Downstaging Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy Improves Access to Curative Liver Transplant.

PURPOSE: Liver transplantation is curative for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CPIT) has been used in unresectable HCC, but recent advances have demonstrated CPIT as an innovative method of downstaging advanced HCC with the caveat that CPIT prior to transplantation has risks including irreversible graft rejection. We report the outcomes of Mayo Clinic Arizona patients who underwent downstaging with CPIT. METHODS: This retrospective chart review was conducted for Mayo Clinic Arizona patients who were diagnosed with HCC who underwent downstaging with CPIT with the goal of meeting criteria for transplantation. RESULTS: We present nine cases with HCC outside Milan who underwent CPIT. Four received a transplant; one was delisted due to his exceptional therapeutic response. All received liver-directed therapy. Peak alpha-fetoprotein pre-CPIT ranged from 8-29,523 ng/mL, which decreased to 2.2-19.6 ng/mL on CPIT. CPIT included atezolizumab/bevacizumab, ipilimumab/nivolumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab; one patient received two regimens. CPIT was held prior to transplant at a median of 3 months. Three patients received methylprednisolone for immunosuppression induction; one received thymoglobulin. One patient developed acute cellular rejection at 5 weeks, 9 weeks, and 5 months post-transplant; given the late onset, these were not attributed to CPIT and were successfully treated. During an average follow-up of 16.5 months, no tumor recurrence has occurred. CONCLUSION: We describe nine patients with HCC outside Milan with inadequate response with liver-directed therapy, who achieved marked responses with CPIT, allowing for consideration of successful liver transplantation. Our case series supports the consideration of locoregional therapies and CPIT for downstaging to within transplant criteria.

Individual- and Community-Level Socioeconomic Status and Deceased Donor Renal Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES), race, and ethnicity and clinical outcomes following deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) at a high-volume transplant center. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used regression models and survival analyses to examine the relationship between individual- and community-level SES, race, and ethnicity and DDKT outcomes (i.e., delayed graft function, graft failure, mortality) adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: The analytic sample included 3366 patients; 40.7% (n = 1370) were female, the mean age was 54.7 (SD = 13.3) years, 49.3% were non-Hispanic White, and the median follow-up time was 39.5 months (IQR = 24.2-68.1). Patients living in the most disadvantaged communities (using the US Census data) had a higher likelihood of delayed graft function (adjusted relative risk [RR] = 1.12, p = 0.042) and a higher hazard of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, p = 0.025) compared to patients living in the least disadvantaged communities. Patients without a high school diploma had a higher risk of delayed graft function compared to patients with an associate degree or more (RR = 1.37, p < 0.001). Patients with public insurance coverage had a higher risk of delayed graft function (RR = 1.24, p < 0.001) and a higher hazard of mortality (HR = 1.37, p < 0.001) and graft failure (HR = 1.71, p < 0.001) compared to patients without public insurance. There were no differences in graft failure or mortality by race and ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: SES was not consistently associated with outcomes following DDKT; however, many of the predictors were associated with delayed graft function. With a large and diverse sample size, these findings further the heterogeneity of the present renal transplant research suggesting the need for further investigation to guide implementation of innovative strategies and interventions.

Breaking Barriers and Bridging Gaps: Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Kidney Transplant Care for Black and Hispanic Patients in the United States.

Kidney transplantation offers better mortality and quality of life outcomes to patients with end-stage renal failure compared to dialysis. Specifically, living donor kidney transplantation is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease, since it offers the greatest survival benefit compared to deceased donor kidney transplant or dialysis. However, not all patients from all racial/ethnic backgrounds enjoy these benefits. While black and Hispanic patients bear the predominant disease burden within the United States, they represent less than half of all kidney transplants in the country. Other factors such as cultural barriers that proliferate myths about transplant, financial costs that impede altruistic donation, and even biological predispositions create a complex maze and can also perpetuate care inaccessibility. Therefore, blanket efforts to increase the overall donation pool may not extend access to vulnerable populations, who may require more targeted attention and interventions. This review uses US kidney transplantation data to substantiate accessibility differences amongst racial minorities as well as provides examples of successful institutional and national systemic level changes that have improved transplantation outcomes for all.

Spontaneous middle lobe torsion: An institutional case series.

Objective: Lobar torsion is a rare occurrence in which a portion of the lung is twisted on its bronchovascular pedicle. The vast majority are observed in the acute postoperative period often following right upper lobectomy. Spontaneous middle lobe torsion independent of pulmonary resection is exceptionally rarer; fewer than 15 cases have been recorded. We present an institutional case series of 2 patients postorthotopic liver transplantation who developed spontaneous middle lobe torsion due to large pleural effusions. Methods: We provide the medical course as well as intraoperative techniques for our 2 patients along with a review of the literature. Results: Both patients in this case series underwent orthotopic liver transplant complicated postoperatively by a large pulmonary effusion. Patient one developed an abdominal hematoma requiring evacuation and repair, after which he developed progressive shortness of breath. Bronchoscopy revealed a right middle lobe obstruction; upon thoracotomy, 180-degree torsion with widespread necrosis was evident and the middle lobe was removed. He is doing well to date. Patient 2 experienced postoperative pleural effusion and mucus plugging; computed tomography revealed abrupt middle lobe arterial occlusion prompting urgent operative intervention. Again, the middle lobe was grossly ischemic and dissection revealed a 360-degree torsion around the pedicle. It was resected. He is doing well to date. Conclusions: As the result of its rarity, radiographic and clinical diagnosis of spontaneous pulmonary lobar torsion is challenging; a high index of suspicion for spontaneous middle lobe torsion must be maintained to avoid delays in diagnosis. Prompt surgical intervention is essential to improve patient outcomes.

Outcomes with transplanting kidneys offered through expedited allocation.

INTRODUCTION: Expedited out-of-sequence deceased donor kidney allocation is a strategy to avoid discards after early placement attempts have been unsuccessful. Our study aimed to assess outcomes and characteristics of these transplanted kidneys. METHODS: KDPI matching was performed between expedited allocation (EA) and standard allocation (SA) deceased donor kidney transplants performed at our center. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2021, there were 225 EA offers, and 189 (84%) were transplanted. EA recipients were older (p = .007) and had shorter dialysis vintage (p < .0001). EA kidneys were likely to be nationally allocated (p < .001), have AKI (p < .0001) and longer CIT (p < .0001). There were no differences in EA and SA time-zero kidney biopsies (ci, p = .07; ct, p = .89; cv, p = .95; ah, p = .79). EA kidneys had more DGF (p = .0006), but there were no differences in DGF duration (p = .83), hospital length of stay (p = .43), 1- and 2-year eGFR (p = .16, p = .99), patient (p = .34), or death-censored graft (p = .66) survival. CONCLUSION: During this study period, our center transplanted 189 kidneys through EA following local-regional declines. These kidneys often came from AKI donors and had more DGF but had similar outcomes to KDPI-matched SA kidneys. Although it has been suggested that EA has the potential to worsen transplant disparities, transplant center level decisions on organ acceptance contribute to these variations.

Liver transplant outcomes using late allocation grafts.

Post-cross clamp late allocation (LA) liver allografts are at increased risk for discard for many reasons including logistical complexity. Nearest neighbor propensity score matching was used to match 2 standard allocation (SA) offers to every 1 LA liver offer performed at our center between 2015 and 2021. Propensity scores were based on a logistic regression model including recipient age, recipient sex, graft type (donation after circulatory death vs. donation after brain death), Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD), and DRI score. During this time, 101 liver transplants (LT) were performed at our center using LA offers. In comparing LA and SA offers, there were no differences in recipient characteristics including indication for transplant ( p = 0.29), presence of PVT ( p = 0.19), TIPS ( p = 0.83), and HCC status ( p = 0.24). LA grafts came from younger donors (mean age 43.6 vs. 48.9 y, p = 0.009) and were more likely to come from regional or national Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) ( p < 0.001). Cold ischemia time was longer for LA grafts (median 8.5 vs 6.3 h, p < 0.001). Following LT, there were no differences between the 2 groups in intensive care unit ( p = 0.22) and hospital ( p = 0.49) lengths of stay, need for endoscopic interventions ( p = 0.55), or biliary strictures ( p = 0.21). Patient (HR 1.0, 95% CI, 0.47-2.15, p = 0.99) and graft (HR 1.23, 95% CI, 0.43-3.50, p = 0.70) survival did not vary between the LA and SA cohorts. One-year LA and SA patient survival was 95.1% and 95.0%; 1-year graft survival was 93.1% and 92.1%, respectively. Despite the additional logistical complexity and longer cold ischemia time, LT outcomes utilizing LA grafts are similar to those allocated by means of SA. Improving allocation policies specific to LA offers, as well as the sharing of best practices between transplant centers and OPOs, are opportunities to further help minimize unnecessary discards.

Reassessing Geographic, Logistical, and Cold Ischemia Cutoffs in Liver Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Liver acceptance patterns vary significantly between transplant centers. Data pertaining to outcomes of livers declined by local and regional centers and allocated nationally remains limited. PROJECT AIM: The objective was to compare post-liver transplant outcomes between liver allografts transplanted as a result of national and local-regional allocation. DESIGN: This was a retrospective evaluation of 109 nationally allocated liver allografts used for transplant by a single center. Outcomes of nationally allocated grafts were compared to standard allocation grafts (N = 505) during the same period. RESULTS: Recipients of nationally allocated grafts had lower model for end stage liver disease scores (17 vs 22, P = .001). Nationally allocated grafts were more likely to be post-cross clamp offers (29.4% vs 13.4%, P = .001) and have longer cold ischemia times (median hours 7.8 vs 5.5, P = .001). Early allograft dysfunction was common (54.1% vs 52.5%, P = .75) and did not impact hospital length of stay (median 5 vs 6 days, P = .89). There were no differences in biliary complications (P = .11). There were no differences in patient (P = .88) or graft survival (P = .35). In a multivariate model, after accounting for differences in cold ischemia time and posttransplant biliary complications, nationally allocated grafts were not associated with increased risk for graft loss (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.4-1.8). Abnormal liver biopsy findings (33.0%) followed by donor donation after circulatory death status (22.9%) were the most common reasons for decline by local-regional centers. CONCLUSION: Despite longer cold ischemia times, patient and graft survival outcomes remain excellent and comparable to those seen from standard allocation grafts.

Expanding Liver Transplant Opportunities in Older Patients With Nonconventional Grafts.

INTRODUCTION: Broader use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and nonconventional grafts for liver transplant helps reduce disparities in organ availability. Limited data, however, exists on outcomes specific to nonconventional graft utilization in older patients. As such, this study aimed to investigate outcomes specific to conventional and nonconventional graft utilization in recipients > 70 y of age. METHODS: 1-to-3 matching based on recipient sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and donor type was performed on patients ≥70 and <70 y of age who underwent liver transplant alone at Mayo Clinic Arizona between 2015 and 2020. Primary outcomes were posttransplant patient and liver allograft survival for recipients greater than or less than 70 y of age. Secondary outcomes included grafts utilization patterns, hospital length of stay, need for reoperation, biliary complications and disposition at time of hospital discharge. RESULTS: In this cohort, 36.1% of grafts came from DCD donors, 17.4% were postcross clamp offers, and 20.8% were nationally allocated. Median recipient ages were 59 and 71 y (P < 0.01). Recipients had similar Intensive care unit (P = 0.82) and hospital (P = 0.14) lengths of stay, and there were no differences in patient (P = 0.68) or graft (P = 0.38) survival. When comparing donation after brain death and DCD grafts in those >70 y, there were no differences in patient (P = 0.89) or graft (P = 0.71) survival. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes can be achieved in older recipients, even with use of nonconventional grafts. Expanded use of nonconventional grafts can help facilitate transplant opportunities in older patients.

Declining Medicare reimbursement in abdominal transplantation from 2000 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is a major payer for abdominal transplant services. Reimbursement reductions could have a major impact on the transplant surgical workforce and hospitals. Yet government reimbursement trends in abdominal transplantation have not been fully characterized. METHODS: We performed an economic analysis to characterize changes in inflation-adjusted trends in Medicare surgical reimbursement for abdominal transplant procedures. Using the Medicare Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool, we performed a procedure code-based surgical reimbursement rate analysis. Reimbursement rates were adjusted for inflation to calculate overall changes in reimbursement, overall year-over-year, 5-year year-over-year, and compound annual growth rate from 2000 to 2021. RESULTS: We observed declines in adjusted reimbursement of common abdominal transplant procedures, including liver (-32.4%), kidney with and without nephrectomy (-24.2% and -24.1%, respectively), and pancreas transplant (-15.2%) (all, P < .05). Overall, the yearly average change for liver, kidney with and without nephrectomy, and pancreas transplant were -1.54%, -1.15%, -1.15%, and -0.72%. Five-year annual change averaged -2.69%, -2.35%, -2.64%, and -2.43%, respectively. The overall average compound annual growth rate was -1.27%. CONCLUSION: This analysis depicts a worrisome reimbursement pattern for abdominal transplant procedures. Transplant surgeons, centers, and professional organizations should note these trends to advocate sustainable reimbursement policy and to preserve continued access to transplant services.

Outcomes after liver transplantation using deceased after circulatory death donors: A comparison of outcomes in the UK and the US.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Identifying international differences in utilization and outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) after donation after circulatory death (DCD) donation provides a unique opportunity for benchmarking and population-level insight. METHODS: Adult (≥18 years) LT data between 2008 and 2018 from the UK and US were used to assess mortality and graft failure after DCD LT. We used time-dependent Cox-regression methods to estimate hazard ratios (HR) for risk-adjusted short-term (0-90 days) and longer-term (90 days-5 years) outcomes. RESULTS: One-thousand five-hundred-and-sixty LT receipts from the UK and 3426 from the US were included. Over the study period, the use of DCD livers increased from 15.7% to 23.9% in the UK compared to 5.1% to 7.6% in the US. In the UK, DCD donors were older (UK:51 vs. US:33 years) with longer cold ischaemia time (UK: 437 vs. US: 333 min). Recipients in the US had higher Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, higher body mass index, higher proportions of ascites, encephalopathy, diabetes and previous abdominal surgeries. No difference in the risk-adjusted short-term mortality or graft failure was observed between the countries. In the longer-term (90 days-5 years), the UK had lower mortality and graft failure (adj.mortality HR:UK: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.49-0.80); graft failure HR: UK: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.91). The cumulative incidence of retransplantation was higher in the UK (5 years: UK: 11.9% vs. 4.6%; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: For those receiving a DCD LT, longer-term post-transplant outcomes in the UK are superior to the US, however, significant differences in recipient illness, graft quality and access to retransplantation were seen between the two countries.

Days alive and out of hospital after liver transplant: comparing a patient-centered outcome between recipients of grafts from donation after circulatory and brain deaths.

We retrospectively compared outcomes between recipients of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) liver allografts using days alive and out of hospital (DAOH), a composite outcome of mortality, morbidity, and burden of care from patient perspective. The initial length of stay and duration of any subsequent readmission for the first year after liver transplantation were recorded. Donor category and perioperative and intraoperative characteristics pertinent to liver transplantation were included. The primary outcome was DAOH365. Secondary outcomes included early allograft dysfunction and hepatic arterial and biliary complications. Although the incidence of both early allograft dysfunction (P < .001) and ischemic cholangiopathy (P < .001) was significantly greater in the recipients of DCD, there were no significant differences in the length of stay and DAOH365. The median DAOH365 was 355 days for recipients of DBD allografts and 353 days for recipients of DCD allografts (P = .34). Increased transfusion burden, longer cold ischemic time, and non-White recipients were associated with decreased DAOH. There were no significant differences in graft failure (P = .67), retransplantation (P = .67), or 1-year mortality (P = .96) between the 2 groups. DAOH is a practical and attainable measure of outcome after liver transplantation. This metric should be considered for quality measurement and reporting in liver transplantation.

Financial Impact of a Culturally Sensitive Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program on Increasing Living Donation.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, Hispanic/Latinx patients receive disproportionately fewer living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs) than non-Hispanic White patients. Northwestern Medicine's culturally targeted Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program (HKTP) was found to increase LDKTs in Hispanic patients at 1 of 2 transplant programs with greater implementation fidelity. METHODS: We conducted a budget impact analysis to evaluate HKTP's impact on program financial profiles from changes in volume of LDKTs and deceased donor kidney transplants (DDKTs) in 2017 to 2019. We estimated HKTP programmatic costs, and kidney transplant (KT) program costs and revenues. We forecasted transplant volumes, HKTP programmatic costs, and KT program costs and revenues for 2022-2024. RESULTS: At both programs, HKTP programmatic costs had <1% impact on total KT program costs, and HKTP programmatic costs comprised <1% of total KT program revenues in 2017-2019. In particular, the total volume of Hispanic KTs and HKTP LDKTs increased at both sites. Annual KT program revenues of HKTP LDKTs and DDKTs increased by 226.9% at site A and by 1042.9% at site B when comparing 2019-2017. Forecasted HKTP LDKT volume showed an increase of 36.4% (site A) and 33.3% (site B) with a subsequent increase in KT program revenues of 42.3% (site A) and 44.3% (site B) among HKTP LDKTs and DDKTs. CONCLUSIONS: HKTP programmatic costs and KT evaluation costs are potentially recoverable by reimbursement of organ acquisition costs and offset by increases in total KT program revenues of LDKTs; transplant programs may find implementation of the HKTP financially manageable.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Alpha Fetoprotein, and Liver Allocation for Transplantation: Past, Present and Future.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading indications for liver transplantation and has been the treatment of choice due to the oncologic benefit for patients with advanced chronic liver disease (AdvCLD) and small tumors for the last 25 years. For HCC patients undergoing liver transplantation, alpha fetoprotein (AFP) has increasingly been applied as an independent predictor for overall survival, disease free recurrence, and waitlist drop out. In addition to static AFP, newer studies evaluating the AFP dynamic response to downstaging therapy show enhanced prognostication compared to static AFP alone. While AFP has been utilized to select HCC patients for transplant, despite years of allocation policy changes, the US allocation system continues to take a uniform approach to HCC patients, without discriminating between those with favorable or unfavorable tumor biology. We aim to review the history of liver allocation for HCC in the US, the utility of AFP in liver transplantation, the implications of weaving AFP as a biomarker into policy. Based on this review, we encourage the US transplant community to revisit its HCC organ allocation model, to incorporate more precise oncologic principles for patient selection, and to adopt AFP dynamics to better stratify waitlist dropout risk.

Interventional Radiology Management of Adult Liver Transplant Complications.

Liver transplant remains the definitive therapy for patients with end-stage liver disease. Outcomes have continued to improve, in part owing to interventions used to treat posttransplant complications involving the hepatic arteries, portal vein, hepatic veins or inferior vena cava (IVC), and biliary system. Significant hepatic artery stenosis can be treated with angioplasty or stent placement to prevent thrombosis and biliary ischemic complications. Hepatic arterioportal fistula and hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm are rare complications that can often be treated with endovascular means. Treatment of hepatic artery thrombosis can have mixed results. Portal vein stenosis can be treated with venoplasty or more commonly stent placement. The rarer portal vein thrombosis can also be treated with endovascular techniques. Hepatic venous outflow stenosis of the hepatic veins or IVC is amenable to venoplasty or stent placement. Complications of the bile ducts are the most encountered complication after liver transplant. When not amenable to endoscopic intervention, biliary stricture, bile leak, and ischemic cholangiopathy can be treated with percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography with biliary drainage and other interventions. New techniques have further improved care for these patients. Transsplenic portal vein recanalization has improved transplant candidacy for patients with chronic portal vein thrombosis. Spontaneous splenorenal shunt and splenic artery steal syndrome (nonocclusive hepatic artery hypoperfusion syndrome) remain complicated topics, and the role of endovascular embolization is developing. When patients have recurrence of cirrhosis after transplant, most commonly due to viral hepatitis, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) may be required to treat symptoms of portal hypertension. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2022.

DCD Liver Grafts Can Safely Be Used for Recipients With Grade I-II Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Multicenter Analysis.

With donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT), the goal of the recipient implantation procedure is to minimize surgical complexity to avoid a tenuous environment for an already marginal graft. The presence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) at the time of LT adds surgical complexity, yet' to date, no studies have investigated the utilization of DCD liver grafts for patients with PVT. Methods: All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic-Florida, Mayo Clinic-Arizona, and Mayo Clinic-Rochester from 2006 to 2020 were reviewed (N = 771). Patients with PVT at the time of transplant were graded using Yerdel classification. A 1:3 propensity match between patients with PVT and those without PVT was performed. Results: A total of 91 (11.8%) patients with PVT undergoing DCD LT were identified. Grade I PVT was present in 62.6% of patients, grade II PVT in 27.5%, grade III in 8.8%, and grade 4 in 1.1%. At the time of LT, thromboendovenectomy was performed in 89 cases (97.8%). There was no difference in the rates of early allograft dysfunction (43.2% versus 52.4%; P = 0.13) or primary nonfunction (1.1% versus 1.1%; P = 0.41) between the DCD PVT and DCD without PVT groups, respectively. The rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was not significantly different between the DCD PVT (11.0%) and DCD without PVT groups (10.6%; P = 0.92). Graft (P = 0.58) and patient survival (P = 0.08) were similar between the 2 groups. Graft survival at 1-, 3-, and 5-y was 89.9%, 84.5%, and 79.3% in the DCD PVT group. Conclusions: In appropriately selected recipients with grades I-II PVT, DCD liver grafts can be utilized safely with excellent outcomes.

Decreasing Significance of Early Allograft Dysfunction with Rising Use of Nonconventional Donors.

Background and Objectives: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is considered a surrogate marker for adverse post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes. With the increasing use of nonconventional donors, EAD has become a more frequent occurrence. Given this background, we aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of EAD in an updated cohort inclusive of both conventional and nonconventional liver allografts. Materials and Methods: Perioperative and one-year outcomes were assessed for a total of 611 LT recipients with and without EAD from Mayo Clinic Arizona. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: bilirubin > 10 mg/dL on day 7, INR > 1.6 on day 7, or ALT and/or AST > 2000 IU/L within the first 7 days of LT. Results: Within this cohort, 31.8% of grafts (n = 194) came from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, 17.7% (n = 108) were nationally shared, 16.4% (n = 100) were allocated as post-cross clamp, and 8.7% contained moderate steatosis. EAD was observed in 52.2% (n = 321) of grafts in the study cohort (79% in DCD grafts and 40% in DBD grafts). EAD grafts had higher donor risk index (DRI) scores (1.9 vs. 1.6, p < 0.0001), were more likely to come from DCD donors (48% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.0001), were regionally allocated (p = 0.003), and had higher cold ischemia times (median 6.0 vs. 5.5 h, p = 0.001). Primary nonfunction events were rare in both groups (1.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.22). Post-LT acute kidney injury occurred at a similar frequency in recipients with and without EAD (43.6% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.41), and there were no differences in ICU (median 2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.60) or hospital (6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.24) length of stay. For DCD grafts, the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was similar in the two groups (14.9% EAD vs. 17.5% no EAD, p = 0.69). One-year patient survival for grafts with and without EAD was 96.0% and 94.1% (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7−1.8; p = 0.54); one-year graft survival was 92.5% and 92.1% (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7−1.5; p = 0.88). Conclusions: In this cohort, EAD occurred in 52% of grafts. The occurrence of EAD, however, did not portend inferior outcomes. Compared to those without EAD, recipients with EAD had similar post-operative outcomes, as well as one-year patient and graft survival. EAD should be managed supportively and should not be viewed as a deterrent to utilization of non-ideal grafts.

Disparities in the Use of Older Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Allografts in the United States Versus the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom in the characteristics and posttransplant survival of patients who received donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts from donors aged >60 y. METHODS: Data were collected from the UK Transplant Registry and the United Network for Organ Sharing databases. Cohorts were dichotomized into donor age subgroups (donor >60 y [D >60]; donor ≤60 y [D ≤60]). Study period: January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2015. RESULTS: 1157 DCD LTs were performed in the United Kingdom versus 3394 in the United States. Only 13.8% of US DCD donors were aged >50 y, contrary to 44.3% in the United Kingdom. D >60 were 22.6% in the United Kingdom versus 2.4% in the United States. In the United Kingdom, 64.2% of D >60 clustered in 2 metropolitan centers. In the United States, there was marked inter-regional variation. A total of 78.3% of the US DCD allografts were used locally. One- and 5-y unadjusted DCD graft survival was higher in the United Kingdom versus the United States (87.3% versus 81.4%, and 78.0% versus 71.3%, respectively; P < 0.001). One- and 5-y D >60 graft survival was higher in the United Kingdom (87.3% versus 68.1%, and 77.9% versus 51.4%, United Kingdom versus United States, respectively; P < 0.001). In both groups, grafts from donors ≤30 y had the best survival. Survival was similar for donors aged 41 to 50 versus 51 to 60 in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the United Kingdom, older DCD LT utilization remained low in the United States, with worse D >60 survival. Nonetheless, present data indicate similar survivals for older donors aged ≤60, supporting an extension to the current US DCD age cutoff.