Enhancing the Usability of older DCD donors through strategic approaches in liver transplantation in the US.

BACKGROUND: The use of older donors after circulatory death(DCD) for liver transplantation(LT) has increased over the past decade. This study examined whether outcomes of LT using older DCD(≥50 y) have improved with advancements in surgical/perioperative care and normothermic machine perfusion(NMP) technology. METHOD: 7,602 DCD LT cases from the UNOS database(2003-2022) were reviewed. The impact of older DCD donors on graft survival(GS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and hazard ratio(HR) analyses. RESULTS: 1,447 LT cases(19.0%) involved older DCD donors. Although there was a decrease in their use from 2003-2014, a resurgence was noted post-2015 and reached 21.9% of all LT in the last four years(2019-2022). Initially, 90-day and one-year GS for older DCDs were worse than younger DCDs, but this difference decreased over time and there was no statistical difference after 2015. Similarly, HRs for graft loss in older DCD have recently become insignificant. In older DCD LT, NMP usage has increased recently, especially in cases with extended donor-recipient distances, while the median time from asystole to aortic cross-clamp has decreased. Multivariable Cox regression analyses revealed that in the early phase, asystole to cross-clamp time had the highest HR for graft loss in older DCD LT without NMP, while in the later phases, the CIT(>5.5 h) was a significant predictor. CONCLUSION: LT outcomes using older DCD donors have become comparable to those from young DCD donors, with recent HRs for graft loss becoming insignificant. The strategic approach in the recent period could mitigate risks, including managing CIT(≤5.5 h), reducing asystole to cross-clamp time, and adopting NMP for longer distances. Optimal use of older DCD donors may alleviate the donor shortage.

LightGBM outperforms other machine learning techniques in predicting graft failure after liver transplantation: Creation of a predictive model through large-scale analysis.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of graft failure following liver transplantation (LTx) is consistent. While traditional risk scores for LTx have limited accuracy, the potential of machine learning (ML) in this area remains uncertain, despite its promise in other transplant domains. This study aims to determine ML's predictive limitations in LTx by replicating methods used in previous heart transplant research. METHODS: This study utilized the UNOS STAR database, selecting 64,384 adult patients who underwent LTx between 2010 and 2020. Gradient boosting models (XGBoost and LightGBM) were used to predict 14, 30, and 90-day graft failure compared to conventional logistic regression model. Models were evaluated using both shuffled and rolling cross-validation (CV) methodologies. Model performance was assessed using the AUC across validation iterations. RESULTS: In a study comparing predictive models for 14-day, 30-day and 90-day graft survival, LightGBM consistently outperformed other models, achieving the highest AUC of.740,.722, and.700 in shuffled CV methods. However, in rolling CV the accuracy of the model declined across every ML algorithm. The analysis revealed influential factors for graft survival prediction across all models, including total bilirubin, medical condition, recipient age, and donor AST, among others. Several features like donor age and recipient diabetes history were important in two out of three models. CONCLUSIONS: LightGBM enhances short-term graft survival predictions post-LTx. However, due to changing medical practices and selection criteria, continuous model evaluation is essential. Future studies should focus on temporal variations, clinical implications, and ensure model transparency for broader medical utility.

Decreased Utilization Rate of Grafts for Liver Transplantation After Implementation of Acuity Circle-based Allocation.

BACKGROUND: The allocation system for livers began using acuity circles (AC) in 2020. In this study, we sought to evaluate the impact of AC policy on the utilization rate for liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: Using the US national registry data between 2018 and 2022, LTs were equally divided into 2 eras: pre-AC (before February 4, 2020) and post-AC (February 4, 2020, and after). Deceased potential liver donors were defined as deceased donors from whom at least 1 organ was procured. RESULTS: The annual number of deceased potential liver donors increased post-AC (from 10 423 to 12 259), approaching equal to that of new waitlist registrations for LT (n = 12 801). Although the discard risk index of liver grafts was comparable between the pre- and post-AC eras, liver utilization rates in donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors were lower post-AC ( P < 0.01; 79.8% versus 83.4% and 23.7% versus 26.0%, respectively). Recipient factors, ie, no recipient located, recipient determined unsuitable, or time constraints, were more likely to be reasons for nonutilization after implementation of the AC allocation system compared to the pre-AC era (20.0% versus 12.3% for DBD donors and 50.1% versus 40.8% for DCD donors). Among non-high-volume centers, centers with lower utilization of marginal DBD donors or DCD donors were more likely to decrease LT volume post-AC. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of deceased potential liver donors has increased, overall liver utilization among deceased donors has decreased in the post-AC era. To maximize the donor pool for LT, future efforts should target specific reasons for liver nonutilization.

Overcoming the hurdles of steatotic grafts in liver transplantation: Insights into survival and prognostic factors.

With increasing metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, the use of steatotic grafts in liver transplantation (LT) and their impact on postoperative graft survival (GS) needs further exploration. Analyzing adult LT recipient data (2002-2022) from the United Network for Organ Sharing database, outcomes of LT using steatotic (≥30% macrosteatosis) and nonsteatotic donor livers, donors after circulatory death, and standard-risk older donors (age 45-50) were compared. GS predictors were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Of the 35,345 LT donors, 8.9% (3,155) were fatty livers. The initial 30-day postoperative period revealed significant challenges with fatty livers, demonstrating inferior GS. However, the GS discrepancy between fatty and nonfatty livers subsided over time ( p = 0.10 at 5 y). Long-term GS outcomes showed comparable or even superior results in fatty livers relative to nonsteatotic livers, conditional on surviving the initial 90 postoperative days ( p = 0.90 at 1 y) or 1 year ( p = 0.03 at 5 y). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, the high body surface area (BSA) ratio (≥1.1) (HR 1.42, p = 0.02), calculated as donor BSA divided by recipient BSA, long cold ischemic time (≥6.5 h) (HR 1.72, p < 0.01), and recipient medical condition (intensive care unit hospitalization) (HR 2.53, p < 0.01) emerged as significant adverse prognostic factors. Young (<40 y) fatty donors showed a high BSA ratio, diabetes, and intensive care unit hospitalization as significant indicators of a worse prognosis ( p < 0.01). Our study emphasizes the initial postoperative 30-day survival challenge in LT using fatty livers. However, with careful donor-recipient matching, for example, avoiding the use of steatotic donors with long cold ischemic time and high BSA ratios for recipients in the intensive care unit, it is possible to enhance immediate GS, and in a longer time, outcomes comparable to those using nonfatty livers, donors after circulatory death livers, or standard-risk older donors can be anticipated. These novel insights into decision-making criteria for steatotic liver use provide invaluable guidance for clinicians.

Breaking distance barriers in liver transplantation: Risk factors and outcomes of long-distance liver grafts.

BACKGROUND: Long-distance-traveling liver grafts in liver transplantation present challenges due to prolonged cold ischemic time and increased risk of ischemia-reperfusion injury. We identified long-distance-traveling liver graft donor and recipient characteristics and risk factors associated with long-distance-traveling liver graft use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from donor liver transplantation patients registered from 2014 to 2020 in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry database. Donor, recipient, and transplant factors of graft survival were compared between short-travel grafts and long-distance-traveling liver grafts (traveled >500 miles). RESULTS: During the study period, 28,265 patients received a donation after brainstem death liver transplantation and 3,250 a donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. The long-distance-traveling liver graft rate was 6.2% in donation after brainstem death liver transplantation and 7.1% in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. The 90-day graft survival rates were significantly worse for long-distance-traveling liver grafts (donation after brainstem death: 95.7% vs 94.5%, donation after circulatory death: 94.5% vs 93.9%). The 3-year graft survival rates were similar for long-distance-traveling liver grafts (donation after brainstem death: 85.5% vs 85.1%, donation after circulatory death: 81.0% vs 80.4%). Cubic spline regression analyses revealed that travel distance did not linearly worsen the prognosis of 3-year graft survival. On the other hand, younger donor age, lower donor body mass index, and shorter cold ischemic time mitigated the negative impact of 90-day graft survival in long-distance-traveling liver grafts. CONCLUSION: The use of long-distance-traveling liver grafts negatively impacts 90-day graft survival but not 3-year graft survival. Moreover, long-distance-traveling liver grafts are more feasible with appropriate donor and recipient factors offsetting the extended cold ischemic time. Mechanical perfusion can improve long-distance-traveling liver graft use. Enhanced collaboration between organ procurement organizations and transplant centers and optimized transportation systems are essential for increasing long-distance-traveling liver graft use, ultimately expanding the donor pool.

The short and long-term prognostic influences of liver grafts with high bilirubin levels at the time of organ recovery.

BACKGROUND: Donors with hyperbilirubinemia are often not utilized for liver transplantation (LT) due to concerns about potential liver dysfunction and graft survival. The potential to mitigate organ shortages using such donors remains unclear. METHODS: This study analyzed adult deceased donor data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2002-2022). Hyperbilirubinemia was categorized as high total bilirubin (3.0-5.0 mg/dL) and very high bilirubin (≥5.0 mg/dL) in brain-dead donors. We assessed the impact of donor hyperbilirubinemia on 3-month and 3-year graft survival, comparing these outcomes to donors after circulatory death (DCD). RESULTS: Of 138 622 donors, 3452 (2.5%) had high bilirubin and 1999 (1.4%) had very high bilirubin levels. Utilization rates for normal, high, and very high bilirubin groups were 73.5%, 56.4%, and 29.2%, respectively. No significant differences were found in 3-month and 3-year graft survival between groups. Donors with high bilirubin had superior 3-year graft survival compared to DCD (hazard ratio .83, p = .02). Factors associated with inferior short-term graft survival included recipient medical condition in intensive care unit (ICU) and longer cold ischemic time; factors associated with inferior long-term graft survival included older donor age, recipient medical condition in ICU, older recipient age, and longer cold ischemic time. Donors with ≥10% macrosteatosis in the very high bilirubin group were also associated with worse 3-year graft survival (p = .04). DISCUSSION: The study suggests that despite many grafts with hyperbilirubinemia being non-utilized, acceptable post-LT outcomes can be achieved using donors with hyperbilirubinemia. Careful selection may increase utilization and expand the donor pool without negatively affecting graft outcome.

Characterizing the risk of human leukocyte antigen-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation in older recipients.

Older compatible living donor kidney transplant (CLDKT) recipients have higher mortality and death-censored graft failure (DCGF) compared to younger recipients. These risks may be amplified in older incompatible living donor kidney transplant (ILDKT) recipients who undergo desensitization and intense immunosuppression. In a 25-center cohort of ILDKT recipients transplanted between September 24, 1997, and December 15, 2016, we compared mortality, DCGF, delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR), and length of stay (LOS) between 234 older (age ≥60 years) and 1172 younger (age 18-59 years) recipients. To investigate whether the impact of age was different for ILDKT recipients compared to 17 542 CLDKT recipients, we used an interaction term to determine whether the relationship between posttransplant outcomes and transplant type (ILDKT vs CLDKT) was modified by age. Overall, older recipients had higher mortality (hazard ratio: 1.632.072.65, P < .001), lower DCGF (hazard ratio: 0.360.530.77, P = .001), and AR (odds ratio: 0.390.540.74, P < .001), and similar DGF (odds ratio: 0.461.032.33, P = .9) and LOS (incidence rate ratio: 0.880.981.10, P = 0.8) compared to younger recipients. The impact of age on mortality (interaction P = .052), DCGF (interaction P = .7), AR interaction P = .2), DGF (interaction P = .9), and LOS (interaction P = .5) were similar in ILDKT and CLDKT recipients. Age alone should not preclude eligibility for ILDKT.

Has the risk of liver re-transplantation improved over the two decades?

BACKGROUND: Despite advancements in liver transplantation (LT) over the past two decades, liver re-transplantation (re-LT) presents challenges. This study aimed to assess improvements in re-LT outcomes and contributing factors. METHODS: Data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2002-2021) were analyzed, with recipients categorized into four-year intervals. Trends in re-LT characteristics and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 128,462 LT patients, 7254 received re-LT. Graft survival (GS) for re-LT improved (91.3%, 82.1%, and 70.8% at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years post-LT from 2018 to 2021). However, hazard ratios (HRs) for GS remained elevated compared to marginal donors including donors after circulatory death (DCD), although the difference in HRs decreased in long-term GS. Changes in re-LT causes included a reduction in hepatitis C recurrence and an increase in graft failure post-primary LT involving DCD. Trends identified included recent decreased cold ischemic time (CIT) and increased distance from donor hospital in re-LT group. Meanwhile, DCD cohort exhibited less significant increase in distance and more marked decrease in CIT. The shortest CIT was recorded in urgent re-LT group. The highest Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was observed in urgent re-LT group, while the lowest was recorded in DCD group. Analysis revealed shorter time interval between previous LT and re-listing, leading to worse outcomes, and varying primary graft failure causes influencing overall survival post-re-LT. DISCUSSION: While short-term re-LT outcomes improved, challenges persist compared to DCD. Further enhancements are required, with ongoing research focusing on optimizing risk stratification models and allocation systems for better LT outcomes.

Development and validation of a REcurrent Liver cAncer Prediction ScorE (RELAPSE) following liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium.

HCC recurrence following liver transplantation (LT) is highly morbid and occurs despite strict patient selection criteria. Individualized prediction of post-LT HCC recurrence risk remains an important need. Clinico-radiologic and pathologic data of 4981 patients with HCC undergoing LT from the US Multicenter HCC Transplant Consortium (UMHTC) were analyzed to develop a REcurrent Liver cAncer Prediction ScorE (RELAPSE). Multivariable Fine and Gray competing risk analysis and machine learning algorithms (Random Survival Forest and Classification and Regression Tree models) identified variables to model HCC recurrence. RELAPSE was externally validated in 1160 HCC LT recipients from the European Hepatocellular Cancer Liver Transplant study group. Of 4981 UMHTC patients with HCC undergoing LT, 71.9% were within Milan criteria, 16.1% were initially beyond Milan criteria with 9.4% downstaged before LT, and 12.0% had incidental HCC on explant pathology. Overall and recurrence-free survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 89.7%, 78.6%, and 69.8% and 86.8%, 74.9%, and 66.7%, respectively, with a 5-year incidence of HCC recurrence of 12.5% (median 16 months) and non-HCC mortality of 20.8%. A multivariable model identified maximum alpha-fetoprotein (HR = 1.35 per-log SD, 95% CI,1.22-1.50, p < 0.001), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (HR = 1.16 per-log SD, 95% CI,1.04-1.28, p < 0.006), pathologic maximum tumor diameter (HR = 1.53 per-log SD, 95% CI, 1.35-1.73, p < 0.001), microvascular (HR = 2.37, 95%-CI, 1.87-2.99, p < 0.001) and macrovascular (HR = 3.38, 95% CI, 2.41-4.75, p < 0.001) invasion, and tumor differentiation (moderate HR = 1.75, 95% CI, 1.29-2.37, p < 0.001; poor HR = 2.62, 95% CI, 1.54-3.32, p < 0.001) as independent variables predicting post-LT HCC recurrence (C-statistic = 0.78). Machine learning algorithms incorporating additional covariates improved prediction of recurrence (Random Survival Forest C-statistic = 0.81). Despite significant differences in European Hepatocellular Cancer Liver Transplant recipient radiologic, treatment, and pathologic characteristics, external validation of RELAPSE demonstrated consistent 2- and 5-year recurrence risk discrimination (AUCs 0.77 and 0.75, respectively). We developed and externally validated a RELAPSE score that accurately discriminates post-LT HCC recurrence risk and may allow for individualized post-LT surveillance, immunosuppression modification, and selection of high-risk patients for adjuvant therapies.

Evaluating the outcomes of donor-recipient age differences in young adults undergoing liver transplantation.

The current liver allocation system may be disadvantaging younger adult recipients as it does not incorporate the donor-recipient age difference. Given the longer life expectancy of younger recipients, the influences of older donor grafts on their long-term prognosis should be elucidated. This study sought to reveal the long-term prognostic influence of the donor-recipient age difference in young adult recipients. Adult patients who received initial liver transplants from deceased donors between 2002 and 2021 were identified from the UNOS database. Young recipients (patients 45 years old or below) were categorized into 4 groups: donor age younger than the recipient, 0-9 years older, 10-19 years older, or 20 years older or above. Older recipients were defined as patients 65 years old or above. To examine the influence of the age difference in long-term survivors, conditional graft survival analysis was conducted on both younger and older recipients. Among 91,952 transplant recipients, 15,170 patients were 45 years old or below (16.5%); these were categorized into 6,114 (40.3%), 3,315 (21.9%), 2,970 (19.6%), and 2,771 (18.3%) for groups 1-4, respectively. Group 1 demonstrated the highest probability of survival, followed by groups 2, 3, and 4 for the actual graft survival and conditional graft survival analyses. In younger recipients who survived at least 5 years post-transplant, inferior long-term survival was observed when there was an age difference of 10 years or above (86.9% vs. 80.6%, log-rank p <0.01), whereas there was no difference in older recipients (72.6% vs. 74.2%, log-rank p =0.89). In younger patients who are not in emergent need of a transplant, preferential allocation of younger aged donor offers would optimize organ utility by increasing postoperative graft survival time.

The impact of geographic location versus center practice on center volume in liver transplantation after the acuity circle policy.

BACKGROUND: The allocation system for livers used the acuity circles (AC) beginning in 2020. In this study, we sought to evaluate the effect of the AC policy on center transplant volumes, from geographic and center practice perspectives. METHODS: Using the US national registry data between 2018 and 2022, adult liver transplantations (LTs) were separated into two eras: before AC and after AC. RESULTS: The number of LT for Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores ≥29 have significantly increased by 10%, and waitlist times for those patients have been significantly shorter after AC. These benefits were not found in patients with MELD scores <29. The geographic distribution of transplant centers reveals that the majority of centers which increased their transplant volume (18 out of 25 centers) are located in high-population states while there are seven transplant centers in nonhigh-population states. The centers in the nonhigh-population states utilized more marginal donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors by 27% and 155%, respectively. MELD scores were significantly lower in the nonhigh-population states compared with those in the high-population states (p < .01). CONCLUSION: AC improved the LT access for patients with MELD scores ≥29, which benefited the high-population states. However, aggressive center practices to utilize marginal DBD and DCD donors were able to increase transplant volume and lower median allocation MELD scores.

Outcomes in liver transplant recipients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease-related HCC: results from the US multicenter HCC transplant consortium.

NAFLD will soon be the most common indication for liver transplantation (LT). In NAFLD, HCC may occur at earlier stages of fibrosis and present with more advanced tumor stage, raising concern for aggressive disease. Thus, adult LT recipients with HCC from 20 US centers transplanted between 2002 and 2013 were analyzed to determine whether NAFLD impacts recurrence-free post-LT survival. Five hundred and thirty-eight (10.8%) of 4981 total patients had NAFLD. Patients with NAFLD were significantly older (63 vs. 58, p<0.001), had higher body mass index (30.5 vs. 27.4, p<0.001), and were more likely to have diabetes (57.3% vs. 28.8%, p<0.001). Patients with NAFLD were less likely to receive pre-LT locoregional therapy (63.6% vs. 72.9%, p<0.001), had higher median lab MELD (15 vs. 13, p<0.001) and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (3.8 vs. 2.9, p<0.001), and were more likely to have their maximum pre-LT alpha fetoprotein at time of LT (44.1% vs. 36.1%, p<0.001). NAFLD patients were more likely to have an incidental HCC on explant (19.4% vs. 10.4%, p<0.001); however, explant characteristics including tumor differentiation and vascular invasion were not different between groups. Comparing NAFLD and non-NAFLD patients, the 1, 3, and 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence (3.1%, 9.1%, 11.5% vs. 4.9%, 10.1%, 12.6%, p=0.36) and recurrence-free survival rates (87%, 76%, and 67% vs. 87%, 75%, and 67%, p=0.97) were not different. In competing risks analysis, NAFLD did not significantly impact recurrence in univariable (HR: 0.88, p=0.36) nor in adjusted analysis (HR: 0.91, p=0.49). With NAFLD among the most common causes of HCC and poised to become the leading indication for LT, a better understanding of disease-specific models to predict recurrence is needed. In this NAFLD cohort, incidental HCCs were common, raising concerns about early detection. However, despite less locoregional therapy and high neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, explant tumor characteristics and post-transplant recurrence-free survival were not different compared to non-NAFLD patients.