Utilization, outcomes, and retransplantation of liver allografts from donation after cardiac death: implications for further expansion of the deceased-donor pool. Ann Surg. 2008;248:599-607. [PMID: 18936573 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e31818a080e]

Liver transplant center variability in accepting organ offers and its impact on patient survival

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite an allocation system designed to give deceased-donor livers to the sickest patients, many transplantable livers are declined by U.S. transplant centers. It is unknown whether centers vary in their propensities to decline organs for the highest priority patients, and how these decisions directly impact patient outcomes.

METHODS

We analyzed Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) data from 5/1/07-6/17/13, and included all adult liver-alone waitlist candidates offered an organ that was ultimately transplanted. We evaluated acceptance rates of liver offers for the highest ranked patients and their subsequent waitlist mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 23,740 unique organ offers, 8882 (37.4%) were accepted for the first-ranked patient. Despite adjusting for organ quality and recipient severity of illness, transplant centers within and across geographic regions varied strikingly (p<0.001) in the percentage of organ offers they accepted for the highest priority patients. Among all patients ranked first on waitlists, the adjusted center-specific organ acceptance rates ranged from 15.7% to 58.1%. In multivariable models, there was a 27% increased odds of waitlist mortality for every 5% absolute decrease in a center's adjusted organ offer acceptance rate (adjusted OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.20-1.32). However, the absolute difference in median 5-year adjusted graft survival was 4% between livers accepted for the first-ranked patient, compared to those declined and transplanted at a lower position.

CONCLUSION

There is marked variability in center practices regarding accepting livers allocated to the highest priority patients. Center-level decisions to decline organs substantially increased patients' odds of dying on the waitlist without a transplant.

Clinical islet isolation and transplantation outcomes with deceased cardiac death donors are similar to neurological determination of death donors

In islet transplantation, deceased cardiac death (DCD) donation has been identified as a potential extended source. There are currently no studies comparing outcomes between these categories, and our goal was to compare islet isolation success rates and transplantation outcomes between DCD and neurological determination of death (NDD) donors. Islet isolations from 15 DCD and 418 NDD were performed in our centre between September 2008 and September 2014. Donor variables, islet yields, metabolic function of isolated isled and insulin requirements at 1-month post-transplant were compared. Compared to NDD, pancreata from DCD were more often procured locally and donors required less vasopressive support (P < 0.001 and P = 0.023, respectively), but the other variables were similar between groups. Pre- and postpurification islet yields were similar between NDD and DCD (576 vs. 608 × 10(3) islet equivalent, P = 0.628 and 386 vs. 379, P = 0.881, respectively). The metabolic function was similar between NDD and DCD, as well as the mean decrease in insulin requirement at 1-month post-transplantation (NDD: 64.82%; DCD: 60.17% reduction, P = 0.517). These results support the broader use of DCD pancreata for islet isolation. A much larger DCD islet experience will be required to truly determine noninferiority of both short- and long-term outcomes.

Kidney and liver transplantation in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Transplant surgery is facing a shortage of deceased donor organs. In response, the criteria for organ donation have been extended, and an increasing number of organs from older donors are being used. For recipients, the benefits of transplantation are great, and the growing ageing population has led to increasing numbers of elderly patients being accepted for transplantation.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed to investigate the impact of age of donors and recipients in abdominal organ transplantation, and to highlight aspects of the fine balance in donor and recipient selection and screening, as well as allocation policies fair to young and old alike.

RESULTS

Overall, kidney and liver transplantation from older deceased donors have good outcomes, but are not as good as those from younger donors. Careful donor selection based on risk indices, and potentially biomarkers, special allocation schemes to match elderly donors with elderly recipients, and vigorous recipient selection, allows good outcomes with increasing age of both donors and recipients. The results of live kidney donation have been excellent for donor and recipient, and there is a trend towards inclusion of older donors. Future strategies, including personalized immunosuppression for older recipients as well as machine preservation and reconditioning of donor organs, are promising ways to improve the outcome of transplantation between older donors and older recipients.

CONCLUSION

Kidney and liver transplantation in the elderly is a clinical reality. Outcomes are good, but can be optimized by using strategies that modify donor risk factors and recipient co-morbidities, and personalized approaches to organ allocation and immunosuppression.

Increasing the Number of Organ Transplants in the United States by Optimizing Donor Authorization Rates

While recent policies have focused on allocating organs to patients most in need and lessening geographic disparities, the only mechanism to increase the actual number of transplants is to maximize the potential organ supply. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using OPTN data on all "eligible deaths" from 1/1/08 to 11/1/13 to evaluate variability in donor service area (DSA)-level donor authorization rates, and to quantify the potential gains associated with increasing authorization rates. Despite adjustments for donor demographics (age, race/ethnicity, cause of death) and geographic factors (rural/urban status of donor hospital, statewide participation in deceased-donor registries) among 52 571 eligible deaths, there was significant variability (p < 0.001) in donor authorization rates across the 58 DSAs. Overall DSA-level adjusted authorization rates ranged from 63.5% to 89.5% (median: 72.7%). An additional 773-1623 eligible deaths could have been authorized, yielding 2679-5710 total organs, if the DSAs with authorization rates below the median and 75th percentile, respectively, implemented interventions to perform at the level of the corresponding reference DSA. Opportunities exist within the current organ acquisition framework to markedly improve DSA-level donor authorization rates. Such initiatives would mitigate waitlist mortality while increasing the number of transplants.

Normothermic perfusion machine in liver transplant with cardiac death donor grafts

The increasing difference between the number of patients in waiting lists for liver transplantation and the number of available donors has generated a great interest in the use of non-ideal organs, like grafts obtained from cardiac death donors (DCD). However, the extreme sensibility to ischemia of these livers results in a low utilization rate and a high percentage of post-transplant complications and re-transplantation. Normothermic perfusion machines (NMP) emerged as an alternative that tries to maintain the viability of the organ and even to improve its function. This review focuses on current results of DCD liver transplantation and on the role that NMP may have in this field.

A meta-analysis and meta-regression of outcomes including biliary complications in donation after cardiac death liver transplantation

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplantation is increasingly common but concerns exist over the development of biliary complications and ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). This study aimed to compare outcomes between DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) liver grafts. Studies reporting on post-transplantation outcomes after Maastricht category III DCD liver transplantation were screened for inclusion. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were produced using random-effects models for the incidence of biliary complications, IC, graft and recipient survival. Meta-regression was undertaken to identify between-study predictors of effect size for biliary complications and IC. PROSPERO Record: CRD42012002113. Twenty-five studies with 62 184 liver transplant recipients (DCD = 2478 and DBD = 59 706) were included. In comparison with DBD, there was a significant increase in biliary complications [OR = 2.4 (1.9, 3.1); P < 0.00001] and IC [OR = 10.5 (5.7, 19.5); P < 0.00001] following DCD liver transplantation. In comparison with DBD, at 1 year [OR = 0.7 (0.5, 0.8); P = 0.0002] and 3 years [OR = 0.6 (0.5, 0.8); P = 0.001], there was a significant decrease in graft survival following DCD liver transplantation. At 1 year, there was also a nonsignificant decrease [OR = 0.8 (0.6, 1.0); P = 0.08] and by 3 years a significant decrease [OR = 0.7 (0.5, 1.0); P = 0.04] found in recipient survival following DCD liver transplantation. Eleven factors were entered into meta-regression models, but none explained the variability in effect size between studies. DCD liver transplantation is associated with an increase in biliary complications, IC, graft loss and mortality. Significant unexplained differences in effect size exist between centers.

The microRNA Expression Profile in Donation after Cardiac Death (DCD) Livers and Its Ability to Identify Primary Non Function

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) livers are marginal organs for transplant and their use is associated with a higher risk of primary non function (PNF) or early graft dysfunction (EGD). The aim was to determine if microRNA (miRNA) was able to discriminate between DCD livers of varying clinical outcome. DCD groups were categorized as PNF retransplanted within a week (n=7), good functional outcome (n=7) peak aspartate transaminase (AST) ≤ 1000 IU/L and EGD (n=9) peak AST ≥ 2500 IU/L. miRNA was extracted from archival formalin fixed post-perfusion tru-cut liver biopsies. High throughput expression analysis was performed using miRNA arrays. Bioinformatics for expression data analysis was performed and validated with real time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). The function of miRNA of interest was investigated using computational biology prediction algorithms. From the array analysis 16 miRNAs were identified as significantly different (p<0.05). On RT-qPCR miR-155 and miR-940 had the highest expression across all three DCD clinical groups. Only one miRNA, miR-22, was validated with marginal significance, to have differential expression between the three groups (p=0.049). From computational biology miR-22 was predicted to affect signalling pathways that impact protein turnover, metabolism and apoptosis/cell cycle. In conclusion, microRNA expression patterns have a low diagnostic potential clinically in discriminating DCD liver quality and outcome.

Use of model for end-stage liver disease exceptions for donation after cardiac death graft recipients relisted for liver transplantation

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplantation is associated with increased biliary complications and graft failure. Yet for unclear reasons, DCD recipients relisted for transplantation have lower wait-list mortality than other retransplant candidates. We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and United Network for Organ Sharing data from 2002 to 2011 to evaluate all DCD recipients relisted for transplantation to evaluate the impact of the utilization of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception points on wait-list outcomes. Of 262 DCD recipients relisted for liver transplantation >2 weeks after initial transplantation, 82 (31.3%) applied for a nonstandardized MELD exception, and 68 (82.9%) had ≥1 exception approved. Of the relisted DCD recipients, 187 (71.4%) underwent retransplantation; among those with an approved MELD exception, 85.2% underwent retransplantation versus 57.1% of those with an exception denied and 69.4% of those not applying for an exception (P=0.02). In contrast, those receiving MELD exception points were significantly less likely to be removed from the wait list for death or clinical deterioration in comparison with those not applying for an exception (7.1% versus 19.4%, P=0.02). In multivariate models, patients with an approved exception were 3.3 times more likely to undergo retransplantation than those not applying for an exception. Standardized criteria for exception points among DCD recipients should be established to ensure uniform access to retransplantation.

The effect of anterograde persufflation on energy charge and hepatocyte function in donation after cardiac death livers unsuitable for transplant

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) livers are considered to be marginal organs for solid organ and cell transplantation. Low energy charge (EC) and low purine quantity within the liver parenchyma has been associated with poor outcome after liver transplantation. The aim of this work was to assess the effect of anterograde persufflation (A-PSF) using an electrochemical concentrator on DCD liver energy status and hepatocyte function. Organs utilized for research were DCD livers considered not suitable for transplant. Each liver was formally split, and the control non-persufflated (non-PSF) section was stored in University of Wisconsin (UW) solution at 4°C. The A-PSF liver section was immersed in UW solution on ice, and A-PSF was performed via the portal vein with 40% oxygen. Tissue samples were taken 2 hours after A-PSF from the A-PSF and control non-PSF liver sections for snap freezing. Purine analysis was performed with photodiode array detection. Hepatocytes were isolated from A-PSF and control non-PSF liver sections using a standard organs utilized for research were DCD livers considered not suitable for transplant collagenase perfusion technique. Hepatocyte function was assessed using mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity {3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-y1]-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT)} and the sulforhodamine B (SRB) assay for cell attachment. In DCD livers with <30% steatosis (n = 6), A-PSF increased EC from 0.197 ± 0.025 to 0.23 ± 0.035 (P = 0.04). In DCD livers with >30% steatosis (n = 4), A-PSF had no beneficial effect. After isolation (n=4, <30% steatosis), A-PSF was found to increase MTT from 0.92 ± 0.045 to 1.19 ± 0.55 (P < 0.001) and SRB from 2.53 ± 0.12 to 3.2 ± 0.95 (P < 0.001). In conclusion, A-PSF can improve the EC and function of isolated hepatocytes from DCD livers with <30% steatosis.

Aetiology and risk factors of ischaemic cholangiopathy after liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is the best treatment for end-stage hepatic failure, with an excellent survival rates over the last decade. Biliary complications after LT pose a major challenge especially with the increasing number of procured organs after circulatory death. Ischaemic cholangiopathy (IC) is a set of disorders characterized by multiple diffuse strictures affecting the graft biliary system in the absence of hepatic artery thrombosis or stenosis. It commonly presents with cholestasis and cholangitis resulting in higher readmission rates, longer length of stay, repeated therapeutic interventions, and eventually re-transplantation with consequent effects on the patient’s quality of life and increased health care costs. The pathogenesis of IC is unclear and exhibits a higher prevalence with prolonged ischaemia time, donation after circulatory death (DCD), rejection, and cytomegalovirus infection. The majority of IC occurs within 12 mo after LT. Prolonged warm ischaemic times predispose to a profound injury with a subsequently higher prevalence of IC. Biliary complications and IC rates are between 16% and 29% in DCD grafts compared to between 3% and 17% in donation after brain death (DBD) grafts. The majority of ischaemic biliary lesions occur within 30 d in DCD compared to 90 d in DBD grafts following transplantation. However, there are many other risk factors for IC that should be considered. The benefits of DCD in expanding the donor pool are hindered by the higher incidence of IC with increased rates of re-transplantation. Careful donor selection and procurement might help to optimize the utilization of DCD grafts.

Survival of recipients of livers from donation after circulatory death who are relisted and undergo retransplant for graft failure

Use of grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) as a strategy to increase the pool of transplantable livers has been limited due to poorer recipient outcomes compared with donation after brain death (DBD). We examined outcomes of recipients of failed DCD grafts who were selected for relisting with regard to waitlist mortality and patient and graft survival after retransplant. From the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database, we identified 1820 adults who underwent first deceased donor liver transplant January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2011, and were relisted due to graft failure; 12.7% were DCD recipients. Compared with DBD recipients, DCD recipients had better waitlist survival (90-day mortality: 8%, DCD recipients; 14-21%, DBD recipients). Of 950 retransplant patients, 14.5% were prior DCD recipients. Graft survival after second liver transplant was similar for prior DCD (28% graft failure within 1 year) and DBD recipients (30%). Patient survival was slightly better for prior DCD (25% death within 1 year) than DBD recipients (28%). Despite higher overall graft failure and morbidity rates, survival of prior DCD recipients who were selected for relisting and retransplant was not worse than survival of DBD recipients.

Changing pattern of donor selection criteria in deceased donor liver transplant: a review of literature

During the last couple of decades, with standardization and progress in surgical techniques, immunosuppression and post liver transplantation patient care, the outcome of liver transplantation has been optimized. However, the principal limitation of transplantation remains access to an allograft. The number of patients who could derive benefit from liver transplantation markedly exceeds the number of available deceased donors. The large gap between the growing list of patients waiting for liver transplantation and the scarcity of donor organs has fueled efforts to maximize existing donor pool and identify new avenues. This article reviews the changing pattern of donor for liver transplantation using grafts from extended criteria donors (elderly donors, steatotic donors, donors with malignancies, donors with viral hepatitis), donation after cardiac death, use of partial grafts (split liver grafts) and other suboptimal donors (hypernatremia, infections, hypotension and inotropic support).

Postoperative care/critical care of the transplant patient

Critical care of the general surgical patient requires synthesis of the patient's physiology, intraoperative events, and preexisting comorbidities. Evaluating an abdominal solid-organ transplant recipient after surgery adds a new dimension to clinical decisions because the transplanted allograft has undergone its own physiologic challenges and now must adapt to a new environment. This donor-recipient interaction forms the foundation for assessment of early allograft function (EAF). The intensivist must accurately assess and support EAF within the context of the recipient's current physiology and preexisting comorbidities. Optimizing EAF is essential because allograft failure is a significant predictor of recipient morbidity and mortality.

[Liver transplant with donated graft after controlled cardiac death. Current situation]

An increasing pressure on the liver transplant waiting list, forces us to explore new sources, in order to expand the donor pool. One of the most interesting and with a promising potential, is donation after cardiac death (DCD). Initially, this activity has developed in Spain by means of the Maastricht type II donation in the uncontrolled setting. For different reasons, donation after controlled cardiac death has been reconsidered in our country. The most outstanding circumstance involved in DCD donation is a potential ischemic stress, that could cause severe liver graft cell damage, resulting in an adverse effect on liver transplant results, in terms of complications and outcomes. The complex and particular issues related to DCD Donation will be discussed in this review.

Outcomes of transplantation of livers from donation after circulatory death donors in the UK: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Outcomes of liver transplantations from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors may be inferior to those achieved with donation after brain death (DBD) donors. The impact of using DCD donors is likely to depend on specific national practices. We compared risk-adjusted graft loss and recipient mortality after transplantation of DCD and DBD livers in the UK.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study. Multivariable Cox regression and propensity score matching were used to estimate risk-adjusted HR.

SETTING

7 liver transplant centres in the National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England and Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults who received a first elective liver transplant between January 2005 and December 2010 who were identified in the UK Liver Transplant Audit.

INTERVENTIONS

Transplantation of DCD and DBD livers.

OUTCOMES

Graft loss and recipient mortality.

RESULTS

In total, 2572 liver transplants were identified with 352 (14%) from DCD donors. 3-year graft loss (95% CI) was higher with DCD livers (27.3%, 21.8% to 33.9%) than with DBD livers (18.2%, 16.4% to 20.2%). After adjustment with regression, HR for graft loss was 2.3 (1.7 to 3.0). Similarly, 3-year mortality was higher with DCD livers (19.4%, 14.5% to 25.6%) than with DBD livers (14.1%, 12.5% to 16.0%) with an adjusted HR of 2.0 (1.4 to 2.8). Propensity score matching gave similar results. Centre-specific adjusted HRs for graft loss and recipient mortality seemed to differ among transplant centres, although statistical evidence is weak (p value for interaction 0.08 and 0.24, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Graft loss and recipient mortality were about twice as high with DCD livers as with DBD livers in the UK. Outcomes after DCD liver transplantation may vary between centres. These results should inform policies for the use of DCD livers.

Liver transplant using donors after cardiac death: a single-center approach providing outcomes comparable to donation after brain death

OBJECTIVES

Organ donation after cardiac death remains an available resource to meet the demand for transplant. However, concern persists that outcomes associated with donation after cardiac death liver allografts are not equivalent to those obtained with organ donation after brain death. The aim of this matched case control study was to determine if outcomes of liver transplants with donation after cardiac death donors is equivalent to outcomes with donation after brain death donors by controlling for careful donor and recipient selection, surgical technique, and preservation solution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective, matched case control study of adult liver transplant recipients at the University of Tennessee/Methodist University Hospital Transplant Institute, Memphis, Tennessee was performed. Thirty-eight donation after cardiac death recipients were matched 1:2, with 76 donation after brain death recipients by recipient age, recipient laboratory Model for End Stage Liver Disease score, and donor age to form the 2 groups. A comprehensive approach that controlled for careful donor and recipient matching, surgical technique, and preservation solution was used to minimize warm ischemia time, cold ischemia time, and ischemia-reperfusion injury.

RESULTS

Patient and graft survival rates were similar in both groups at 1 and 3 years (P = .444 and P = .295). There was no statistically significant difference in primary nonfunction, vascular complications, or biliary complications. In particular, there was no statistically significant difference in ischemic-type diffuse intrahepatic strictures (P = .107).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide further evidence that excellent patient and graft survival rates expected with liver transplants using organ donation after brain death donors can be achieved with organ donation after cardiac death donors without statistically higher rates of morbidity or mortality when a comprehensive approach that controls for careful donor and recipient matching, surgical technique, and preservation solution is used.

Is liver transplantation using organs donated after cardiac death cost-effective or does it decrease waitlist death by increasing recipient death?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness in liver transplantation (LT) of utilizing organs donated after cardiac death (DCD) compared with organs donated after brain death (DBD).

METHODS

A Markov-based decision analytic model was created to compare two LT waitlist strategies distinguished by organ type: (i) DBD organs only, and (ii) DBD and DCD organs. The model simulated outcomes for patients over 10 years with annual cycles through one of four health states: survival; ischaemic cholangiopathy; retransplantation, and death. Baseline values and ranges were determined from an extensive literature review. Sensitivity analyses tested model strength and parameter variability.

RESULTS

Overall survival is decreased, and biliary complications and retransplantation are increased in recipients of DCD livers. Recipients of DBD livers gained 5.6 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of US$69 000/QALY, whereas recipients on the DBD + DCD LT waitlist gained 6.0 QALYs at a cost of US$61 000/QALY. The DBD + DCD organ strategy was superior to the DBD organ-only strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

The extension of life and quality of life provided by DCD LT to patients on the waiting list who might otherwise not receive a liver transplant makes the continued use of DCD livers cost-effective.

Endoscopic management of biliary complications following liver transplantation after donation from cardiac death donors

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown a higher incidence of biliary complications following donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplantation compared with donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplantation. The endoscopic management of ischemic type biliary strictures in patients who have undergone DCD liver transplants needs to be characterized further.

METHODS

A retrospective institutional review of all patients who underwent DCD liver transplant from January 2006 to September 2011 was performed. These patients were compared with all patients who underwent DBD liver transplantation in the same time period. A descriptive analysis of all DCD patients who developed biliary complications and their subsequent endoscopic management was also performed.

RESULTS

Of the 36 patients who received DCD liver transplants, 25% developed biliary complications compared with 13% of patients who received DBD liver transplants (P=0.062). All DCD allograft recipients who developed biliary complications became symptomatic within three months of transplantation. Ischemic type biliary strictures in DCD allograft recipients included disseminated biliary strictures in two patients, biliary strictures of the hepatic duct bifurcation in three patients and biliary strictures of the donor common hepatic duct in three patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a trend toward increasing incidence of total biliary complications in recipients of DCD liver allografts compared with those receiving DBD livers, and the rate of diffuse ischemic cholangiopathy was significantly higher. Focal ischemic type biliary strictures can be treated effectively in DCD liver transplant recipients with favourable results. Diffuse ischemic type biliary strictures in DCD liver transplant recipients ultimately requires retransplantation.

Donation after cardiac death: where, when, and how?

The continuing shortage of donors has led to the increasing use of marginal grafts. Surgical techniques such as split, domino, and living donations have not been able to decrease waiting list mortality. Donation after cardiac death (DCD) was the only source of grafts prior to the establishment of brain death criteria in 1968. Thereafter, donation after brain death emerged as the leading source of grafts. The context in which irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions happens was the cornerstone to definite the four categories of DCD by the First International Workshop on DCD held in Maastricht in 1995. Controlled (CDCD) and uncontrolled (UDCD) categories now account for 10%-20% of the donor pool in several countries. Despite initial high rates of primary nonfunction and ischemic-type biliary lesions, refinements in protocols and surgical techniques have led to excellent 1- and 3-year graft survivals of 80% and 70%, respectively with PNF and ITBL rates below 3%. The institution of UDCD and CDCD depends on legal considerations of presumed consent and withdrawal of maneuvers, respectively. The potential for DCD programs is huge; it may be the only real, effective way to increase the grafts pool, both in adult and pediatric populations. Recent advances in perfusion machines will surely optimize this donor pool and allow new therapies for graft resuscitation.

Donation after cardio-circulatory death liver transplantation

The renewed interest in donation after cardio-circulatory death (DCD) started in the 1990s following the limited success of the transplant community to expand the donation after brain-death (DBD) organ supply and following the request of potential DCD families. Since then, DCD organ procurement and transplantation activities have rapidly expanded, particularly for non-vital organs, like kidneys. In liver transplantation (LT), DCD donors are a valuable organ source that helps to decrease the mortality rate on the waiting lists and to increase the availability of organs for transplantation despite a higher risk of early graft dysfunction, more frequent vascular and ischemia-type biliary lesions, higher rates of re-listing and re-transplantation and lower graft survival, which are obviously due to the inevitable warm ischemia occurring during the declaration of death and organ retrieval process. Experimental strategies intervening in both donors and recipients at different phases of the transplantation process have focused on the attenuation of ischemia-reperfusion injury and already gained encouraging results, and some of them have found their way from pre-clinical success into clinical reality. The future of DCD-LT is promising. Concerted efforts should concentrate on the identification of suitable donors (probably Maastricht category III DCD donors), better donor and recipient matching (high risk donors to low risk recipients), use of advanced organ preservation techniques (oxygenated hypothermic machine perfusion, normothermic machine perfusion, venous systemic oxygen persufflation), and pharmacological modulation (probably a multi-factorial biologic modulation strategy) so that DCD liver allografts could be safely utilized and attain equivalent results as DBD-LT.

Resource implications of expanding the use of donation after circulatory determination of death in liver transplantation

In the United Kingdom, liver transplantation using donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD) organs has increased steadily over the last few years and now accounts for 20% of UK transplant activity. The procurement of DCDD livers is actively promoted as a means of increasing the donor pool and bridging the evolving disparity between the wait-list length and the number of transplants performed. The objective of this retrospective study of a cohort of patients who were matched for age, liver disease etiology, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was to determine whether differences in perioperative costs and resource utilization are associated with the use of such organs. Our results showed an increased prevalence of reperfusion syndrome in the DCDD cohort (P < 0.001), a prolonged heparin effect (P = 0.01), a greater incidence of hyperfibrinolysis (P = 0.002), longer periods of postoperative ventilator use (P = 0.03) and vasopressor support (P = 0.002), and a prolonged length of stay in the intensive therapy unit (ITU; P = 0.02). The peak posttransplant aspartate aminotransferase level was higher in the DCDD group (P = 0.007), and there was significantly more graft failure at 12 months (P = 0.03). In conclusion, we have demonstrated different perioperative and early postoperative courses for DCDD and donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplants. The overall quality of DCDD grafts is poorer; as a result, the length of the ITU stay and the need for multiorgan support are increased, and this has significant financial and resource implications. We believe that these implications require a careful real-life consideration of benefits. It is essential for DCDD not to be seen as a like-for-like alternative to DBD and for every effort to be continued to be made to increase the number of donations from brain-dead patients as a first resort.

Comparative effectiveness of donation after cardiac death versus donation after brain death liver transplantation: Recognizing who can benefit

Due to organ scarcity and wait-list mortality, transplantation of donation after cardiac death (DCD) livers has increased. However, the group of patients benefiting from DCD liver transplantation is unknown. We studied the comparative effectiveness of DCD versus donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplantation. A Markov model was constructed to compare undergoing DCD transplantation with remaining on the wait-list until death or DBD liver transplantation. Differences in life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs according to candidate Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score were considered. A separate model for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with and without MELD exception points was constructed. For patients with a MELD score <15, DCD transplantation resulted in greater costs and reduced effectiveness. Patients with a MELD score of 15 to 20 experienced an improvement in effectiveness (0.07 QALYs) with DCD liver transplantation, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was >$2,000,000/QALY. Patients with MELD scores of 21 to 30 (0.25 QALYs) and >30 (0.83 QALYs) also benefited from DCD transplantation with ICERs of $478,222/QALY and $120,144/QALY, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated stable results for MELD scores <15 and >20, but the preferred strategy for the MELD 15 to 20 category was uncertain. DCD transplantation was associated with increased costs and reduced survival for HCC patients with exception points but led to improved survival (0.26 QALYs) at a cost of $392,067/QALY for patients without exception points. In conclusion, DCD liver transplantation results in inferior survival for patients with a MELD score <15 and HCC patients receiving MELD exception points, but provides a survival benefit to patients with a MELD score >20 and to HCC patients without MELD exception points.

Liver transplantation with donation after cardiac death donors: a comprehensive update

BACKGROUND

Use of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors has been proposed as an effective way to expand the availability of hepatic allografts used in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT); yet, there remains no consensus in the medical literature as to how to choose optimal recipients and donors based on available information.

METHODS

We queried the United Network of Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database for hepatic DCD allografts used in OLT. As of March 31, 2011, 85,148 patients received hepatic allografts from donation-after-brain-death (DBD) donors, and 2351 patients received hepatic allografts from DCD donors. We performed survival analysis using log-rank and Kaplan-Meier tests. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses using the Cox proportional hazards model. All statistics were performed with SPSS 15.0.

RESULTS

Patients receiving hepatic DCD allografts had significantly worse survival compared with patients receiving hepatic DBD allografts. Pediatric patients who received a hepatic DCD allograft had similar survival to those who received a hepatic DBD allograft. The optimal recipient-related characteristics were age <50 y, International Normalized Ratio <2.0, albumin >3.5 gm/dL, and cold ischemia time <8 h; optimal donor-related characteristics included age <50 y and donor warm ischemia time <20 min.

CONCLUSIONS

By identifying certain characteristics, the transplant clinician's decision-making process can be assisted so that similar survival outcomes after OLT can be achieved with the use of hepatic DCD allografts.

Development of organ-specific donor risk indices

Because of the shortage of deceased donor organs, transplant centers accept organs from marginal deceased donors, including older donors. Organ-specific donor risk indices have been developed to predict graft survival with various combinations of donor and recipient characteristics. Here we review the kidney donor risk index (KDRI) and the liver donor risk index (LDRI) and compare and contrast their strengths, limitations, and potential uses. The KDRI has a potential role in developing new kidney allocation algorithms. The LDRI allows a greater appreciation of the importance of donor factors, particularly for hepatitis C virus-positive recipients; as the donor risk index increases, the rates of allograft and patient survival among these recipients decrease disproportionately. The use of livers with high donor risk indices is associated with increased hospital costs that are independent of recipient risk factors, and the transplantation of livers with high donor risk indices into patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores < 15 is associated with lower allograft survival; the use of the LDRI has limited this practice. Significant regional variations in donor quality, as measured by the LDRI, remain in the United States. We also review other potential indices for liver transplantation, including donor-recipient matching and the retransplant donor risk index. Although substantial progress has been made in developing donor risk indices to objectively assess donor variables that affect transplant outcomes, continued efforts are warranted to improve these indices to enhance organ allocation policies and optimize allograft survival.

Liver transplantation using Donation after Cardiac Death donors

The success of solid organ transplantation has brought about burgeoning waiting lists with insufficient donation rates and substantial waiting list mortality. All countries have strived to expand donor numbers beyond the standard Donation after Brain Death (DBD). This has lead to the utilization of Donation after Cardiac Death (DCD) donors, also frequently referred to as Non-Heart Beating Donors (NHBD). Organs from these donors inevitably sustain warm ischaemic damage which varies in its extent and affects early graft function as well as graft survival. As a consequence, 'non-vital' organs such as renal transplants have increased rapidly from DCD donors but more 'vital' organ transplants such as the liver have lagged behind. However, an increasing proportion of liver transplants are now derived from DCD donors. This article covers this expansion, current results, pitfalls, and steps taken to minimize complications and to improve outcome, and future developments that are likely to occur.

Biliary complications after liver transplantation using grafts from donors after cardiac death: results from a matched control study in a single large volume center

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence and impact of biliary complications in recipients transplanted from donors after cardiac death (DCD) at one single large institution.

BACKGROUND

Shortage of available cadaveric organs is a significant limiting factor in liver transplantation (LT). The use of DCD offers the potential to increase the organ pool. However, early results with DCD liver grafts were associated with a greater incidence of ischemic cholangiopathy (IC), leading to several programs to abandoning this source of organs.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospective database from April 2001 to 2010 focused on 167 consecutive DCD-LT. Each DCD transplant was matched with 2 brain death donors (DBD) grafts (n = 333) according to the period of transplantation. Primary outcome measures were biliary complications including the severity of complications, graft survival and patient survival. Minimum follow-up was 3 months.

RESULTS

Anastomotic stricture was the most common biliary complication (DCD = 30, 19% vs. DBD = 41, 13%). Most were treated endocoscopically (grade IIIa = 72%), whereas hepatico-jejunostomy (grade IIIb) was performed in 22%. Primary IC occurred in 4 (2.5%) recipients from the DCD group and was absent in the DBD group (P = 0.005). However, none of these patients required retransplantation. Patient and graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years were similar between DCD and DBD groups (P = 0.106, P = 0.138, P = 0.113, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The encouraging results with DCD-LT are probably due to the selection of DCD grafts and clear definition of warm ischemia.

Validation of the donor risk index in orthotopic liver transplantation within the Eurotransplant region

In Eurotransplant, more than 50% of liver allografts come from extended criteria donors (ECDs). However, not every ECD is the same. The limits of their use are being explored. A continuous scoring system for analyzing donor risk has been developed within the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), the Donor Risk Index (DRI). The objective of this study was the validation of this donor risk index (DRI) in Eurotransplant. The study was a database analysis of all 5939 liver transplants involving deceased donors and adult recipients from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007 in Eurotransplant. Data were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models. Follow-up data were available for 5723 patients with a median follow up of 2.5 years. The mean DRI was remarkably higher in the Eurotransplant region versus OPTN (1.71 versus 1.45), and this indicated different donor populations. Nevertheless, we were able to validate the DRI for the Eurotransplant region. Kaplan-Meier curves per DRI category showed a significant correlation between the DRI and outcomes (P < 0.001). A multivariate analysis demonstrated that the DRI was the most significant factor influencing outcomes (P < 0.001). Among all donor, transplant, and recipient variables, the DRI was the strongest predictor of outcomes.

Events in procurement as risk factors for ischemic cholangiopathy in liver transplantation using donation after cardiac death donors

The use of donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver grafts is controversial because of the overall increased rates of graft loss and morbidity, which are mostly related to the consequences of ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). In this study, we sought to determine the factors leading to graft loss and the development of IC and to compare patient and graft survival rates for recipients of DCD liver grafts and recipients of donation after brain death (DBD) liver grafts in a large series at a single transplant center. Two hundred liver transplants with DCD donors were performed between 1998 and 2010 at Mayo Clinic Florida. Logistic regression models were used in the univariate and multivariate analyses of predictors for the development of IC. Additional analyses using Cox regression models were performed to identify predictors of graft survival and to compare outcomes for DCD and DBD graft recipients. In our series, the patient survival rates for the DCD and DBD groups at 1, 3, and 5 years was 92.6%, 85%, and 80.9% and 89.8%, 83.0%, and 76.6%, respectively (P = not significant). The graft survival rates for the DCD and DBD groups at 1, 3, and 5 years were 80.9%, 72.7%, and 68.9% and 83.3%, 75.1%, and 68.6%, respectively (P = not significant). In the DCD group, 5 patients (2.5%) had primary nonfunction, 7 patients (3.5%) had hepatic artery thrombosis, and 3 patients (1.5%) experienced hepatic necrosis. IC was diagnosed in 24 patients (12%), and 11 of these patients (5.5%) required retransplantation. In the multivariate analysis, the asystole-to-cross clamp duration [odds ratio = 1.161, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.021-1.321] and African American recipient race (odds ratio = 5.374, 95% CI = 1.368-21.103) were identified as significant factors for predicting the development of IC (P < 0.05). This study has established a link between the development of IC and the asystole-to-cross clamp duration. Procurement techniques that prolong the nonperfusion period increase the risk for the development of IC in DCD liver grafts.

Donation after cardiac death: a 29-year experience

OBJECTIVE

To report the long-term outcomes of 1218 organs transplanted from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors from January 1980 through December 2008.

METHODS

One-thousand two-hundred-eighteen organs were transplanted into 1137 recipients from 577 DCD donors. This includes 1038 kidneys (RTX), 87 livers (LTX), 72 pancreas (PTX), and 21 DCD lungs. The outcomes were compared with 3470 RTX, 1157 LTX, 903 PTX, and 409 lung transplants from donors after brain death (DBD).

RESULTS

Both patient and graft survival is comparable between DBD and DCD transplant recipients for kidney, pancreas, and lung after 1, 3, and 10 years. Our findings reveal a significant difference for patient and graft survival of DCD livers at each of these time points. In contrast to the overall kidney transplant experience, the most recent 16-year period (n = 396 DCD and 1,937 DBD) revealed no difference in patient and graft survival, rejection rates, or surgical complications but delayed graft function was higher (44.7% vs 22.0%; P < .001). In DCD LTX, biliary complications (51% vs 33.4%; P < .01) and retransplantation for ischemic cholangiopathy (13.9% vs 0.2%; P < .01) were increased. PTX recipients had no difference in surgical complications, rejection, and hemoglobin A1c levels. Surgical complications were equivalent between DCD and DBD lung recipients.

CONCLUSION

This series represents the largest single center experience with more than 1000 DCD transplants and given the critical demand for organs, demonstrates successful kidney, pancreas, liver, and lung allografts from DCD donors.

A comprehensive risk assessment of mortality following donation after cardiac death liver transplant - an analysis of the national registry

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Organ scarcity has resulted in increased utilization of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors. Prior analysis of patient survival following DCD liver transplantation has been restricted to single institution cohorts and a limited national experience. We compared the current national experience with DCD and DBD livers to better understand survival after transplantation.

METHODS

We compared 1113 DCD and 42,254 DBD recipients from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database between 1996 and 2007. Patient survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier methodology and Cox regression.

RESULTS

DCD recipients experienced worse patient survival compared to DBD recipients (p<0.001). One and 3 year survival was 82% and 71% for DCD compared to 86% and 77% for DBD recipients. Moreover, DCD recipients required re-transplantation more frequently (DCD 14.7% vs. DBD 6.8%, p<0.001), and re-transplantation survival was markedly inferior to survival after primary transplant irrespective of graft type. Amplification of mortality risk was observed when DCD was combined with cold ischemia time >12h (HR = 1.81), shared organs (HR = 1.69), recipient hepatocellular carcinoma (HR=1.80), recipient age >60 years (HR = 1.92), and recipient renal insufficiency (HR = 1.82).

CONCLUSIONS

DCD recipients experience significantly worse patient survival after transplantation. This increased risk of mortality is comparable in magnitude to, but often exacerbated by other well-established risk predictors. Utilization decisions should carefully consider DCD graft risks in combination with these other factors.

Liver transplantation in the 21st century: expanding the donor options

Over the past decade, use of ECD organs for OLT has allowed many transplant programs to afford patients access to an otherwise scarce resource and to maintain center volume. Although overall posttransplant outcomes are inferior to results with optimal, whole-liver grafts, aggressive utilization of ECD and DCD organs significantly lowers median wait-times for OLT, MELD score at OLT, and death while awaiting transplantation. It is incumbent on the transplant community to provide continued scrutiny of the many factors involved in ECD organ utilization, evaluate the degree of risk and benefit such allografts may impart on particular recipients, and thereby provide suitable “matching” to maximize favorable outcomes. Transplant caregivers need to provide patients with evidence-based care decisions, be good stewards of a scarce resource, and maintain threshold survival results for their programs. This requires balancing the urgency with which a transplant is needed and the utility of such a transplant. There is a clear necessity to pursue additional donor research to improve use of these marginal grafts and assess interventions that enhance the safety of ECD livers.

The impact of variation in donation after cardiac death policies among donor hospitals: a regional analysis

The Joint Commission requires all hospitals have a policy regarding donation after cardiac death. To this date however, a quantitative analysis of adult hospital donation after cardiac death (DCD) policies and its impact on transplantation outcomes has not been reported. Specific characteristics for DCD polices were identified from 90 of the 164 (54.9%) hospitals within the New England Organ Bank's donor service area. Forty-five policies (50.0%) allow family members to be present during withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST) whereas eight (8.9%) prohibit this. Seventeen policies (18.9%) require WLST to occur in the operating room (OR); 20 (22.2%) specify a location outside of the OR. Fifty-six (62.2%) policies fail to state the method of determining death; however, some require arterial line (15 policies, 16.6%) and/or EKG (10 policies, 11.1%). These variables were not associated with organ recovery, utilization or donor ischemia time. Our regional analysis highlights the high degree of variability of hospital DCD policies, which may contribute to misunderstanding and confusion among providers and patients that may influence acceptance of this mode of donation.

Use of liver grafts from donation after cardiac death donors for recipients with hepatitis C virus

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is the most common indication for orthotopic liver transplantation in the United States. Although studies have addressed the use of expanded criteria donor organs in HCV(+) patients, to date the use of liver grafts from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors in HCV(+) patients has been addressed by only a limited number of studies. This retrospective analysis was undertaken to study the outcomes of DCD liver grafts used in HCV(+) recipients. Seventy-seven HCV(+) patients who received DCD liver grafts were compared to 77 matched HCV(+) patients who received donation after brain death (DBD) liver grafts and 77 unmatched non-HCV patients who received DCD liver grafts. There were no differences in 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient or graft survival among the groups. Multivariate analysis showed that the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.037, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.006-1.069, P = 0.018] and posttransplant cytomegalovirus infection (HR = 3.367, 95% CI = 1.493-7.593, P = 0.003) were significant factors for graft loss. A comparison of the HCV(+) groups for fibrosis progression based on protocol biopsy samples up to 5 years post-transplant did not show any difference; in multivariate analysis, HCV genotype 1 was the only factor that affected progression to stage 2 fibrosis (genotype 1 versus non-1 genotypes: HR = 2.739, 95% CI = 1.047-7.143, P = 0.040). In conclusion, this match-controlled, retrospective analysis demonstrates that DCD liver graft utilization does not cause untoward effects on disease progression or patient and graft survival in comparison with DBD liver grafts in HCV(+) patients.

Ischemic cholangiopathy after controlled donation after cardiac death liver transplantation: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analysis to enhance understanding of the risks of biliary complications, particularly ischemic cholangiopathy (IC), after donation after cardiac death (DCD) compared with donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND

Biliary complications after liver transplantation have profound health and economic implications which merit further investigation.

METHODS

The MEDLINE (1950–2009), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched and supplemented by review of conference proceedings and publication bibliographies. All original single institution studies reporting outcomes for DCD and DBD liver transplant recipients were considered. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on random effects models were calculated.

RESULTS

Eleven publications, all retrospective cohort studies, involving 489 DCD and 4455 DBD recipients, were included. Donation after cardiac death recipients had a 2.4 times increased odds of biliary complications (95% CI= 1.8–3.4) and a 10.8 times increased odds of IC (95% CI = 4.8–24.2).Ischemic cholangiopathy was present in 16% of DCD compared with 3% of DBD recipients. Donation after cardiac death recipients also experienced higher odds of 1-year patient mortality (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.04–2.5) and graft failure (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.5–2.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Donation after cardiac death liver transplantation is marred by inferior outcomes including higher rates of biliary complications and IC as well as increased mortality and graft failure. Despite current federal mandates to increase DCD donation, these serious complications translate into poor outcomes for individuals and increased healthcare costs. These risks should be considered in decisions regarding the utilization of these grafts.

Simultaneous liver and kidney transplantation using donation after cardiac death donors: a brief report

Although the use of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donor organs has been shown to be a viable option for liver and kidney transplant recipients, outcomes after simultaneous liver and kidney (SLK) transplantation using DCD donors are less clear. We performed a retrospective analysis of 37 adult, primary SLK transplants performed at our center between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2008. Thirty-two patients received donation after brain death (DBD) organs, and 5 patients received DCD organs. SLK recipients in the 2 groups were similar with respect to age, gender, race, body mass index, donor race, and donor body mass index. The calculated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores and pretransplant glomerular filtration rates were similar between the groups. DCD donors were younger and had shorter liver cold ischemia times. The median DCD donor warm ischemia time was 19.0 minutes (6.0-25.0 minutes). The recipient surgical times and hospital lengths of stay were comparable between the groups. Delayed graft function was more frequent in DCD renal allografts (80% versus 31%, P = 0.06). The 1-year graft survival rates for liver allografts (100% for the DCD group versus 94% for the DBD group) and kidney allografts (100% for the DCD group versus 94% for the DBD group) were similar. In conclusion, patients undergoing DCD SLK transplantation have comparable 1-year patient and graft survival rates and acceptable perioperative morbidity in comparison with DBD SLK transplant recipients. Although long-term outcomes remain unknown, the utilization of DCD organs for SLK transplantation should be considered a valid approach to safely expanding the donor organ pool.

Current challenges in liver transplantation following donation after cardiac death

There is a resurgence of interest in liver transplantation using donation after cardiac death (DCD) donor livers. Careful donor and recipient selection can result in excellent outcomes, but injury to the biliary system remains a serious challenge to DCD liver transplantation. This mini review addresses the current challenges to DCD liver transplantation.