The Association Between the Origin of the Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Recovery Team and Graft Survival: A National Study.

Background: Transplant centers have traditionally relied upon procurement teams from their own programs (transplant program procurement team [TPT]) to recover donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers and rarely use surgical procurement teams not affiliated with the recipient center (nontransplant program procurement team [NTPT]). However, in the era of wider geographic organ sharing, greater reliance on NTPTs is often necessary. Methods: We used national data to study the association between the origin of the donor procurement team (NTPT versus TPT) and the risk of DCD liver allograft failure. Results: Five hundred NTPT and 2257 TPT DCD transplants were identified: 1-y graft survival was 88.9 and 88.6%, respectively (P = 0.962). In a multivariable model, the origin of the procurement team was not associated with graft failure NTPT versus TPT (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.22; P = 0.57) but rather with known risks for DCD graft loss including donor age, degree of recipient illness, cold ischemic time, and retransplantation. The overall incidence of retransplantation and ischemic cholangiopathy as an indication for retransplantation were similar between NTPT and TPT. Conclusions: This data suggests that transplant centers may be able to safely use DCD livers recovered by local surgical teams.

Can ex-situ normothermic perfusion improve graft survival compared to static cold storage among donation after circulatory death liver allografts?

Limited data suggest that ex-situ normothermic liver perfusion (ENLP) may improve the outcomes of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplants compared to static cold storage (SCS). All adult DCD liver transplants performed between 2016 and 2021 were identified in the United Network of Organ Sharing database. ENLP liver transplants were compared to SCS using inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance clinical and demographic confounders. The primary analysis simulated intention-to-treat with inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted Cox models. Compared to SCS DCDs (N = 3,079), recipients of ENLP DCDs (N = 65) had lower Model of End Stage Liver Disease scores at transplant (16.5 v. 18.8, p = 0.033), longer wait times (468 ± 720 vs. 246 ± 467 d; p < 0.001), and received livers from donors with a greater BMI (29.2 vs. 27.5; p = 0.008). ENLP preservation was associated with a lower risk of graft failure (HR 0.31 vs. SCS, 95% CI:0.12-0.86, p = 0.023) and a lower incidence of retransplantation. A sub-analysis restricted to the 20 centers performing ENLP, encompassing 946 SCS DCDs, demonstrated similar results: (HR 0.33 vs. SCS, 95% CI: 0.13-0.94, p = 0.021). Among 111 patients who required retransplantation and where the etiology of graft failure was identified, graft failure due to ischemic cholangiopathy was noted in 1 ENLP and 46 SCS. In this retrospective analysis of the early US DCD ENLP experience, there may exist a graft survival benefit to transplants performed with ENLP compared to SCS.

Utilization and outcomes of rescue hepatectomy among U.S. liver retransplant candidates.

INTRODUCTION: The frequency and outcomes of anhepatic patients listed for transplantation in the United States have not been studied. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) records anhepatic status for patients listed as Status 1A for hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) or primary non-function (PNF). METHODS: Using the UNOS database from 2005 to 2020, demographics and waitlist outcomes of anhepatic candidates relisted as Status 1A for HAT or PNF were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1364 adult Status 1A patients relisted for PNF or HAT across 120 distinct transplant centres, 75 (5.5%) patients were anhepatic and 1289 (94.5%) were non-anhepatic. A substantial number of centres (n = 51) had experience with ≥1 anhepatic patient relisted for either PNF or HAT, with individual centre rates ranging from 0% to 11.4%. Waitlist mortality was more than twice as high for anhepatic patients: 42.5% versus 17.0% non-anhepatic patients (p < .001). The post-transplant outcomes of anhepatic patients were markedly inferior to non-anhepatic patients. For example, 41.9% of anhepatic patients died during the index admission versus 23.4% of the non-anhepatic group (p = .006). Patient survival for the anhepatic and non-anhepatic groups was 48.3% versus 66.2% at 1-year and 29.3% versus 46.2% at 5-years, respectively (log-rank test for overall survival p = .014). CONCLUSIONS: Rescue hepatectomy after initial liver transplantation is not only associated with high waitlist mortality, but also markedly worse post-transplant outcomes. With less than half of anhepatic patients surviving to the first year post-LT, further research is warranted to better delineate which patients should be considered for rescue hepatectomy.