Noneligible Donors as a Strategy to Decrease the Organ Shortage.

Organ procurement organization (OPO) performance is generally evaluated by the number of organ procurement procedures divided by the number of eligible deaths (donation after brain death [DBD] donors aged <70 years), whereas the number of noneligible deaths (including donation after cardiac death donors and DBD donors aged >70 years) is not tracked. The present study aimed to investigate the variability in the proportion of noneligible liver donors by the 58 donor service areas (DSAs). Patients undergoing liver transplant (LT) between 2011 and 2015 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research file. LTs from noneligible and eligible donors were compared. The proportion of noneligible liver donors by DSA varied significantly, ranging from 0% to 19.6% of total liver grafts used. In transplant programs, the proportion of noneligible liver donors used ranged from 0% to 35.3%. On linear regression there was no correlation between match Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score for programs in a given DSA and proportion of noneligible donors used from the corresponding DSA (p = 0.14). Noneligible donors remain an underutilized resource in many OPOs. Policy changes to begin tracking noneligible donors and learning from OPOs that have high noneligible donor usage are potential strategies to increase awareness and pursuit of these organs.

Waitlist Outcomes for Patients Relisted Following Failed Donation After Cardiac Death Liver Transplant: Implications for Awarding Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Exception Scores.

Understanding of outcomes for patients relisted for ischemic cholangiopathy following a donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplant (LT) will help standardization of a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease exception scheme for retransplantation. Early relisting (E-RL) for DCD graft failure caused by primary nonfunction (PNF) or hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) was defined as relisting ≤14 days after DCD LT, and late relisting (L-RL) due to biliary complications was defined as relisting 14 days to 3 years after DCD LT. Of 3908 DCD LTs performed nationally between 2002 and 2016, 540 (13.8%) patients were relisted within 3 years of transplant (168 [4.3%] in the E-RL group, 372 [9.5%] in the L-RL group). The E-RL and L-RL groups had waitlist mortality rates of 15.4% and 10.5%, respectively, at 3 mo and 16.1% and 14.3%, respectively, at 1 year. Waitlist mortality in the L-RL group was higher than mortality and delisted rates for patients with exception points for both hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) at 3- to 12-mo time points (p < 0.001). Waitlist outcomes differed in patients with early DCD graft failure caused by PNF or HAT compared with those with late DCD graft failure attributed to biliary complications. In L-RL, higher rates of waitlist mortality were noted compared with patients listed with exception points for HCC or HPS.

Early Allograft Dysfunction After Liver Transplantation Is Associated With Short- and Long-Term Kidney Function Impairment.

Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) after liver transplantation (LT) is related to ischemia-reperfusion injury and may lead to a systemic inflammatory response and extrahepatic organ dysfunction. We evaluated the effect of EAD on new-onset acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring renal replacement therapy within the first month and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) within the first year post-LT in 1325 primary LT recipients. EAD developed in 358 (27%) of recipients. Seventy-one (5.6%) recipients developed AKI and 38 (2.9%) developed ESRD. Compared with those without EAD, recipients with EAD had a higher risk of AKI and ESRD (4% vs. 9% and 2% vs. 6%, respectively, p < 0.001 for both). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed an independent relationship between EAD and AKI as well as ESRD (odds ratio 3.5, 95% confidence interval 1.9-6.4, and odds ratio 3.1, 95% confidence interval 11.9-91.2, respectively). Patients who experienced both EAD and AKI had inferior 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year patient and graft survival compared with those with either EAD or AKI alone, while those who had neither AKI nor EAD had the best outcomes (p < 0.001). Post-LT EAD is a risk factor for both AKI and ESRD and should be considered a target for future intervention to reduce post-LT short- and long-term renal dysfunction.

The Use of Donation After Cardiac Death Allografts Does Not Increase Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) with donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after cardiac death (DCD) allografts has not previously been investigated. Rates and patterns of HCC recurrences were investigated in patients undergoing DBD (N = 1633) and DCD (N = 243) LT between 2003 and 2012. LT for HCC was identified in 397 patients (340 DBD and 57 DCD). No difference in tumor number (p = 0.26), tumor volume (p = 0.34) and serum alphafetoprotein (AFP) (p = 0.47) was seen between the groups. HCC recurrence was identified in 41 (12.1%) patients in the DBD group and 7 (12.3%) patients in the DCD group. There was no difference in recurrence-free survival (p = 0.29) or cumulative incidence of HCC recurrence (p = 0.91) between the groups. Liver allograft was the first site of recurrence in 22 (65%) patients in the DBD group and two (37%) patients in the DCD group (p = 0.39). LT for HCC with DBD and DCD allografts demonstrate no difference in the rate of HCC recurrence. Previously published differences in survival demonstrated between recipients with HCC receiving DBD and DCD allografts despite statistical adjustment can likely be explained by practice patterns not captured by variables contained in the SRTR database.

Early allograft dysfunction is associated with excess resource utilization after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on length of stay (LOS) following liver transplantation (LT), yet this is an important health services metric that directly correlates with early post-LT health care costs. The primary objective of this study was to examine the relationship between early allograft dysfunction (EAD) and LOS after LT. The secondary objective was to identify additional recipient, donor, and operative factors associated with LOS. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing primary LT over a 32-month period were prospectively examined at a single center. Subjects fulfilling standard criteria for EAD were compared with those not meeting the definition. Variables associated with increased LOS on ordinal logistic regression were identified. RESULTS: Subjects with EAD had longer mean hospital LOS than those without (42.5 ± 38.9 days vs 27.4 ± 31 days; P = .003). Subjects with EAD also had longer mean intensive care LOS (8.61 ± 10.28 days vs 5.45 ± 11.6 days; P = .048). Additional factors significantly associated with LOS included Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, recipient location before LT, and postoperative surgical complications. CONCLUSIONS: EAD is associated with longer hospitalization after LT. MELD score, preoperative recipient location, and postoperative complications were significantly associated with LOS. From a cost-containment perspective, these findings have implications on resource allocation.

Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy versus duct-to-duct biliary anastomosis in liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy and duct-to-duct anastomosis are potential methods for biliary reconstruction in liver transplantation (LT) for recipients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). However, there is controversy over which method yields superior outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of duct-to-duct versus Roux-en-Y biliary anastomosis in patients undergoing LT for PSC. METHODS: Studies comparing Roux-en-Y versus duct-to-duct anastomosis during LT for PSC were identified based on systematic searches of 9 electronic databases and multiple sources of gray literature. RESULTS: The search identified 496 citations, including 7 retrospective series, and 692 patients met eligibility criteria. The use of duct-to-duct anastomosis was not associated with a significant difference in clinical outcomes, including 1-year recipient survival rates (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.60; P = .95), 1-year graft survival rates (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.72-1.71; P = .64), risk of biliary leaks (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.59-2.59; P = .33), risk of biliary strictures (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 0.98-4.06; P = .06), or rate of recurrence of PSC (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.19-4.78; P = .94). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in 1-year recipient survival, 1-year graft survival, risk of biliary complications, and PSC recurrence between Roux-en-Y and duct-to-duct biliary anastomosis in LT for PSC.

Salvage parenchymal liver transection for patients with insufficient volume increase after portal vein occlusion -- an extension of the ALPPS approach.

BACKGROUND: Portal vein ligation (PVL) or embolization (PVE) are standard approaches to induce liver hypertrophy of the future liver remnant (FLR) prior to hepatectomy in primarily non-resectable liver tumors. However, this approach fails in about one third of patients. Recently, the new "ALPPS" approach has been described that combines PVL with parenchymal transection to induce rapid liver hypertrophy. This series explores whether isolated parenchymal transection boosts liver hypertrophy in scenarios of failed PVL/PVE. METHODS: A multicenter database with 170 patients undergoing portal vein manipulation to increase the size of the FLR was screened for patients undergoing isolated parenchymal transection as a salvage procedure. Three patients who underwent PVL/PVE with subsequent insufficient volume gain and subsequently underwent parenchymal liver transection as a salvage procedure were identified. Patient characteristics, volume increase, postoperative complications and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: The first patient underwent liver transection 16 weeks after failed PVL with a standardized FLR (sFLR) of 30%, which increased to 47% in 7 days. The second patient showed a sFLR of 25% 28 weeks after PVL and subsequent PVE of segment IV, which increased to 41% in 7 days after transection. The third patient underwent liver partition 8 weeks after PVE with a sFLR of 19%, which increased to 37% in six days. All patients underwent a R0 resection. CONCLUSION: Failed PVE or PVL appears to represent a good indication for the isolated parenchymal liver transection according to the newly developed ALPPS approach.

Should a lower quality organ go to the least sick patient? Model for end-stage liver disease score and donor risk index as predictors of early allograft dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: There is a global tendency to justify transplanting extended criteria organs (ECD; Donor Risk Index [DRI] ≥ 1.7) into recipients with a lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and to transplant standard criteria organs (DRI < 1.7) into recipients with a higher MELD scores. There is a lack of evidence in the current literature to justify this assumption. METHODS: A review of our prospectively entered database for donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplantation (n = 310) between January 1, 2006, and September 30, 2010, was performed. DRI was dichotomized as <1.7 and ≥ 1.7. Recipients were divided into 3 strata, those with high (≥ 27), moderate (15-26), and low MELD (<15) scores. The recently validated definition of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) was used. We analyzed EAD and its relation with donor DRI and recipient MELD scores. RESULTS: The overall incidence of EAD was 24.5%. Mortality in the first 6 months in recipients with EAD was 20% compared with 3.4% for those without EAD (relative risk [RR], 5.56, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.96-15.73; P < .001). Graft failure rate in the first 6 months in those with EAD was 27% compared with 5.8% for those without EAD (RR, 4.63; 95% CI, 2.02-10.6; P < .001). In patients with low MELD scores, a significantly increased rate of EAD (25%) was seen in patients transplanted with a high DRI liver compared with those transplanted with a low DRI liver (6.25%; P = .012). In moderate and high MELD recipients, there was no significant difference in the rate of EAD in patients transplanted with a high DRI liver (62%) compared with those transplanted with a low DRI liver (59%). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that contrary to common belief it is not justified to preferentially allocate organs with higher DRI to recipients with lower MELD scores.