Sex-based Disparities in Access to Liver Transplantation for Waitlisted Patients With Model for End-stage Liver Disease Score of 40.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of sex with access to liver transplantation among candidates with the highest possible model for end-stage liver disease score (MELD 40). BACKGROUND: Women with end-stage liver disease are less likely than men to receive liver transplantation due in part to MELD's underestimation of renal dysfunction in women. The extent of the sex-based disparity among patients with high disease severity and equally high MELD scores is unclear. METHODS: Using national transplant registry data, we compared liver offer acceptance (offers received at match MELD 40) and waitlist outcomes (transplant vs death/delisting) by sex for 7654 waitlisted liver transplant candidates from 2009 to 2019 who reached MELD 40. Multivariable logistic and competing-risks regression was used to estimate the association of sex with the outcome and adjust for the candidate and donor factors. RESULTS: Women (N = 3019, 39.4%) spent equal time active at MELD 40 (median: 5 vs 5 days, P = 0.28) but had lower offer acceptance (9.2% vs 11.0%, P < 0.01) compared with men (N = 4635, 60.6%). Adjusting for candidate/donor factors, offers to women were less likely accepted (odds ratio = 0.87, P < 0.01). Adjusting for candidate factors, once they reached MELD 40, women were less likely to be transplanted (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.90, P < 0.01) and more likely to die or be delisted (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.14, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Even among candidates with high disease severity and equally high MELD scores, women have reduced access to liver transplantation and worse outcomes compared with men. Policies addressing this disparity should consider factors beyond MELD score adjustments alone.

Anesthesia and Critical Care for the Prediction and Prevention for Small-for-size Syndrome: Guidelines from the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference.

BACKGROUND: During the perioperative period of living donor liver transplantation, anesthesiologists and intensivists may encounter patients in receipt of small grafts that puts them at risk of developing small for size syndrome (SFSS). METHODS: A scientific committee (106 members from 21 countries) performed an extensive literature review on aspects of SFSS with proposed recommendations. Recommendations underwent a blinded review by an independent expert panel and discussion/voting on the recommendations occurred at a consensus conference organized by the International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplantation Society of India. RESULTS: It was determined that centers with experience in living donor liver transplantation should utilize potential small for size grafts. Higher risk recipients with sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary, and renal dysfunction should receive small for size grafts with caution. In the intraoperative phase, a restrictive fluid strategy should be considered along with routine use of cardiac output monitoring, as well as use of pharmacologic portal flow modulation when appropriate. Postoperatively, these patients can be considered for enhanced recovery and should receive proactive monitoring for SFSS, nutrition optimization, infection prevention, and consideration for early renal replacement therapy for avoidance of graft congestion. CONCLUSIONS: Our recommendations provide a framework for the optimal anesthetic and critical care management in the perioperative period for patients with grafts that put them at risk of developing SFSS. There is a significant limitation in the level of evidence for most recommendations. This statement aims to provide guidance for future research in the perioperative management of SFSS.

Post Living Donor Liver Transplantation Small-for-size Syndrome: Definitions, Timelines, Biochemical, and Clinical Factors for Diagnosis: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference.

BACKGROUND: When a partial liver graft is unable to meet the demands of the recipient, a clinical phenomenon, small-for-size syndrome (SFSS), may ensue. Clear definition, diagnosis, and management are needed to optimize transplant outcomes. METHODS: A Consensus Scientific committee (106 members from 21 countries) performed an extensive literature review on specific aspects of SFSS, recommendations underwent blinded review by an independent panel, and discussion/voting on the recommendations occurred at the Consensus Conference. RESULTS: The ideal graft-to-recipient weight ratio of ≥0.8% (or graft volume standard liver volume ratio of ≥40%) is recommended. It is also recommended to measure portal pressure or portal blood flow during living donor liver transplantation and maintain a postreperfusion portal pressure of <15 mm Hg and/or portal blood flow of <250 mL/min/100 g graft weight to optimize outcomes. The typical time point to diagnose SFSS is the postoperative day 7 to facilitate treatment and intervention. An objective 3-grade stratification of severity for protocolized management of SFSS is proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed grading system based on clinical and biochemical factors will help clinicians in the early identification of patients at risk of developing SFSS and institute timely therapeutic measures. The validity of this newly created grading system should be evaluated in future prospective studies.

Management of Established Small-for-size Syndrome in Post Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Medical, Radiological, and Surgical Interventions: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference.

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) following living donor liver transplantation is a complication that can lead to devastating outcomes such as prolonged poor graft function and possibly graft loss. Because of the concern about the syndrome, some transplants of mismatched grafts may not be performed. Portal hyperperfusion of a small graft and hyperdynamic splanchnic circulation are recognized as main pathogenic factors for the syndrome. Management of established SFSS is guided by the severity of the presentation with the initial focus on pharmacological therapy to modulate portal flow and provide supportive care to the patient with the goal of facilitating graft regeneration and recovery. When medical management fails or condition progresses with impending dysfunction or even liver failure, interventional radiology (IR) and/or surgical interventions to reduce portal overperfusion should be considered. Although most patients have good outcomes with medical, IR, and/or surgical management that allow graft regeneration, the risk of graft loss increases dramatically in the setting of bilirubin >10 mg/dL and INR>1.6 on postoperative day 7 or isolated bilirubin >20 mg/dL on postoperative day 14. Retransplantation should be considered based on the overall clinical situation and the above postoperative laboratory parameters. The following recommendations focus on medical and IR/surgical management of SFSS as well as considerations and timing of retransplantation when other therapies fail.

DCD liver transplant in patients with a MELD over 35.

Introduction: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) makes up well less than 1% of all LTs with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)≥35 in the United States. We hypothesized DCD-LT yields acceptable ischemia-reperfusion and reasonable outcomes for recipients with MELD≥35. Methods: We analyzed recipients with lab-MELD≥35 at transplant within the UCSF (n=41) and the UNOS (n=375) cohorts using multivariate Cox regression and propensity score matching. Results: In the UCSF cohort, five-year patient survival was 85% for DCD-LTs and 86% for matched-Donation after Brain Death donors-(DBD) LTs (p=0.843). Multivariate analyses showed that younger donor/recipient age and more recent transplants (2011-2021 versus 1999-2010) were associated with better survival. DCD vs. DBD graft use did not significantly impact survival (HR: 1.2, 95%CI 0.6-2.7). The transaminase peak was approximately doubled, indicating suggesting an increased ischemia-reperfusion hit. DCD-LTs had a median post-LT length of stay of 11 days, and 34% (14/41) were on dialysis at discharge versus 12 days and 22% (9/41) for DBD-LTs. 27% (11/41) DCD-LTs versus 12% (5/41) DBD-LTs developed a biliary complication (p=0.095). UNOS cohort analysis confirmed patient survival predictors, but DCD graft emerged as a risk factor (HR: 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.9) with five-year patient survival of 65% versus 75% for DBD-LTs (p=0.016). This difference became non-significant in a sub-analysis focusing on MELD 35-36 recipients. Analysis of MELD≥35 DCD recipients showed that donor age of <30yo independently reduced the risk of graft loss by 30% (HR, 95%CI: 0.7 (0.9-0.5), p=0.019). Retransplant status was associated with a doubled risk of adverse event (HR, 95%CI: 2.1 (1.4-3.3), p=0.001). The rejection rates at 1y were similar between DCD- and DBD-LTs, (9.3% (35/375) versus 1,541 (8.7% (1,541/17,677), respectively). Discussion: In highly selected recipient/donor pair, DCD transplantation is feasible and can achieve comparable survival to DBD transplantation. Biliary complications occurred at the expected rates. In the absence of selection, DCD-LTs outcomes remain worse than those of DBD-LTs.

Preventing Small-for-size Syndrome in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference.

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) is a well-recognized complication following liver transplantation (LT), with up to 20% developing this following living donor LT (LDLT). Preventing SFSS involves consideration of factors before the surgical procedure, including donor and recipient selection, and factors during the surgical procedure, including adequate outflow reconstruction, graft portal inflow modulation, and management of portosystemic shunts. International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplant Society of India Consensus Conference was convened in January 2023 to develop recommendations for the prediction and management of SFSS in LDLT. The format of the conference was based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. International experts in this field were allocated to 4 working groups (diagnosis, prevention, anesthesia, and critical care considerations, and management of established SFSS). The working groups prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. The working group members, independent panel, and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and evidence-based recommendations provided by working group 2 that can be implemented to prevent SFSS in LDLT patients.

Addressing sex-based disparities in solid organ transplantation in the United States - a conference report.

Solid organ transplantation provides the best treatment for end-stage organ failure, but significant sex-based disparities in transplant access exist. On June 25, 2021, a virtual multidisciplinary conference was convened to address sex-based disparities in transplantation. Common themes contributing to sex-based disparities were noted across kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation, specifically the existence of barriers to referral and wait listing for women, the pitfalls of using serum creatinine, the issue of donor/recipient size mismatch, approaches to frailty and a higher prevalence of allosensitization among women. In addition, actionable solutions to improve access to transplantation were identified, including alterations to the current allocation system, surgical interventions on donor organs, and the incorporation of objective frailty metrics into the evaluation process. Key knowledge gaps and high-priority areas for future investigation were also discussed.

The John S. Najarian symposium: The past, present, and future of surgery and transplantation, May 20, 2022, Minneapolis, MN.

Dr John S Najarian (1927-2020), chairman of the Department of Surgery at the University of Minnesota from 1967 to 1993, was a pioneer in surgery, clinical immunology and transplantation. A Covid-delayed Festschrift was held in his honor on May 20, 2022. The speakers reflected on his myriad contributions to surgery, transplantation, and resident/fellow training, as well as current areas of ongoing research to improve clinical outcomes. Of note, Dr Najarian was a founder of the journal Clinical Transplantation.

Comparison of Biliary Complications Rates After Brain Death, Donation After Circulatory Death, and Living-Donor Liver Transplantation: A Single-Center Cohort Study.

Donation-after-circulatory-death (DCD), donation-after-brain-death (DBD), and living-donation (LD) are the three possible options for liver transplantation (LT), each with unique benefits and complication rates. We aimed to compare DCD-, DBD-, and LD-LT-specific graft survival and biliary complications (BC). We collected data on 138 DCD-, 3,027 DBD- and 318 LD-LTs adult recipients from a single center and analyzed patient/graft survival. BC (leak and anastomotic/non-anastomotic stricture (AS/NAS)) were analyzed in a subset of 414 patients. One-/five-year graft survival were 88.6%/70.0% for DCD-LT, 92.6%/79.9% for DBD-LT, and, 91.7%/82.9% for LD-LT. DCD-LTs had a 1.7-/1.3-fold adjusted risk of losing their graft compared to DBD-LT and LD-LT, respectively (p < 0.010/0.403). Bile leaks were present in 10.1% (DCD-LTs), 7.2% (DBD-LTs), and 36.2% (LD-LTs) (ORs, DBD/LD vs. DCD: 0.7/4.2, p = 0.402/<0.001). AS developed in 28.3% DCD-LTs, 18.1% DBD-LTs, and 43.5% LD-LTs (ORs, DBD/LD vs. DCD: 0.5/1.8, p = 0.018/0.006). NAS was present in 15.2% DCD-LTs, 1.4% DBDs-LT, and 4.3% LD-LTs (ORs, DBD/LD vs. DCD: 0.1/0.3, p = 0.001/0.005). LTs w/o BC had better liver graft survival compared to any other groups with BC. DCD-LT and LD-LT had excellent graft survival despite significantly higher BC rates compared to DBD-LT. DCD-LT represents a valid alternative whose importance should increase further with machine/perfusion systems.

The Reality of Inadequate Patient Care and the Need for a Global Action Framework in Organ Donation and Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Transplant therapy is considered the best and often the only available treatment for thousands of patients with organ failure that results from communicable and noncommunicable diseases. The number of annual organ transplants is insufficient for the worldwide need. METHODS: We elaborate the proceedings of the workshop entitled "The Role of Science in the Development of International Standards of Organ Donation and Transplantation," organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and cosponsored by the World Health Organization in June 2021. RESULTS: We detail the urgency and importance of achieving national self-sufficiency in organ transplantation as a public health priority and an important contributor to reaching relevant targets of the United Nations Agenda for Sustainable Development. It details the elements of a global action framework intended for countries at every level of economic development to facilitate either the establishment or enhancement of transplant activity. It sets forth a proposed plan, by addressing the technical considerations for developing and optimizing organ transplantation from both deceased and living organ donors and the regulatory oversight of practices. CONCLUSIONS: This document can be used in governmental and policy circles as a call to action and as a checklist for actions needed to enable organ transplantation as treatment for organ failure.

Novel Benchmark Values for Redo Liver Transplantation: Does the Outcome Justify the Effort?

OBJECTIVE: To define benchmark cutoffs for redo liver transplantation (redo-LT). BACKGROUND: In the era of organ shortage, redo-LT is frequently discussed in terms of expected poor outcome and wasteful resources. However, there is a lack of benchmark data to reliably evaluate outcomes after redo-LT. METHODS: We collected data on redo-LT between January 2010 and December 2018 from 22 high-volume transplant centers. Benchmark cases were defined as recipients with model of end stage liver disease (MELD) score ≤25, absence of portal vein thrombosis, no mechanical ventilation at the time of surgery, receiving a graft from a donor after brain death. Also, high-urgent priority and early redo-LT including those for primary nonfunction (PNF) or hepatic artery thrombosis were excluded. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of the medians of all benchmark centers. RESULTS: Of 1110 redo-LT, 373 (34%) cases qualified as benchmark cases. Among these cases, the rate of postoperative complications until discharge was 76%, and increased up to 87% at 1-year, respectively. One-year overall survival rate was excellent with 90%. Benchmark cutoffs included Comprehensive Complication Index CCI ® at 1-year of ≤72, and in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates of ≤13% and ≤15%, respectively. In contrast, patients who received a redo-LT for PNF showed worse outcomes with some values dramatically outside the redo-LT benchmarks. CONCLUSION: This study shows that redo-LT achieves good outcome when looking at benchmark scenarios. However, this figure changes in high-risk redo-LT, as for example in PNF. This analysis objectifies for the first-time results and efforts for redo-LT and can serve as a basis for discussion about the use of scarce resources.

A novel microsurgical reconstruction technique in a living-related liver donor hepatic artery dissection using the native hepatic artery.

In living donor liver transplantation, hepatic artery intimal dissection is a rare but devastating complication often resulting in the inability to utilize the graft. We detail the salvage of a dissected donor right hepatic artery utilizing the recipient hepatic artery. After removal of the right lobe, the donor artery was found to have an intimal dissection extending to multiple branches. The liver transplant surgeons requested their plastic microsurgeon colleague to assist with reconstruction. Ultimately, the native recipient hepatic artery was used as a branch graft as the caliber and branching pattern was appropriate. Back table microvascular reconstruction was performed using the explanted recipient hepatic artery branches as a graft to the four donor artery branches. Every anastomosis was assessed with intraoperative doppler; all were patent with acceptable flow characteristics. The patient did well post-operatively with post-operative ultrasounds demonstrating patency of the graft. Four months post-transplantation the patient developed two polymicrobial abscesses that were drained and resolved with normalization of liver function tests. This case highlights how collaboration with a microvascular surgeon enabled the salvage of a living donor graft when faced with a complex arterial dissection.

Optimizing pre-donation physiologic evaluation for enhanced recovery after living liver donation - Systematic review and multidisciplinary expert panel recommendations.

BACKGROUND: While preoperative physiologic evaluation of live liver donors is routinely performed to ensure donor safety and minimize complications, the optimal approach to this evaluation is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We aim to identify predonation physiologic evaluation strategies to improve postoperative short-term outcomes, enhance donor's recovery, and reduce length of stay. We also aim to provide multidisciplinary expert panel recommendations. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. METHODS: The systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines, and the recommendations were formulated using GRADE approach and experts' opinion. The search included retrospective or prospective studies, describing outcomes of physiologic evaluation predonation. The outcomes of interest were length of stay, postoperative complications (POC), recovery after donation, and mortality. PROSERO protocol ID CRD42021260662. RESULTS: Of 1386 articles screened, only three retrospective cohort studies met eligibility criteria. Two studies demonstrated no impact of age (< 70 years) on POC. Increased body mass index's (BMI) association with POC was present in one study (23.8 vs 21.7 kg/m2 , OR 1.67 (1.14-2.48), P = .01) and absent in another (< 30 vs 30-35 kg/m2 , P = .61). One study demonstrated decreased risk for postdonation subclinical hepatic dysfunction in donors with higher normal platelet count (PLT). None of the studies noted donor death. Given the scarce data on predonation physiologic testing, the expert panel recommended a battery of tests to guide clinical practice and future investigations. CONCLUSION: Advancing age (60-69 years) is not a contraindication for liver donation. There is insufficient evidence for a specific predonation BMI cut-off. Abbreviated predonation physiologic testing is recommended in all candidates. Comprehensive testing is recommended in high-risk candidates while considering the pretest probability in various populations (Quality of evidence; Low to Very Low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong).

Long-term Outcomes Following Kidney and Liver Transplant in Recipients With HIV.

Importance: Kidney transplant (KT) and liver transplant (LT) in HIV-positive patients have become more widely adopted. Data looking at long-term outcomes of patient and graft survival are lacking. Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of KT and LT in HIV-positive recipients with matched HIV-negative recipients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, single-center, cohort, study using data from 2000 to 2019. Patients were observed until death, or graft failure requiring retransplant. All HIV-positive patients who underwent KT and/or LT between 2000 and 2019 were included. Propensity matching was performed to the corresponding HIV-negative cohort, which was obtained from the University of California, San Francisco's transplant recipient registry. The data were analyzed from 2020 to 2021. Exposures: HIV infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient and graft survival for KT and patient survival for LT. Incidence of acute rejection and its association with KT graft survival. Results: For KT, 655 HIV-negative recipients (mean [SD] age, 52.3 [13.6] years; 450 [68.7%] were men) and 119 HIV-positive recipients (mean [SD] age, 51.7 [9.4] years; 86 [72.3%] were men) were included. Patient survival was 79.6% (95% CI, 73.6%-86.1%) and 53.6% (95% CI, 38.9%-74.0%) at 15 years posttransplant, respectively. Graft survival was 57.0% (95% CI, 47.8%-68.0%) and 75.0% (95% CI, 65.3%-86.2%) at 15 years posttransplant, respectively. Diagnosis of HIV was not associated with worse graft survival (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.61-1.97; P = .77). For LT, 80 HIV-positive recipients (mean [SD] age, 52.6 [8.2] years; 53 [66.3%] were men) and 440 HIV-negative recipients (mean [SD] age, 54.6 [12.8] years; 291 [66.1%] were men) were included. Patient survival was 75.7% (95% CI, 71.8%-79.8%) for HIV-negative LT recipients and 70.0% (95% CI, 60.6%-80.8%) for HIV-positive LT recipients at 15 years posttransplant. Diagnosis of HIV was not a statistically significant predictor of patient survival (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.83-2.24; P = .22). In KT, HIV-positive patients with at least 1 episode of acute rejection had a graft survival of 52.8% (95% CI, 38.4%-72.5%; P < .001) at 15 years posttransplant, compared with 91.8% in those without AR. Conclusions and Relevance: In this single-center cohort study, KT and LT in HIV-positive patients had comparable long-term outcomes with those in matched HIV-negative patients. The high incidence of acute rejection was associated with reduced graft survival. The findings support providing transplant to HIV-positive patients, which may be an appropriate use of transplant resources and provides equitable access for HIV-positive patients.

International Travel for Liver Transplantation: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Impact on the United States Transplant System.

BACKGROUND: International travel for transplantation remains a global issue as countries continue to struggle in establishing self-sufficiency. In the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) requires citizenship classification at time of waitlisting to remain transparent and understand to whom our organs are allocated. This study provides an assessment of patients who travel internationally for liver transplantation and their outcomes using the current citizenship classification used by UNOS. METHODS: Adult liver UNOS data from 2003 to 2019 were used. Patients were identified as citizens, noncitizen, nonresidents (NCNR), or noncitizen residents (NC-R) according to citizenship status. Descriptive statistics compared demographics among the waitlisted patients and demographics and donor characteristics among transplant recipients. A competing risks model was used to examine waitlist outcomes. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards were used for posttransplant outcomes. RESULTS: There were significant demographic differences according to citizenship group among waitlisted (n = 125 652) and transplanted (n = 71 536) patients. Compared with US citizens, NCNR was associated with a 9% increase in transplant (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.18; P = 0.04), and NC-R was associated with a 24% decrease in transplant (SHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.79; P < 0.0001) and a 23% increase in death or removal for being too sick (SHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.33; P < 0.0001). US citizens had significantly inferior graft and patient survival (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Though the purpose of the citizenship classification system is transparency, the results of this study highlight significant disparities in the access to and outcomes following liver transplantation according to citizenship status.

Expedited evaluation for liver transplantation: A critical look at processes and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Most patients are listed for liver transplant (LT) following extensive workup as outpatients ("conventional evaluation"). Some patients undergo urgent evaluation as inpatients after being transferred to a transplant center ("expedited evaluation"). We hypothesized that expedited patients would have inferior survival due to disease severity at the time of transplant and shorter workup time. METHODS: Patients who underwent evaluation for LT at our institution between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The expedited and conventional cohorts were defined as above. Living donor LT recipients, combined liver-kidney recipients, acute liver failure patients, and re-transplant patients were excluded. We compared patient characteristics and overall survival between patients who received a transplant following expedited evaluation and those who did not, and between LT recipients based on expedited or conventional evaluation. RESULTS: Five-hundred and nine patients were included (110 expedited, 399 conventional). There was no difference in graft or patient survival at 1 year for expedited versus conventional LT recipients. In multivariable analysis of overall survival, only Donor Risk Index (HR 1.97, CI 1.04-3.73, P = .037, per unit increase) was associated with increased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent expedited evaluation for LT had significant demographic and clinical differences from patients who underwent conventional evaluation, but comparable post-transplant survival.