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.

De novo hepatitis B infection following liver transplantation with core antibody positive grafts: The role of surface antibody status in guiding long-term prophylaxis.

Liver transplantation (LT) with hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) positive grafts to hepatitis B surface-antigen (HBsAg) negative recipients is safe and has likely contributed to improvements in organ access over the years. The incidence of de novo hepatitis B infection (HBV) in these instances is low with appropriate prophylaxis and is affected by recipient immunologic status. There is debate as to whether hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) positivity may safely inform prophylaxis discontinuation post-LT. In this retrospective study of all hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) negative recipients of anti-HBc positive organs at three large academic centers between January 2014 and December 2019, nine LT recipients discontinued prophylaxis after developing anti-HBs antibodies 1 year or later post-LT. Three of the nine patients (33%) developed de novo HBV, defined by positive HBsAg or hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA, during the study period. The remaining six patients had no evidence of HBV infection after a mean follow-up of 37 months. The patients without de novo HBV had higher anti-HBs titers at the time of prophylaxis discontinuation and were less likely to have negative anti-HBs at the time of transplant or negative anti-HBc at any time point. These results suggest that quantitative anti-HBs titer thresholds rather than qualitative anti-HBs positivity at 1 year or later after LT should be used to identify patients at decreased risk of de novo infection and help guide prophylaxis duration.

Risk Factors for Surgical-Site Infections After Liver Transplant: Does Perioperative Antibiotic Regimen Matter?

BACKGROUND: Surgical-site infections (SSIs) are common in liver transplant recipients. The optimal SSI antimicrobial prophylaxis agent and duration are not established. We aimed to explore risk factors for SSIs after transplant, with a particular interest in the impact of perioperative antibiotic regimen on the development of SSIs. METHODS: Retrospective study of adults undergoing liver transplant across 3 transplant programs between January 1, 2020, and June 01, 2021. RESULTS: Of 557 patients included in the study, 32 (5.7%) were infected or colonized with a multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) within 1 y before liver transplant. Narrow-spectrum SSI prophylaxis with ceftriaxone or cefazolin alone was administered in 488 of 577 patients (87.6%); the remaining 69 patients (12.4%) received broad-spectrum prophylaxis with vancomycin and aztreonam (n = 40), piperacillin-tazobactam (n = 11), carbapenems (n = 8), ceftriaxone and another antibiotic (n = 7), and others. Patients with pretransplant MDRO were more likely to receive broad-spectrum coverage than those without pretransplant MDROs (28.1% versus 11.4%, P = 0.005). SSIs were identified in 40 patients (7.2%); 25 (62.5%) were organ-space infections, 3 (7.5%) were deep incisional infections, and 12 (30.0%) were superficial incisional infections. The median time from liver transplant to SSIs was 14 d (interquartile range, 10-20.2). MDROs were identified in 12 SSIs (30%). Multivariable analysis revealed no significant association between antimicrobial spectrum and risk of SSIs (P = 0.5), whereas surgical leak (P<0.001) and reoperation (P = 0.017) were independently associated with increased risk of SSIs. SSIs were not significantly associated with composite risk of death or liver allograft failure. CONCLUSIONS: The spectrum of antimicrobial prophylaxis did not impact the development of SSIs in liver transplant recipients.

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.

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.

Outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in liver transplant recipients with a Roux-en-Y biliary-enteric anastomosis.

Backgrounds/Aims: Data regarding outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) in liver transplant (LT) recipients with biliary-enteric (BE) anastomosis are limited. We report outcomes of ERC and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) as first-line therapies in LT recipients with BE anastomosis. Methods: All LT recipients with Roux-BE anastomosis from 2001 to 2020 were divided into ERC and PTBD subgroups. Technical success was defined as the ability to cannulate the bile duct. Clinical success was defined as the ability to perform cholangiography and therapeutic interventions. Results: A total of 36 LT recipients (25 males, age 53.5 ± 13 years) with Roux-BE anastomosis who underwent biliary intervention were identified. The most common indications for a BE anastomosis were primary sclerosing cholangitis (n = 14) and duct size mismatch (n = 10). Among the 29 patients who initially underwent ERC, technical success and clinical success were achieved in 24 (82.8%) and 22 (75.9%) patients, respectively. The initial endoscope used for the ERC was a single balloon enteroscope in 16 patients, a double balloon enteroscope in 7 patients, a pediatric colonoscope in 5 patients, and a conventional reusable duodenoscope in 1 patient. Among the 7 patients who underwent PTBD as the initial therapy, six (85.7%) achieved technical and clinical success (p = 0.57). Conclusions: In LT patients with Roux-BE anastomosis requiring biliary intervention, ERC with a balloon-assisted enteroscope is safe with a success rate comparable to PTBD. Both ERC and PTBD can be considered as first-line therapies for LT recipients with a BE anastomosis.

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.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors as Therapy to Down-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma Prior to Liver Transplantation.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is the most common liver malignancy and third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. For early- and intermediate-stage disease, liver-directed therapies for locoregional control, or down-staging prior to definitive surgical therapy with hepatic resection or liver transplantation, have been studied broadly, and are the mainstays of current treatment guidelines. As HCC incidence has continued to grow, and with more patients presenting with advanced disease, our current treatment modalities do not suffice, and better therapies are needed to improve disease-specific and overall survival. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy utilized, and was associated with dismal results. The advent of immuno-oncology has been of significant interest, and has changed the paradigm of therapy for HCC. Lately, combination regimens including atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; durvalumab plus tremelimumab; and pembrolizumab plus Lenvatinib have shown impressive responses of between 25-35%; this is much higher than responses observed with single agents. Complete responses with checkpoint inhibitor therapy have been observed in advanced-stage HCC patients. These dramatic results have naturally led to several questions. Can or should checkpoint inhibitors, or other immunotherapy combinations, be used routinely before resection or transplant? Is there a synergistic effect of immunotherapy with locoregional therapy, and will pre-treatment increase disease-free survival after surgical intervention? Is it immunologically safe to use these therapies prior to transplantation? Much is still to be learned in terms of the dosing, timing, and overall utility of the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors for pre-transplant care and down-staging. More studies will be needed to understand the management of adverse events while maximizing the therapeutic window of these agents. In this review, we look at the current data on therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced HCC, with a focus on pre-transplant treatment prior to liver transplant.

Infectious complications in acute graft-versus-host disease after liver transplantation.

Graft-versus-hostdisease (GVHD) following liver transplantation (LT) is rare but can lead tosignificant mortality. The leading cause of death following GVHD diagnosis isinfectious complications. However, there is a lack of clear descriptions concerning infection and antimicrobial management patterns. Our study aims toprovide the focused details of all infectious complications of acute GVHDfollowing LT. We retrospectively reviewed all adult LT recipients with acute GVHD at Mayo Clinic's Transplant Centers from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2021. Detailed characteristics of infection in each case were described. Among 4,585 LTs performed during this period, 12 (0.3%) patients developed acuteGVHD. The median time from transplantation to GVHD diagnosis was 49.0 days [IQR 31.5-99.0]. Ten (83.3%) patients developed severe infections leading tomortality. The most common cause of infection was nosocomial bacteremia fromenteric bacteria such as vancomycin-resistant enterococci and gram-negative bacilli. Other infections included breakthrough invasive fungal infections,cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation, and Clostridioides difficile colitis. Antimicrobial prophylaxis strategies in most cases were based on the degree of neutropenia-these include levofloxacin for bacterial prophylaxis, nebulized pentamidine for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia prophylaxis, posaconazole for invasive fungal prophylaxis, and valganciclovir based on CMVstatus. All GVHD patients with severe infections succumbed to thesecomplications. Ourstudy reiterates that despite prophylaxis, infectious complications in GVHDfollowing LT are common and lead to exceptionally high mortality. Individualizedantimicrobial treatment, prophylaxis and monitoring strategies remain a criticalcomponent of GVHD management. Further study to optimize these practices isrequired.

Clinical outcomes for hilar and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with adjuvant, definitive, or liver transplant-based neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy strategies: a single-center experience.

Background: We report our experience with 3 strategies for treating hilar and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) including chemoradiotherapy: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and orthotopic liver transplant, surgical resection and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (aCRT), and definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT). Methods: We included patients treated from 1998 through 2019. Kaplan-Meier estimates, log-rank testing, and univariate/multivariate Cox models were used to assess outcomes (local progression-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival). Results: Sixty-five patients (nCRT, n=20; aCRT, n=16; dCRT, n=29) met inclusion criteria [median (range) age 65 years (27-84 years)]. Median posttreatment follow-up was 19.1 months (0.8-164.8 months) for all patients and 38.6, 24.3, and 9.0 months for the nCRT, aCRT, and dCRT groups, respectively. At 3 and 5 years, overall survival was 78% and 59% for the nCRT group; 47% and 35%, aCRT group; and 11% and 0%, dCRT group. Compared with the dCRT group, the nCRT group (hazard ratio =0.13, 95% CI: 0.05-0.33) and the aCRT group (hazard ratio =0.29, 95% CI: 0.14-0.64) had significantly improved overall survival (P<0.001). The 5-year local progression-free survival (50% nCRT vs. 30% aCRT vs. 0% dCRT, P<0.001) and 5-year disease-free survival (61% nCRT vs. 30% aCRT vs. 0% dCRT, P=0.01) were significantly better for strategies combined with surgery. Conclusions: Outcomes for patients with extrahepatic CCA were superior for those who underwent nCRT/orthotopic liver transplant or postsurgical aCRT than for patients treated with dCRT. The excellent outcomes after nCRT/orthotopic liver transplant provide additional independent data supporting the validity of this strategy. The poor survival of patients treated with dCRT highlights a need for better therapies when surgery is not possible.

Reliability of histologic assessment for NAFLD and development of an expanded NAFLD activity score.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The NASH Clinical Research Network histologic scoring system, the gold-standard NASH histology assessment for clinical trials, has demonstrated intrarater and interrater variability. An expert panel in a previous systematic Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) study determined that existing histologic scoring systems do not fully capture NASH disease activity and fibrosis, and standardized definitions of histologic features are needed. We evaluated the reliability of existing and alternate histologic measures and their correlations with a disease activity visual analog scale to propose optimal components for an expanded NAFLD activity score (NAS). APPROACH AND RESULTS: Four liver pathologists who were involved in the prior RAND/UCLA study underwent standardized training and multiple discussions with the goal of improving agreement. They were blinded to clinical information and scored histologic measures twice, ≥2 weeks apart, for 40 liver biopsies representing the full spectrum of NAFLD. Index intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates demonstrated intrarater (0.80-0.85) and interrater (0.60-0.72) reliability. Hepatocyte ballooning items had similar interrater ICCs (0.68-0.79), including those extending scores from 0-2 to 0-4. Steatosis measures (interrater ICCs, 0.72-0.80) correlated poorly with disease activity. Correlations with disease activity were largest for hepatocyte ballooning and Mallory-Denk bodies (MDBs), with both used to develop the expanded NAS (intrarater ICC, 0.90; interrater ICC, 0.80). Fibrosis measures had ICCs of 0.70-0.87. CONCLUSIONS: After extensive preparation among a group of experienced pathologists, we demonstrated improved reliability of multiple existing histologic NAFLD indices and fibrosis staging systems. Hepatocyte ballooning and MDBs most strongly correlated with disease activity and were used for the expanded NAS. Further validation including evaluation of responsiveness is required.

Donation after circulatory death transplant outcomes using livers recovered by local surgeons.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) outcomes have been attributed to multiple variables, including procurement surgeon recovery techniques. Outcomes of 196 DCD LTs at Mayo Clinic Arizona were analyzed based on graft recovery by a surgeon from our center (transplant procurement team [TPT]) versus a local procurement surgeon (non-TPT [NTPT]). A standard recovery technique was used for all TPT livers. The recovery technique used by the NTPT was left to the discretion of that surgeon. A total of 129 (65.8%) grafts were recovered by our TPT, 67 (34.2%) by the NTPT. Recipient age (p = 0.43), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (median 17 vs. 18; p = 0.22), and donor warm ischemia time (median 21.0 vs. 21.5; p = 0.86) were similar between the TPT and NTPT groups. NTPT livers had longer cold ischemia times (6.5 vs. 5.0 median hours; p < 0.001). Early allograft dysfunction (80.6% vs. 76.1%; p = 0.42) and primary nonfunction (0.8% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.47) were similar. Ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) treated with endoscopy occurred in 18.6% and 11.9% of TPT and NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). At last follow-up, approximately half of those requiring endoscopy were undergoing a stent-free trial (58.3% TPT; 50.0% NTPT; p = 0.68). IC requiring re-LT in the first year occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of TPT and 3.0% (n = 2) of NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). There were no differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-5.03; p = 0.23) or graft (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 0.98-4.09; p = 0.10) survival rates. Graft survival at 1 year was 91.5% for TPT grafts and 95.5% for NTPT grafts. Excellent outcomes can be achieved using NTPT for the recovery of DCD livers. There may be an opportunity to expand the use of DCD livers in the United States by increasing the use of NTPT.

Solid Organ Transplantation From SARS-CoV-2-infected Donors to Uninfected Recipients: A Single-center Experience.

BACKGROUND: The risk of donor-derived severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in solid organ (heart, lung, liver, kidney, pancreas, and intestine) transplant recipients is poorly understood. Since hematogenous transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has not been documented to date, nonlung solid organs might be suitable for transplantation since they likely portend a low risk of viral transmission. METHODS: Abdominal solid organs from SARS-CoV-2-infected donors were transplanted into uninfected recipients. RESULTS: Between April 18, 2021, and October 30, 2021, we performed transplants of 2 livers, 1 simultaneous liver and kidney, 1 kidney, and 1 simultaneous kidney and pancreas from SARS-CoV-2-infected donors into 5 uninfected recipients. None of the recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection or coronavirus disease 2019, and when tested, allograft biopsies showed no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. CONCLUSIONS: Transplanting nonlung organs from SARS-CoV-2-infected donors into uninfected recipients demonstrated no evidence of virus transmission.