNOS database awaiting liver transplant between 2012 and 2023 were identified based on their petition for MELD exception points. Using a 1: 1 propensity score-matched analysis, 302 patients who received MELD exception points for hepatic hydrothorax were compared with 302 patients who did not receive MELD exception points.Demographic, clinical and laboratory values were compared. The primary outcome was posttransplant mortality. Multivariate logistic regression controlled for potential confounders. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in mean age (58.20 vs 57.62 years), mean initial MELD score (16.93 vs 16.54), or mean Child-Pugh score (9.77 vs 9.74) in patients with hepatic hydrothorax receiving MELD exception points versus their matched cohort who did not recieve exception points. The proportion of males was slightly higher among patients who received MELD exception points (57.6% males vs 53.6% males). A majority of patients in both groups had Child-Pugh grade C (>56%). Patients receiving MELD exception points for hepatic hydrothorax had a statistically significant 44% decrease in the odds of posttransplant death compared to those who did not (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37-0.88; P  = 0.01). Among the combined cohort, each year increase in age resulted in a 3.9% increase in mortality (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07; P  = 0.005), and every one-unit increase in serum creatinine resulted in a 40% increase in mortality (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.03-1.92; P  = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Receiving MELD exception points for hepatic hydrothorax is associated with a significant reduction in the odds of posttransplant mortality. These findings underscore the importance of MELD exception points for hepatic hydrothorax among patients with decompensated cirrhosis, potentially improving patient prioritization for liver transplantation and influencing clinical decision-making.

Model for end-stage liver disease-dependent prognostic capacity of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio following liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: To improve liver organ allocation, the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was adopted in candidates reflecting the severity of liver disease and the physical condition of patients. Inflammatory markers are prognostic factors for various cancers and play prognostic roles in patients after liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Researchers focused more on pre-LT inflammatory markers, while the role of dynamic change of these inflammatory markers is still unknown. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prognostic value of pre-LT and post-LT inflammatory markers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We collected the pre-LT complete blood count and the post-LT result with highest count of white blood cells within 48 h. Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio and systemic immune-inflammation index were calculated, and their prognostic roles were analyzed for their MELD scores. RESULTS: This retrospective two-center cohort study enrolled 290 patients after LT for HCC. Multivariate analysis identified pre-LT PLR as independent risk factor for recurrence-free survival (RFS) [HR (95%CI): 1.002 (1.000-1.003), p = 0.023]. A high pre-LT PLR or post-LT PLR were associated with poorer RFS (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). Based on the MELD scores, the pre-LT PLR value was able to predict the RFS in high MELD group (p < 0.001) but had no predictive power in low MELD group (p = 0.076). On the contrary, the post-LT PLR value was better to predict the overall RFS value in low MELD group (p = 0.007) but could not predict the overall RFS value in high MELD group (p = 0.136). CONCLUSIONS: Both pre-LT PLR and post-LT PLR demonstrated prognostic value in patients following LT for HCC. Monitoring PLR values based on the MELD score can improve the predictive prognosis and more effectively guide the individual decisions for the postoperative intervention.

Constructing an Intent-to-Treat Score Index to Predict Survival Outcomes in Pediatric Liver Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Waitlist and posttransplant outcomes have been widely reported for pediatric liver transplantation. Yet, analyzing these metrics individually fails to provide a holistic perspective for patients and their families. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis fills this gap by studying the associations between waitlist outcomes, organ availability, and posttransplant outcomes. Our study aimed to construct a predictive index utilizing ITT analysis for pediatric liver transplant recipients (Pedi-ITT). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis utilizing de-identified data provided by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) from March 1, 2002, to December 31, 2021. We analyzed data for 12 926 pediatric recipients (age <18). We conducted a univariate and multivariable logistic regression to find the significant predictive factors affecting ITT survival. A scoring index was constructed to stratify outcome risk on the basis of the significant factors identified by regression analysis. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis found the following factors to be significantly associated with death on the waitlist or after transplant: gender, diagnosis, UNOS region, ascites, diabetes mellitus, age at the time of listing, serum sodium at the time of listing, total bilirubin at the time of listing, serum creatinine at the time of listing, INR at the time of listing, history of ventilator use, and history of re-transplantation. Using receiver operator characteristic analysis, the Pedi-ITT index had a c-statistic of 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.82). The c-statistics of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease/Pediatric for End-Stage Liver Disease and pediatric version of the Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation score indices were 0.74 (CI: 0.71-0.76) and 0.69 (CI: 0.66-0.72), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Pedi-ITT index provides an additional prognostic model with moderate predictive power to assess outcomes associated with pediatric liver transplantation. Further analysis should focus on increasing the predictive power of the index.

Survival following liver transplantation: A population-based nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is the gold standard treatment for end-stage liver disease. This study evaluates post-transplantation survival compared with the general population by quantifying standardized mortality ratios in a nested case-control study. METHODS: Controls were noninstitutionalized United States inhabitants from the National Longitudinal Mortality Study. Cases underwent liver transplantation from 1990 to 2007 identified through the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database. Propensity matching (5:1, nearest neighbor, caliper 0.1) identified controls based on age, sex, race, and state. The primary endpoint was 10-year survival. RESULTS: 62,788 cases were matched to 313,381 controls. The overall standardized mortality ratio was 2.46 (95% CI â€‹= â€‹2.44-2.48). The standardized mortality ratio was higher for males (2.59 vs. 2.25) and Hispanic patients (4.80). Younger patients and those transplanted earlier (1990-1995) had higher standardized mortality ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Liver recipients have a standardized mortality ratio 2.46 times higher than the general population. Long-term mortality has declined over time.

LIVER RETRANSPLANTATION: PROGNOSTIC SCORES AND RESULTS IN THE STATE OF PARANÁ.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic retransplantation is associated with higher morbidity and mortality when compared to primary transplantation. Given the scarcity of organs and the need for efficient allocation, evaluating parameters that can predict post-retransplant survival is crucial. AIMS: This study aimed to analyze prognostic scores and outcomes of hepatic retransplantation. METHODS: Data on primary transplants and retransplants carried out in the state of Paraná in 2019 and 2020 were analyzed. The two groups were compared based on 30-day survival and the main prognostic scores of the donor and recipient, namely Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), MELD-albumin (MELD-a), Donor MELD (D-MELD), Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation (SOFT), Preallocation Score to Predict Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation (P-SOFT), and Balance of Risk (BAR). RESULTS: A total of 425 primary transplants and 30 retransplants were included in the study. The main etiology of hepatopathy in primary transplantation was ethylism (n=140; 31.0%), and the main reasons for retransplantation were primary graft dysfunction (n=10; 33.3%) and hepatic artery thrombosis (n=8; 26.2%). The 30-day survival rate was higher in primary transplants than in retransplants (80.5% vs. 36.7%, p=0.001). Prognostic scores were higher in retransplants than in primary transplants: MELD 30.6 vs. 20.7 (p=0.001); MELD-a 31.5 vs. 23.5 (p=0.001); D-MELD 1234.4 vs. 834.0 (p=0.034); SOFT 22.3 vs. 8.2 (p=0.001); P-SOFT 22.2 vs. 7.8 (p=0.001); and BAR 15.6 vs. 8.3 (p=0.001). No difference was found in terms of Donor Risk Index (DRI). CONCLUSIONS: Retransplants exhibited lower survival rates at 30 days, as predicted by prognostic scores, but unrelated to the donor's condition.

Effect of recipient age on prioritisation for liver transplantation in the UK: a population-based modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Following the introduction of an algorithm aiming to maximise life-years gained from liver transplantation in the UK (the transplant benefit score [TBS]), donor livers were redirected from younger to older patients, mortality rate equalised across the age range and short-term waiting list mortality reduced. Understanding age-related prioritisation has been challenging, especially for younger patients and clinicians allocating non-TBS-directed livers. We aimed to assess age-related prioritisation within the TBS algorithm by modelling liver transplantation prioritisation based on data from a UK transplant unit and comparing these data with other regions. METHODS: In this population-based modelling study, serum parameters and age at liver transplantation assessment of patients attending the Scottish Liver Transplant Unit, Edinburgh, UK, between December, 2002, and November, 2023, were combined with representative synthetic data to model TBS survival predictions, which were compared according to age group (25-49 years vs ≥60 years), chronic liver disease severity, and disease cause. Models for end-stage liver disease (UKELD [UK], MELD [Eurotransplant region], and MELD 3.0 [USA]) were used as validated comparators of liver disease severity. FINDINGS: Of 2093 patients with chronic liver disease, 1808 (86%) had complete datasets and liver disease parameters consistent with eligibility for the liver transplant waiting list in the UK (UKELD ≥49). Disease severity as assessed by UKELD, MELD, and MELD 3.0 did not differ by age (median UKELD scores of 56 for patients aged ≥60 years vs 56 for patients aged 25-49 years; MELD scores of 16 vs 16; and MELD 3.0 scores of 18 vs 18). TBS increased with advancing age (R=0·45, p<0·0001). TBS predicted that transplantation in patients aged 60 years or older would provide a two-fold greater net benefit at 5 years than in patients aged 25-49 years (median TBS 1317 [IQR 1116-1436] in older patients vs 706 [411-1095] in younger patients; p<0·0001). Older patients were predicted to have shorter survival without transplantation than younger patients (263 days [IQR 144-473] in older patients vs 861 days [448-1164] in younger patients; p<0·0001) but similar survival after transplantation (1599 days [1563-1628] vs 1573 days [1525-1614]; p<0·0001). Older patients could reach a TBS for which a liver offer was likely below minimum criteria for transplantation (UKELD <49), whereas many younger patients were required to have high-urgent disease (UKELD >60). US and Eurotransplant programmes did not prioritise according to age. INTERPRETATION: The UK liver allocation algorithm prioritises older patients for transplantation by predicting that advancing age increases the benefit from liver transplantation. Restricted follow-up and biases in waiting list data might limit the accuracy of these benefit predictions. Measures beyond overall waiting list mortality are required to fully capture the benefits of liver transplantation. FUNDING: None.

Pursuing living donor liver transplantation improves outcomes of patients with autoimmune liver diseases: An intention-to-treat analysis.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) offers the opportunity to decrease waitlist time and mortality for patients with autoimmune liver disease (AILD), autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cholangitis, and primary sclerosing cholangitis. We compared the survival of patients with a potential living donor (pLDLT) on the waitlist versus no potential living donor (pDDLT) on an intention-to-treat basis. Our retrospective cohort study investigated adults with AILD listed for a liver transplant in our program between 2000 and 2021. The pLDLT group comprised recipients with a potential living donor. Otherwise, they were included in the pDDLT group. Intention-to-treat survival was assessed from the time of listing. Of the 533 patients included, 244 (43.8%) had a potential living donor. Waitlist dropout was higher for the pDDLT groups among all AILDs (pDDLT 85 [29.4%] vs. pLDLT 9 [3.7%], p < 0.001). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year intention-to-treat survival rates were higher for pLDLT versus pDDLT among all AILDs (95.7% vs. 78.1%, 89.0% vs. 70.1%, and 87.1% vs. 65.5%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, pLDLT was associated with a 38% reduction in the risk of death among the AILD cohort (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.93 [ p <0.05]), and 60% among the primary sclerosing cholangitis cohort (HR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.22-0.74 [ p <0.05]). There were no differences in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year post-transplant survival between LDLT and DDLT (AILD: 95.6% vs. 92.1%, 89.9% vs. 89.4%, and 89.1% vs. 87.1%, p =0.41). This was consistent after adjusting for covariates (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.56-1.68 [ p >0.9]). Our study suggests that having a potential living donor could decrease the risk of death in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis on the waitlist. Importantly, the post-transplant outcomes in this population are similar between the LDLT and DDLT groups.

Current status of liver transplantation for human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in mainland China.

According to the report from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection exceeded 1.2 million individuals by the year 2022, with an annual increase of about 80000 cases. The overall prevalence of hepatitis B surface antigen among individuals co-infected with HIV reached 13.7%, almost twice the rate of the general population in China. In addition to the well-documented susceptibility to opportunistic infections and new malignancies, HIV infected patients frequently experience liver-related organ damage, with the liver and kidneys being the most commonly affected. This often leads to the development of end-stage liver and kidney diseases. Therefore, organ transplantation has emerged as an important part of active treatment for HIV infected patients. However, the curative effect is not satisfactory. HIV infection has been considered a contraindication for organ transplantation. Until the emergence of highly active anti-retroviral therapy in 1996, the once intractable replication of retrovirus was effectively inhibited. With prolonged survival, the failure of important organs has become the main cause of death among HIV patients. Therefore, transplant centers worldwide have resumed exploration of organ transplantation for HIV-infected individuals and reached a positive conclusion. This study provides an overview of the current landscape of HIV-positive patients receiving liver transplantation (LT) in mainland China. To date, our transplant center has conducted LT for eight end-stage liver disease patients co-infected with HIV, and all but one, who died two months postoperatively due to sepsis and progressive multi-organ failure, have survived. Comparative analysis with hepatitis B virus-infected patients during the same period revealed no statistically significant differences in acute rejection reactions, cytomegalovirus infection, bacteremia, pulmonary infections, acute kidney injury, new-onset cancers, or vascular and biliary complications.

Exception Policy Change Increased the Simultaneous Kidney-Liver Transplant Probability of Polycystic Disease in the Centers With High Median MELD at Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing changed the exception policy for liver allocation to the median model for end-stage liver disease at transplantation (MMaT). This study evaluated the effects of this change on-waitlist outcomes of simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLKT) for patients with polycystic liver-kidney disease (PLKD). METHODS: Using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing registry, 317 patients with PLKD listed for SLKT between January 2016 and December 2021 were evaluated. Waitlist outcomes were compared between prepolicy (Era 1) and postpolicy (Era 2) eras. RESULTS: One-year transplant probability was significantly higher in Era 2 than in Era 1 (55.7% versus 37.9%; P  = 0.001), and the positive effect on transplant probability of Era 2 was significant after risk adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-2.54; P  = 0.002 [ref. Era 1]), whereas waitlist mortality was comparable. Transplant centers were separated into the high and low MMaT groups with a score of 29 (median MMaT) and transplant probability in each group between eras was compared. In the high MMaT transplant centers, the 1-y transplant probability was significantly higher in Era 2 (27.5% versus 52.4%; P  = 0.003). The positive effect remained significant in the high MMaT center group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-5.46; P  = 0.003 [ref. Era 1]) but not in the low MMaT center group. Although there was a difference between center groups in Era 1 ( P  = 0.006), it became comparable in Era 2 ( P  = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: The new policy increased 1-y SLKT probability in patients with PKLD and successfully reduced the disparities based on center location.

Waitlist Outcomes for Exception and Non-exception Liver Transplant Candidates in the United States Following Implementation of the Median MELD at Transplant (MMaT)/250-mile Policy.

BACKGROUND: Since February 2020, exception points have been allocated equivalent to the median model for end-stage liver disease at transplant within 250 nautical miles of the transplant center (MMaT/250). We compared transplant rate and waitlist mortality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exception, non-HCC exception, and non-exception candidates to determine whether MMaT/250 advantages (or disadvantages) exception candidates. METHODS: Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we identified 23 686 adult, first-time, active, deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) candidates between February 4, 2020, and February 3, 2022. We compared DDLT rates using Cox regression, and waitlist mortality/dropout using competing risks regression in non-exception versus HCC versus non-HCC candidates. RESULTS: Within 24 mo of study entry, 58.4% of non-exception candidates received DDLT, compared with 57.8% for HCC candidates and 70.5% for non-HCC candidates. After adjustment, HCC candidates had 27% lower DDLT rate (adjusted hazard ratio =  0.68 0.73 0.77 ) compared with non-exception candidates. However, waitlist mortality for HCC was comparable to non-exception candidates (adjusted subhazard ratio [asHR] =  0.93 1.03 1.15 ). Non-HCC candidates with pulmonary complications of cirrhosis or cholangiocarcinoma had substantially higher risk of waitlist mortality compared with non-exception candidates (asHR =  1.27 1.70 2.29 for pulmonary complications of cirrhosis, 1.35 2.04 3.07 for cholangiocarcinoma). The same was not true of non-HCC candidates with exceptions for other reasons (asHR =  0.54 0.88 1.44 ). CONCLUSIONS: Under MMaT/250, HCC, and non-exception candidates have comparable risks of dying before receiving liver transplant, despite lower transplant rates for HCC. However, non-HCC candidates with pulmonary complications of cirrhosis or cholangiocarcinoma have substantially higher risk of dying before receiving liver transplant; these candidates may merit increased allocation priority.

Identifying drivers of cost in pediatric liver transplantation.

Understanding the economics of pediatric liver transplantation (LT) is central to high-value care initiatives. We examined cost and resource utilization in pediatric LT nationally to identify drivers of cost and hospital factors associated with greater total cost of care. We reviewed 3295 children (<21 y) receiving an LT from 2010 to 2020 in the Pediatric Health Information System to study cost, both per LT and service line, and associated mortality, complications, and resource utilization. To facilitate comparisons, patients were stratified into high-cost, intermediate-cost, or low-cost tertiles based on LT cost. The median cost per LT was $150,836 [IQR $104,481-$250,129], with marked variance in cost within and between hospital tertiles. High-cost hospitals (HCHs) cared for more patients with the highest severity of illness and mortality risk levels (67% and 29%, respectively), compared to intermediate-cost (60%, 21%; p <0.001) and low-cost (51%, 16%; p <0.001) hospitals. Patients at HCHs experienced a higher prevalence of mechanical ventilation, total parental nutrition use, renal comorbidities, and surgical complications than other tertiles. Clinical (27.5%), laboratory (15.1%), and pharmacy (11.9%) service lines contributed most to the total cost. Renal comorbidities ($69,563) and total parental nutrition use ($33,192) were large, independent contributors to total cost, irrespective of the cost tertile ( p <0.001). There exists a significant variation in pediatric LT cost, with HCHs caring for more patients with higher illness acuity and resource needs. Studies are needed to examine drivers of cost and associated outcomes more granularly, with the goal of defining value and standardizing care. Such efforts may uniquely benefit the sicker patients requiring the strategic resources located within HCHs to achieve the best outcomes.

Controversies in terlipressin and transplantation in the United States: How do we MELD the two?

Hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI) is a severe complication of cirrhosis that carries a poor prognosis. The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of terlipressin has substantial implications for managing HRS-AKI and liver allocation in the United States. Terlipressin has been available in Europe for over a decade, and several countries have adapted policy changes such as Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score "lock" for HRS-AKI. In this article, we outline the European experience with terlipressin use and explore the question of whether terlipressin treatment for HRS-AKI should qualify for the MELD score "lock" in the United States in those who respond to therapy. Arguments for the MELD lock include protecting waitlist priority for terlipressin responders or partial responders who may miss offers due to MELD reduction in the terlipressin treatment window. Arguments against MELD lock include the fact that terlipressin may produce a durable response and improve overall survival and that equitable access to terlipressin is not guaranteed due to cost and availability. We subsequently discuss the proposed next steps for studying terlipressin implementation in the United States. A successful approach will require the involvement of all major stakeholders and the mobilization of our transplant community to spearhead research in this area.

Recipient age influences survival after liver transplant: Results of the French national cohort 2007-2017.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, age at liver transplantation (LT) has markedly increased. In the context of organ shortage, we investigated the impact of recipient age on post-transplantation mortality. METHODS: All adult patients who received a first LT between 2007 and 2017 were included in this cross-sectional study. Recipients' characteristics at the time of listing, donor and surgery data, post-operative complications and follow-up of vital status were retrieved from the national transplantation database. The impact of age on 5-year overall mortality post-LT was estimated using a flexible multivariable parametric model which was also used to estimate the association between age and 10-year net survival, accounting for expected age- and sex-related mortality. RESULTS: Among the 7610 patients, 21.4% were aged 60-65 years, and 15.7% over 65. With increasing age, comorbidities increased but severity of liver disease decreased. Older recipient age was associated with decreased observed survival at 5 years after LT (p < .001), with a significant effect particularly during the first 2 years. The linear increase in the risk of death associated with age does not allow any definition of an age's threshold for LT (p = .832). Other covariates associated with an increased risk of 5-year death were dialysis and mechanical ventilation at transplant, transfusion during LT, hepatocellular carcinoma and donor age. Ten-year flexible net survival analysis confirmed these results. CONCLUSION: Although there was a selection process for older recipients, increasing age at LT was associated with an increased risk of death, particularly in the first years after LT.

The Impact of Pre-Heart Transplantation Blood Transfusion Varies Based on Recipient MELD-XI Score.

Prior studies reveal adverse effects of transfusion on cardiac surgery, but little is known of transfusion impact on heart transplantation. First-time, single-organ adult heart transplant recipients between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2020, were included, stratified above or below a model for end-stage liver disease excluding international normalized ratio (MELD-XI) score of 9.4, and propensity score matched to their nearest neighbor. A 90 day landmark analysis within each cohort was also performed. Unadjusted analysis showed transfusion recipients, MELD-XI ≥9.4, were more likely to experience post-heart transplantation mortality (Hazard Ratio (HR), 1.352 [95% Confidence Interval (CI), 1.239-1.477], p < 0.001), persisting after adjustment for potential confounders (adjusted HR, 1.211 [95% CI, 1.100-1.335], p < 0.001) and after propensity-score matching (HR, 1.174 [95% CI, 1.045-1.319], p = 0.007). Post-transplant length of stay was longer (25.9 vs. 23.2 days, p < 0.001). Post-transplant dialysis was more common (18.7 vs. 15.9%, p = 0.009). There was no survival difference on 90 day landmarked analysis ( p = 0.108). With MELD-XI <9.4, there was slight survival detriment among transfusion recipients on univariable analysis (HR, 1.111 [95% CI, 1.001-1.234], p = 0.049) but not on multivariable analysis (adjusted HR, 1.061 [95% CI, 0.952-1.181], p = 0.285). There was similar survival after propensity-score matching (HR, 1.032 [95% CI, 0.903-1.180], p = 0.642) and on landmark analysis ( p = 0.581). Ultimately, transfusion was associated with worse post-heart transplantation outcomes among recipients with a MELD-XI ≥9.4.