Improving National Results in Liver Transplantation Using Grafts From Donation After Cardiac Death Donors

Impact of County Health Rankings on Nationwide Liver Transplant Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There is limited information concerning whether social determinants of health affect postliver transplant (LT) outcomes. This study aims to understand to what extent the health of LT recipients' counties of residence influence long-term LT outcomes.

METHODS

We used the United Network for Organ Sharing data to identify adult LT recipients transplanted between January 2010 and June 2018. Patient-level data were matched to county-level County Health Ranking (CHR) data using transplant recipient zip code, and nationwide CHRs were created. Mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine associations between CHRs and graft and patient survival post-LT.

RESULTS

Health outcomes rank was significantly associated with posttransplant graft and patient survival, with worst tertile counties showing a 13% increased hazard of both graft failure and patient mortality compared to the best tertile counties.

CONCLUSIONS

Although county health is associated with LT outcomes, it also appears that LT recipient selection is effective at mitigating major disparities based on county of residence and helps yield equitable outcomes in this respect.

Liver transplant after donation from controlled circulatory death versus brain death: A UNOS database analysis and publication bias adjusted meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is an increasingly utilized alternative to donation after brain death (DBD) to expand the liver donor pool. We compared the outcomes of liver transplant (LT) after DCD versus DBD.

METHODS

A PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review was performed using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases (end-of-search-date: July 2, 2020). US outcomes were analyzed using the UNOS database (February, 2002-September, 2020). Pooled hazard ratios (HR) for patient and graft survival were obtained through random effect meta-analyses and adjusted for publication bias.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies reporting on 1426 DCD and 5385 DBD LT recipients were included. 5620 DCD and 87561 DBD LT recipients were analyzed from the UNOS database. Meta-analysis showed increased risk of patient mortality for DCD (HR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.09-1.70; P = .01; I²  = 53.6%). When adjusted for publication bias, meta-analysis showed no difference in patient survival between DCD and DBD (HR = 1.15; 95%CI, .91-1.45; P = .25; I²  = 61.5%). Meta-analysis showed increased risk of graft loss for DCD (HR = 1.50; 95%CI, 1.20-1.88; P < .001; I²  = 67.8%). When adjusted for publication bias, meta-analysis showed a reduction in effect size (HR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.06-1.74; P = .02; I²  = 73.5%).

CONCLUSION

When adjusted for publication bias, no difference was identified between DCD and DBD regarding patient survival, while DCD was associated with an increased risk of graft loss.

Recommendations for Donor and Recipient Selection and Risk Prediction: Working Group Report From the ILTS Consensus Conference in DCD Liver Transplantation

Although the utilization of donation after circulatory death donors (DCDs) for liver transplantation (LT) has increased steadily, much controversy remains, and no common acceptance criteria exist with regard to donor and recipient risk factors and prediction models. A consensus conference was organized by International Liver Transplantation Society on January 31, 2020, in Venice, Italy, to review the current clinical practice worldwide regarding DCD-LT and to develop internationally accepted guidelines. The format of the conference was based on the grade system. International experts in this field were allocated to 6 working groups and prepared evidence-based recommendations to answer-specific questions considering the currently available literature. Working group members and conference attendees served as jury to edit and confirm the final recommendations presented at the end of the conference by each working group separately. This report presents the final statements and recommendations provided by working group 2, covering the entire spectrum of donor and recipient risk factors and prediction models in DCD-LT.

Early Allograft Dysfunction and Complications in DCD Liver Transplantation: Expert Consensus Statements From the International Liver Transplantation Society

Livers for transplantation from donation after circulatory death donors are relatively more prone to early and ongoing alterations in graft function that might ultimately lead to graft loss and even patient death. In consideration of this fact, this working group of the International Liver Transplantation Society has performed a critical evaluation of the medical literature to create a set of statements regarding the assessment of early allograft function/dysfunction and complications arising in the setting of donation after circulatory death liver transplantation.

Reexamining Risk Aversion: Willingness to Pursue and Utilize Nonideal Donor Livers Among US Donation Service Areas

Background

Livers from "nonideal" but acceptable donors are underutilized; however, organ procurement organization (OPO) metrics do not assess how OPO-specific practices contribute to these trends. In this analysis, we evaluated nonideal liver donor avoidance or risk aversion among OPOs and within US donation service areas (DSAs).

Methods

Adult donors in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry who donated ≥1 organ for transplantation between 2007 and 2019 were included. Nonideal donors were defined by any of the following: age > 70, hepatitis C seropositive, body mass index > 40, donation after circulatory death, or history of malignancy. OPO-specific performance was evaluated based on rates of nonideal donor pursuit and consent attainment. DSA performance (OPO + transplant centers) was evaluated based on rates of nonideal donor pursuit, consent attainment, liver recovery, and transplantation. Lower rates were considered to represent increased donor avoidance or increased risk aversion.

Results

Of 97 911 donors, 31 799 (32.5%) were nonideal. Unadjusted OPO-level rates of nonideal donor pursuit ranged from 88% to 100%. In a 5-tier system of overall risk aversion, tier 5 DSAs (least risk-averse) and tier 1 DSAs (most risk-averse) had the highest and lowest respective rates of non-ideal donor pursuit, consent attainment, liver recovery, and transplantation. On average, recovery rates were over 25% higher among tier 5 versus tier 1 DSAs. If tier 1 DSAs had achieved the same average liver recovery rate as tier 5 DSAs, approximately 2100 additional livers could have been recovered during the study period.

Conclusion

Most OPOs aggressively pursue nonideal liver donors; however, recovery practices vary widely among DSAs. Fair OPO evaluations should consider early donation process stages to best disentangle OPO and center-level practices.

Conditional probability of graft survival in liver transplantation using donation after circulatory death grafts - a retrospective study

The use of livers from donation after circulatory death (DCD) is historically characterized by increased rates of biliary complications and inferior short-term graft survival (GS) compared to donation after brain death (DBD) allografts. This study aimed to evaluate the dynamic prognostic impact of DCD livers to reveal whether they remain an adverse factor even after patients survive a certain period following liver transplant (LT). This study used 74 961 LT patients including 4065 DCD LT in the scientific registry of transplant recipients from 2002-2017. The actual, 1 and 3-year conditional hazard ratio (HR) of 1-year GS in DCD LT were calculated using a conditional version of Cox regression model. The actual 1-, 3-, and 5-year GS of DCD LT recipients were 83.3%, 73.3%, and 66.3%, which were significantly worse than those of DBD (all P < 0.01). Actual, 1-, and 3-year conditional HR of 1-year GS in DCD compared to DBD livers were 1.87, 1.49, and 1.39, respectively. Graft loss analyses showed that those lost to biliary related complications were significantly higher in the DCD group even 3 years after LT. National registry data demonstrate the protracted higher risks inherent to DCD liver grafts in comparison to their DBD counterparts, despite survival through the early period after LT. These findings underscore the importance of judicious DCD graft selection at individual center level to minimize the risk of long-term biliary complications.

Outcomes in Living Donor Compared With Deceased Donor Primary Liver Transplantation in Lower Acuity Patients With Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Scores <30

Although recent studies have reported favorable outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), it remains unclear which populations benefit most from LDLT. This study aims to evaluate LDLT outcomes compared with deceased donor LT (DDLT) according to Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score categories. Using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry, outcomes were compared between 1486 LDLTs; 13,568 donation after brain death (DBD)-DDLTs; and 1171 donation after circulatory death (DCD)-DDLTs between 2009 and 2018. Because LDLT for patients with MELD scores >30 was rare, all patients with scores >30 were excluded to equalize LDLT and DDLT cohorts. Risk factors for 1-year graft loss (GL) were determined separately for LDLT and DDLT. Compared with LDLT, DBD-DDLT had a lower risk of 30-day (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.60; P < 0.001) and 1-year GL (aHR, 0.57; P < 0.001). The lower risk of GL was more prominent in the mid-MELD score category (score 15-29). Compared with LDLT, DCD-DDLT had a lower risk of 30-day GL but a comparable risk of 1-year GL, regardless of MELD score category. In LDLT, significant ascites was an independent risk for GL in patients with mid-MELD scores (aHR, 1.68; P = 0.02), but not in the lower-MELD score group. The risk of 1-year GL in LDLT patients with ascites who received a left liver was higher than either those who received a right liver or those without ascites who received a left liver. In LDLT, combinations of MELD scores of 15 to 29, moderate/severe ascites, and the use of a left liver are associated with worse outcomes. These findings help calibrate appropriate patient and graft selection in LDLT.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma using grafts from uncontrolled circulatory death donation

Controversy exists regarding whether the rate of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) differs when using livers from donation after controlled circulatory death (DCD) versus livers from donation after brain death (DBD). The aim of this cohort study was to analyze rates of HCC recurrence, patient survival, and graft survival after OLT for HCC, comparing recipients of DBD livers (n = 103) with recipients of uncontrolled DCD livers (uDCD; n = 41). No significant differences in tumor size, tumor number, serum alpha-fetoprotein, proportion of patients within Milan criteria, or pre-OLT bridging therapies were identified between groups, although the waitlist period was significantly shorter in the uDCD group (p = 0.040). HCC recurrence was similar between groups. Patient survival was similar between groups, but graft survival was lower in the uDCD group. Multivariate analysis identified recipient age (p = 0.031), pre-OLT bridging therapy (p = 0.024), and HCC recurrence (p = 0.048) as independent risk factors for patient survival and pre-OLT transarterial chemoembolization (p = 0.045) as the single risk factor for HCC recurrence. In conclusion, similar patient survival and lower graft survival were observed in the uDCD group. However, the use of uDCD livers appears to be justified due to a shorter waitlist time, and lower waitlist dropout and HCC recurrence rates.

Thrombolytic Therapy During ex-vivo Normothermic Machine Perfusion of Human Livers Reduces Peribiliary Vascular Plexus Injury

Background: A major limitation in expanding the use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers in transplantation is the increased risk of graft failure secondary to ischemic cholangiopathy. Warm ischemia causes thrombosis and injury to the peribiliary vascular plexus (PVP), which is supplied by branches of the hepatic artery, causing higher rates of biliary complications in DCD allografts.

Aims/Objectives: We aimed to recondition discarded DCD livers with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) while on normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) to improve PVP blood flow and reduce biliary injury.

Methods: Five discarded DCD human livers underwent 12 h of NMP. Plasminogen was circulated in the base perfusate prior to initiation of perfusion and 1 mg/kg of tPA was administered through the hepatic artery at T = 0.5 h. Two livers were split prior to perfusion (S1, S2), with tPA administered in one lobe, while the other served as a control. The remaining three whole livers (W1-W3) were compared to seven DCD control liver perfusions (C1-C7) with similar hepatocellular and biliary viability criteria. D-dimer levels were measured at T = 1 h to verify efficacy of tPA. Lactate, total bile production, bile pH, and difference in biliary injury scores before and after perfusion were compared between tPA and non-tPA groups using unpaired, Mann-Whitney tests.

Results: Average weight-adjusted D-dimer levels were higher in tPA livers in the split and whole-liver model, verifying drug function. There were no differences in perfusion hepatic artery resistance, portal vein resistance, and arterial lactate between tPA livers and non-tPA livers in both the split and whole-liver model. However, when comparing biliary injury between hepatocellular and biliary non-viable whole livers, tPA livers had significantly lower PVP injury scores (0.67 vs. 2.0) and mural stroma (MS) injury scores (1.3 vs. 2.7).

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that administration of tPA into DCD livers during NMP can reduce PVP and MS injury. Further studies are necessary to assess the effect of tPA administration on long term biliary complications.

Comparable graft survival is achievable with the usage of donation after circulatory death liver grafts from donors at or above 70 years of age: A long-term UK national analysis

The aim of the study was to assess the UK donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplant experience from donors ≥70 years. Nationwide UK DCD retrospective analysis was conducted between 2001 and 2015 (n = 1163). Recipients were divided into group 1 vs. group 2 (donors 70≥ vs. <70 years, respectively). group 1 (n = 69, 5.9%) recipients were older (median 59 vs. 55 years, p = .001) and had longer waitlist time (128 vs. 84 days; p = .039). 94.2% of group 1 clustered in London and Birmingham, where the two busiest centers are located. group 1 allografts had higher UKDRI and UK DCD Risk Scores but similar WIT and CIT and were more likely to have been imported. Both groups had similar 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival (group 1, 90%, 81.4%, and 74% vs. group 2, 88.6%, 81.4%, and 78.6%, respectively; p = .54). Both groups had similar ICU stay length (p = .22), 3-month hepatic artery thrombosis rates (4.4% vs 4.0%; p = .9), and 12-month readmission rates for all biliary complications (20.3% vs 25.7%; p = .32). This study demonstrates that acceptable outcomes are achievable using older grafts in a highly selected cohort at experienced centers. Advanced age should not be an absolute contraindication to utilizing a DCD graft from donors aged ≥70 years.

Donation after circulatory death liver transplantation: An in-depth analysis and propensity score-matched comparison

BACKGROUND

Careful donor-recipient matching and reduced ischemia times have improved outcomes following donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT). This study examines a single-center experience with DCD LT including high-acuity and hospitalized recipients.

METHODS

DCD LT outcomes were compared to a propensity score-matched (PSM) donation after brain death (DBD) LT cohort (1:4); 32 DCD LT patients and 128 PSM DBD LT patients transplanted from 2008 to 2018 were included. Analyses included Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models examining patient and graft survival.

RESULTS

Median MELD score in the DCD LT cohort was 22, with median MELD of 27 for DCD LT recipients with decompensated cirrhosis. No difference in mortality or graft loss was found (p < .05) between DCD LT and PSM DBD LT at 3 years post-transplant, nor was DCD an independent risk factor for patient or graft survival. Post-LT severe acute kidney injury was similar in both groups. Ischemic-type biliary lesions (ITBL) occurred in 6.3% (n = 2) of DCD LT recipients, resulting in 1 graft loss and 1 death.

CONCLUSION

This study supports that DCD LT outcomes can be similar to DBD LT, with a low rate of ITBL, in a cohort including high-acuity recipients. Strict donor selection criteria, ischemia time minimization, and avoiding futile donor/recipient combinations are essential considerations.

Evolving utilization of donation after circulatory death livers in liver transplantation: The day of DCD has come

Compared to donation after brain death (DBD), livers procured for transplantation from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors experience more ischemia-reperfusion injury and higher rates of ischemic cholangiopathy due to the period of warm ischemic time (WIT) following withdrawal of life support. As a result, utilization of DCD livers for liver transplant (LT) has generally been limited to short WITs and younger aged donor grafts, causing many recovered DCD organs to be discarded without consideration for transplant. This study assesses how DCD liver utilization and outcomes have changed over time, using OPTN data from adult, first-time, deceased donor, whole-organ LTs between January 1995 and December 2019. Results show that increased clinical experience with DCD LT has translated into increased use of livers from DCD donors, shorter ischemic times, shorter lengths of hospitalization after transplant, and lower rates of retransplantation. The data also reveal that over the past decade, the rate of increase in DCD LTs conducted in the United States has outpaced that of DBD. Together, these trends signal an opportunity for the field of liver transplantation to mitigate the organ shortage by capitalizing on DCD liver allografts that are currently not being utilized.

Viability Assessment in Liver Transplantation-What Is the Impact of Dynamic Organ Preservation?

Based on the continuous increase of donor risk, with a majority of organs classified as marginal, quality assessment and prediction of liver function is of utmost importance. This is also caused by the notoriously lack of effective replacement of a failing liver by a device or intensive care treatment. While various parameters of liver function and injury are well-known from clinical practice, the majority of specific tests require prolonged diagnostic time and are more difficult to assess ex situ. In addition, viability assessment of procured organs needs time, because the development of the full picture of cellular injury and the initiation of repair processes depends on metabolic active tissue and reoxygenation with full blood over several hours or days. Measuring injury during cold storage preservation is therefore unlikely to predict the viability after transplantation. In contrast, dynamic organ preservation strategies offer a great opportunity to assess organs before implantation through analysis of recirculating perfusates, bile and perfused liver tissue. Accordingly, several parameters targeting hepatocyte or cholangiocyte function or metabolism have been recently suggested as potential viability tests before organ transplantation. We summarize here a current status of respective machine perfusion tests, and report their clinical relevance.

Successfully sharing the sandbox: A perspective on combined DCD liver and heart donor procurement

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplantation is currently being performed in the United States as part of a clinical trial. As with all donor procurements, effective coordination between all involved teams is vital for successful organ recovery and maximal utilization of donor organs. The current discussion relays a viewpoint on combined DCD liver and heart donor procurement. Key issues highlighted include the vital importance of donor warm ischemia time (DWIT) on outcome for both recipients as well as issues pertaining to DWIT that may arise when performing combined DCD liver and heart donor procurement.

Expanding Role of Donation After Circulatory Death Donors in Liver Transplantation

Better understanding of how to utilize donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver grafts has resulted in improved national outcomes and expansion in the number of DCD liver transplants (LTs). This improvement has been driven by better donor and recipient matching, careful evaluation of hemodynamics during withdrawal of life support, and refinement of the procurement operation. Changes to liver allocation likely will result in increased utilization of DCD liver grafts. Ischemic cholangiopathy remains the Achilles heel of DCD LTs and, although rates have fallen with improved protocols, a certain rate likely is unavoidable. This review discusses contemporary issues with DCD LTs.

Impact of donation after circulatory death donor allografts on outcomes following liver transplantation for fulminant hepatic failure in the United States

Limited data exist regarding the impact of donation after circulatory death (DCD) allografts on outcomes following liver transplantation in fulminant hepatic failure (FHF). Utilizing the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR), we compared outcomes after DCD in FHF to donation after brain death (DBD) in FHF and DCD in non-FHF over a 15-year period. Primary outcome measures were graft and patient survival. A total of 117, 3437, and 4379 recipients underwent DCD-FHF, DBD-FHF and DCD-non-FHF, respectively. One-year graft survival in DCD-FHF was inferior to DBD-FHF (72.9% vs. 83.8%, p = .002), but comparable to DCD-non-FHF (72.9% vs. 82.7%, p = .23). However, 3- and 5-year graft survival in DCD-FHF were comparable to DBD-FHF (67.9 vs. 77.6%, p = .63; 57.8% vs. 73.2%, p = .27) and DCD-non-FHF (67.9% vs. 72.9%, p = .44; 57.8% vs. 66.6%, p = .06). One-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival were also comparable among the three groups. Graft and patient survival in DCD-FHF improved over the study period. Multivariable analysis identified recipient age, male gender, African American ethnicity, donor age, and cold ischemia time as predictors of graft and patient survival in FHF, while DCD status was only predictive of graft survival. Long-term graft survival and patient survival in DCD-FHF are comparable to DBD-FHF and DCD-non-FHF. Consideration of DCD in FHF could help expand the donor pool in this subset of critically ill patients.

Simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: an updated perspective

Outcomes of both donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver and kidney transplants are improving. Experience in simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (SLK) using DCD donors, however, remains limited. In an updated cohort (2010-2018), outcomes of 30 DCD SLK and 131 donation after brain death (DBD) SLK from Mayo Clinic Arizona and Mayo Clinic Minnesota were reviewed. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was lower in the DCD SLK group (23 vs 29, P = .01). Kidney delayed graft function (DGF) rates were similar between the 2 groups (P = .11), although the duration of DGF was longer for DCD SLK recipients (20 vs 4 days, P = .01). Liver allograft (93.3% vs 93.1%, P = .29), kidney allograft (93.3% vs 93.1%, P = .91), and patient (96.7% vs 95.4%, P = .70) 1-year survival rates were similar. At 1 year, there were no differences in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (57.7 ± 18.2 vs 56.3 ± 17.7, P = .75) or progression of fibrosis (ci) on protocol kidney biopsy (P = .67). A higher incidence of biliary complications was observed in the DCD SLK group, with ischemic cholangiopathy being the most common (10.0% vs 0.0%, P = .03). The majority of biliary complications resolved with endoscopic management. With appropriate selection, DCD SLK recipients can have results equivalent to those of DBD SLK recipients.

Differential Impact of Extended Criteria Donors After Brain Death or Circulatory Death in Adult Liver Transplantation

Using grafts from extended criteria donors (ECDs) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors is a strategy to address organ shortage in liver transplantation (LT). We studied the characteristics and outcomes of ECD and DCD grafts. We retrospectively studied consecutive adults who underwent deceased donor LT between 2006 and 2019. ECD was defined using modified Eurotransplant criteria. Our primary outcomes were graft and patient survival. A total of 798 grafts were used for LT, of which 93.1% were donation after brain death (DBD; 59.9% were also ECD) and 6.9% were DCD grafts (49.1% were also ECD). Among DBD graft recipients, donors having >33% liver steatosis or 3 ECD criteria resulted in poorer graft survival. Otherwise ECD graft recipients had similar graft and patient survival compared with non-ECD graft recipients. DCD graft recipients also had similar patient survival compared with DBD recipients. However, DCD grafts from an ECD appeared to have worse outcomes. DCD graft recipients experienced higher rates of early allograft dysfunction (50.9% versus 24.7%; P < 0.001) and ischemic biliopathy (16.4% versus 1.5%; P < 0.001) compared with DBD graft recipients. Use of DBD grafts from ECDs did not impact outcomes unless there was significant donor steatosis or 3 Eurotransplant criteria were met. DCD graft recipients have similar patient survival compared with DBD graft recipients as long as the donor was not an ECD. We recommend that DBD donors with 3 or more ECD features or >33% steatosis and DCD donors with any ECD features be used with caution in adult LT.

Perioperative and long-term outcomes of utilizing donation after circulatory death liver grafts with macrosteatosis: A multicenter analysis

BACKGROUND

Given the potentially additive risk from using donor livers that are both steatotic and from a donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor, there is a paucity of data on the outcome of DCD liver transplantation (LT) utilizing livers with macrosteatosis.

METHODS

All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic-Florida, Mayo Clinic-Arizona, and Mayo Clinic-Rochester from 1999 to 2019 were included (N = 714). Recipients of DCD LT were divided into 3 groups: those with moderate macrosteatosis (30%-60%), mild macrosteatosis (5%-30%), and no steatosis (<5%).

RESULTS

Patients with moderate macrosteatosis had a higher rate of postreperfusion syndrome (PRS; 53.9% vs 26.2%; P = .002), postreperfusion cardiac arrest (7.7% vs 0.3%; P < .001), primary nonfunction (PNF; 7.7% vs 1.0%; P = .003), early allograft dysfunction (EAD; 70.8% vs 45.6% and 8.3%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (AKI; 39.1% vs 19.4%; P = .02) than patients with no steatosis. No difference in any of the perioperative complications was seen between the mild macrosteatosis and the no steatosis groups except for the rate of EAD (56.8% vs 45.6%; P = .04). No difference in ischemic cholangiopathy (IC), vascular thrombosis/stenosis or graft, and patient survival was seen between the 3 groups.

CONCLUSION

DCD donors with mild macrosteatosis < 30% can be utilized with no increase in perioperative complications and similar patient and graft survival compared to DCD donors with no steatosis. When utilizing DCD donors with moderate macrosteatosis higher rates of PRS, PNF, postreperfusion cardiac arrest, EAD, and AKI should be anticipated.

Microsteatosis in Livers From Donation After Circulatory Death Donors Is Associated With Inferior Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation

The acceptable threshold remains unknown for the percentage of macrosteatosis (MaS) and microsteatosis (MiS) to yield optimal outcomes after donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT). The purpose of this analysis was to determine the impact of donor liver MaS and MiS on DCD LT outcomes. Using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database, we analyzed pretransplant biopsy results from adult, solitary, DCD livers transplanted between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2017. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess graft and patient survival based on MaS and MiS severity. MiS was divided into the groups MiS ≤10% and >10%. MaS was divided into the groups MaS ≤15% and >15%. Of 7757 recovered DCD livers, 11.4% (n = 885) were biopsied and transplanted. Patients who received DCD livers with MaS >15% had significantly worse patient survival (P < 0.04), and those with MiS >10% demonstrated inferior graft and patient survival (P < 0.02). In multivariate analyses including known risk factors, both MaS >15% and MiS >10% were associated with increased risk of graft failure and patient mortality (P < 0.03). Recipient and donor age >60 years were also associated with increased risk of graft failure and patient death. This analysis demonstrates that MaS >15% and MiS >10% are additional risk factors for graft loss and patient mortality in DCD LT.

Donation after Circulatory Death: Potential Mechanisms of Injury and Preventative Strategies

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors represent a potential means to help address the disparity between the number of patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT) and the availability of donor livers. While initial enthusiasm for DCD LT was high in the early 2000s, early reports of high rates of biliary complications and inferior graft survival resulted in reluctance among many transplant centers to use DCD liver grafts. As with all innovations in transplant practice, there is undoubtedly a learning curve associated with the optimal utilization of liver grafts from DCD donors. More contemporary data has demonstrated that results with DCD LT are improving and the number of DCD LT performed annually has been steadily increasing. In this concise review, potential mechanisms of injury for DCD livers are discussed along with strategies that have been employed in clinical practice to improve DCD LT outcomes.

The Changing Landscapes in DCD Liver Transplantation

Purpose of Review

The transplant community continues to look for ways to help address the discordance between donor liver graft availability and patients on the liver transplant waiting list. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor livers represents one potential means to help address this discordance. The present review describes the changing landscape of DCD liver transplantation (LT).

Recent Findings

The number of DCD LTs performed annually within the USA has continued to grow on an annual basis. Importantly, national data has demonstrated that outcomes with DCD LT have been improving. This improvement has been driven by better understanding of how to successfully utilize these organs through better donor and recipient matching and careful evaluation of both hemodynamics during withdrawal of life support and the refinement of the procurement operation.

Summary

Despite these improvements in outcome, ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) continues to be the Achilles heel of DCD LT. Emerging technologies such as various forms of machine perfusion may allow for reduction of complications and better prognostication of the risk associated with DCD liver grafts.

Improved National Results With Simultaneous Liver-Kidney Transplantation Using Donation After Circulatory Death Donors

Previous large registry studies have demonstrated inferior outcomes for simultaneous liver-kidney transplantation (SLKT) recipients of grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors compared with those from donation after brain death (DBD) donors in the era from 2000 to 2010. Given the improving national results in liver transplantation alone using grafts from DCD donors, the present study aimed to investigate if results with DCD-SLKT have improved in the modern era. Patients undergoing SLKT between 2000 and 2018 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Analysis and Research file and divided into 2 eras based on the date of SLKT: era 1 (2000-2010) and era 2 (2011-2018). Improvement in DCD-SLKT patient, liver graft, and kidney graft survival rates was seen between era 1 and era 2 (P < 0.001). Concurrently, there was a decrease in the proportion of critically ill (P = 0.02) and retransplant (P = 0.006) candidates undergoing DCD-SLKT. When DCD-SLKT in era 2 was compared with a propensity-matched cohort of DBD-SLKT in era 2, no differences in patient (P = 0.99), liver graft (P = 0.19), or kidney graft (P = 0.90) survival were observed. In addition, both bilirubin (0.5 versus 0.5 mg/dL; P = 0.86) and creatinine (1.2 versus 1.2 mg/dL; P = 0.68) at last follow-up were not different between the DCD-SLKT and DBD-SLKT patients in era 2. In conclusion, in the most recent era, patients undergoing DCD-SLKT were able to achieve similar outcomes compared with matched patients undergoing DBD-SLKT. DCD-SLKT represents a viable option for appropriately selected recipients.

Transplant Outcomes of Donation After Circulatory Death Livers Recovered With Versus Without Premortem Heparin Administration

Premortem heparin administration during donation after circulatory death (DCD) organ recovery is thought to optimize liver perfusion. However, premortem heparinization is not universally practiced in the United States and limited data exist regarding its utility. US registry data were accessed between January 1, 2003, and March 10, 2017, and 2 cohorts were ascertained: (1) DCD donor livers recovered for transplantation (n = 5495) and (2) liver-only adult transplant recipients of DCD livers (n = 3754). Exclusions were donor unknown heparin status (n = 40), positive donor hepatitis B surface antigen (n = 4) and hepatitis C virus (n = 120) serologies, and for the outcomes analysis, livers placed outside the United States (n = 10). Discard rates and graft outcomes were examined from cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Of 5495 DCD livers recovered for transplant, 589 (10.7%) donors did not receive premortem heparin (no heparin) and the remaining 4906 (89.3%) received heparin (heparin). Liver discard was similar between the no heparin (30.6%) and heparin groups (30.8%; P = 0.90). Heparin status was not associated with liver discard on multivariate analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.18 P = 0.76). The cumulative probability of overall graft survival was lower in the no heparin group relative to the heparin group (P < 0.05), and this finding persisted on multivariate analysis. No heparin group transplants had an 18% higher hazard of overall graft failure compared with those that received heparin (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.38; P < 0.05). In conclusion, organ recovery heparin administration status was not associated with liver discard. Failure to pretreat organ donors with premortem heparin correlates with worse liver transplant graft survival compared with heparin-treated livers.

Intraoperative Events in Liver Transplantation Using Donation After Circulatory Death Donors

Liver grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) are a source of organs to decrease wait-list mortality. While there have been lower rates of graft loss, there are concerns of an increased incidence of intraoperative events in recipients of DCD grafts. We aim to look at the incidence of intraoperative events between recipients of livers from DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) donors. We collected data for 235 DCD liver recipients between 2006 and 2017. We performed a 1:1 propensity match between these patients and patients with DBD donors. Variables included recipient age, liver disease etiology, biological Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, allocation MELD score, diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, and year of transplantation. DCD and DBD groups had no significant differences in incidence of postreperfusion syndrome (P = 0.75), arrhythmia requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (P = 0.66), and treatments for hyperkalemia (P = 0.84). In the DCD group, there was a significant increase in amount of total intraoperative and postreperfusion blood products (with exception of postreperfusion packed red blood cells) utilized (P < 0.05 for all products), significant differences in postreperfusion thromboelastography parameters, as well as inotropes and vasopressors used (P < 0.05 for all infusions). There was no difference in patient (P = 0.49) and graft survival (P = 0.10) at 1, 3, and 5 years. In conclusion, DCD grafts compared with a cohort of DBD grafts have a similar low incidence of major intraoperative events, but increased incidence of transient vasopressor/inotropic usage and increased blood transfusion requirements. This does not result in differences in longterm outcomes. While centers should continue to look at DCD liver donors, they should be cognizant regarding intraoperative care to prevent adverse outcomes.

Does Donor Allograft Microsteatosis Matter? Comparison of Outcomes in Liver Transplantation With a Propensity-Matched Cohort

It has been suggested that microsteatosis does not negatively impact graft survival following liver transplantation (LT). The present study represents the largest series on donor livers with significant microsteatosis and investigates the impact of microsteatosis on perioperative factors such as postreperfusion syndrome (PRS), early allograft dysfunction (EAD), and postoperative renal dysfunction. Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing LT with donor livers with isolated microsteatosis (≥30%; n = 239) between 2000 and 2017 were compared with a propensity score-matched cohort of patients undergoing LT with donor livers with no steatosis (n = 239). Patients in the microsteatosis group had a higher rate of PRS (33.1% versus 24.2%; P = 0.03), EAD (38.2% versus 23.0%; P < 0.001), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) requirement following LT (10.9% versus 3.6%; P = 0.002) than the no steatosis group. No difference in patient (P = 0.33) or graft survival (P = 0.18) was observed between the 2 groups. On multivariate regression, livers with microsteatosis had an increased risk of graft loss with retransplant recipients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.59; P < 0.001), increasing Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (HR, 1.13; P = 0.01), and organs from donation after circulatory death donors (HR, 1.46; P = 0.003). In conclusion, recipients of donor livers with significant microsteatosis are at an increased risk of PRS, EAD, and postoperative renal dysfunction requiring CRRT. Livers with significant microsteatosis should be avoided in retransplant recipients and in recipients with high biological MELD scores. Once appropriately selected recipients of these livers are able to overcome the initial perioperative implications of using these donor livers, longterm patient and graft survival is similar to recipients receiving grafts with no steatosis.

Clinical Implications of Donor Warm and Cold Ischemia Time in Donor After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation

The use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts has been constrained by limitations in the duration of donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), donor agonal time (DAT), and cold ischemia time (CIT). The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of longer DWIT, DAT, and CIT on graft survival and other outcomes in DCD liver transplants. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was queried for adult liver transplants from DCD donors between 2009 and 2015. Donor, recipient, and center variables were included in the analysis. During the study period, 2107 patients underwent liver transplant with DCD allografts. In most patients, DWIT and DAT were <30 minutes. DWIT was <30 minutes in 1804 donors, between 30 and 40 minutes in 248, and >40 minutes in 37. There was no difference in graft survival, duration of posttransplant hospital length of stay, and readmission rate between DCD liver transplants from donors with DWIT <30 minutes and DWIT between 30 and 40 minutes. Similar outcomes were noted for DAT. In the multivariate analysis, DAT and DWIT were not associated with graft loss. The predictors associated with graft loss were donor age, donor sharing, CIT, recipient admission to the intensive care unit, recipient ventilator dependence, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and low-volume transplant centers. Any CIT cutoff >4 hours was associated with increased risk for graft loss. Longer CIT was also associated with a longer posttransplant hospital stay, higher rate of primary nonfunction, and hyperbilirubinemia. In conclusion, slightly longer DAT and DWIT (up to 40 minutes) were not associated with graft loss, longer posttransplant hospitalization, or hospital readmissions, whereas longer CIT was associated with worse outcomes after DCD liver transplants.

The impact of postreperfusion syndrome during liver transplantation using livers with significant macrosteatosis

The impact of postreperfusion syndrome (PRS) during liver transplantation (LT) using donor livers with significant macrosteatosis is largely unknown. Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing LT with donor livers with moderate macrosteatosis (30%-60%) (N = 96) between 2000 and 2017 were compared to propensity score matched cohorts of patients undergoing LT with donor livers with mild macrosteatosis (10%-29%) (N = 96) and no steatosis (N = 96). Cardiac arrest at the time of reperfusion was seen in eight (8.3%) of the patients in the moderate macrosteatosis group compared to one (1.0%) of the patients in the mild macrosteatosis group (P = .02) and zero (0%) of the patients in the no steatosis group (P = .004). Patients in the moderate macrosteatosis group had a higher rate of PRS (37.5% vs 18.8%; P = .004), early allograft dysfunction (EAD) (76.4% vs 25.8%; P < .001), renal dysfunction requiring continuous renal replacement therapy following transplant (18.8% vs 8.3%; P = .03) and return to the OR within 30 days (24.0% vs 7.3%; P = .002), than the no steatosis group. Both long-term patient (P = .30 and P = .08) and graft survival (P = .15 and P = .12) were not statistically when comparing the moderate macrosteatosis group to the mild macrosteatosis and no steatosis groups. Recipients of LT using livers with moderate macrosteatosis are at a significant increased risk of PRS. If patients are able to overcome the initial increased perioperative risk of using these donor livers, long-term graft survival does not appear to be different than matched recipients receiving grafts with no steatosis.

The UK-DCD-Risk-Score - practical and new guidance for allocation of a specific organ to a recipient?

Introduction: Multiple factors contribute to the overall outcome in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. The majority is however inconsistently reported with various acceptance criteria and thresholds, when to decline a specific graft. Recent improvement in outcome was based on an increased awareness of the cumulative risk, combining donor and recipient parameters, which encouraged the community to accept livers with an overall higher risk. Areas covered: This review pictures the large number of risk factors in this field with a special focus on parameters, which contribute to available prediction models. Next, features of the recently developed UK-DCD-Risk-Score, which led to a significantly impaired graft survival, above a suggested threshold of >10 score points, are discussed. The clinical impact of this new model on the background of other prediction tools with their subsequent limitations is highlighted in a next chapter. Finally, we provide suggestions, how to further improve outcomes in this challenging field of transplantation. Expert opinion: Despite the recent development of new prediction models, including the UK-DCD-Risk-Score, which provides a sufficient prediction of graft loss after DCD liver transplantation, the consideration of other confounders is essential to better understand the overall risk and metabolic liver status to improve the comparability of clinical studies. More uniform definitions and thresholds of individual risk factors are required.

Expanding the Donor Pool With the Use of Extended Criteria Donation After Circulatory Death Livers

Use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor livers for transplantation has remained cautious in the United States. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the expansion of a DCD liver transplantation (LT) program with the use of extended criteria donor (ECD) DCD livers. After institutional review board approval, 135 consecutive DCD LTs were retrospectively studied. ECD DCD livers were defined as those with 1 of the following factors: donor age >50 years, donor body mass index >35 kg/m² , donor functional warm ischemia time >30 minutes, and donor liver macrosteatosis >30%. An optimization protocol was introduced in July 2011 to improve outcomes of DCD LT, which included thrombolytic donor flush and efforts to minimize ischemia times. The impact of this protocol on outcomes was evaluated in terms of graft loss, ischemic cholangiopathy (IC), and change in DCD LT volume. Of 135 consecutive DCD LTs, 62 were ECD DCDs. In total, 24 ECD DCD LTs were performed before (era 1) and 38 after the institution of optimization protocol (era 2), accounting for an increase in the use of ECD DCD livers from 39% to 52%. Overall outcomes of ECD DCD LT improved in era 2, with a significantly lower incidence of IC (5% versus 17% in era 1; P = 0.03) and better 1-year graft survival (93% versus 75% in era 1; P = 0.07). Survival outcomes for ECD DCD LT in era 2 were comparable to matched deceased donor LT. With the expansion of the DCD donor pool, the number of DCD LTs performed at our center gradually increased in era 2 to account for >20% of the center's LT volume. In conclusion, with the optimization of perioperative conditions, ECD DCD livers can be successfully transplanted to expand the donor pool for LT.

Safety of Antithymocyte Globulin in Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation With Livers From Donation After Circulatory Death Donors

Background: Studies suggest that rabbit-antithymocyte globulin (rATG) decreases biliary complications (BCs) after donation-after-circulatory-death-donor liver transplantation (DCD LTx), but safety data are lacking. Objective: Our aim was to assess the safety of rATG for this indication. The secondary end point was efficacy of rATG for this indication. Methods: Adult recipients of DCD LTx were divided into 2 cohorts: protocolized use of rATG in the modern era (July 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016) and a historical control without rATG (January 1, 2005, to June 30, 2013). Incidence of infection, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia were compared for the safety assessment, incidence of BCs, ischemic cholangiopathy (IC), and transplant outcomes for the efficacy assessment. Results: A total of 83 patients met inclusion criteria: 42 in the historical cohort and 41 in the modern cohort. The modern cohort had significantly fewer bacterial infections at 3 months (historical 54.8% vs modern 23%; P = 0.004) and 1 year (historical 62.1% vs modern 34.2%, P = 0.004). The modern cohort also had fewer fungal infections at these time points (historical 33.3% and 47.9% vs modern 15% and 15%; P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in platelet or white blood cell reduction between groups. There was a nonsignificant, but numerical, trend toward reduced IC/BC in the modern cohort at 1 year (IC: historical 30.1% vs modern 13.2%, P = 0.08; BC: historical 51% vs modern 37.5%, P = 0.13). There was no difference in graft/patient survival. Conclusion and Relevance: Our data suggest no major safety issues with rATG in DCD LTx. Our study should ease clinical apprehension surrounding rATG use for this indication. Future prospective studies are needed to further evaluate the role of rATG and its impact on efficacy end points.

Living Donation Versus Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation for Low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Recipients

In this era of organ scarcity, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an alternative to using deceased donors, and in Western countries, it is more often used for recipients with low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. We sought to compare the patient survival and graft survival between recipients of liver transplantation from living donors and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors in patients with low MELD scores. This is a retrospective cohort analysis of adult liver transplant recipients with a laboratory MELD of ≤20 who underwent transplantation between January 1, 2003 and March 31, 2016. Recipients were categorized by donor graft type (DCD or LDLT), and recipient and donor characteristics were compared. Ten-year patient and graft survival curves were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analyses, and a mixed-effects model was performed to determine the contributions of recipient, donor, and center variables on patient and graft survival. There were 36,705 liver transplants performed: 32,255 (87.9%) from DBD donors, 2166 (5.9%) from DCD donors, and 2284 (6.2%) from living donors. In the mixed-effects model, DCD status was associated with a higher risk of graft failure (relative risk [RR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.38) but not worse patient survival (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.96-1.67). Lower DCD center experience was associated with a 1.21 higher risk of patient death (95% CI, 1.17-1.25) and a 1.13 higher risk of graft failure (95% CI, 1.12-1.15). LDLT center experience was also predictive of patient survival (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03) and graft failure (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.05-1.06). In conclusion, for liver transplant recipients with low laboratory MELD, LDLT offers better graft survival and a tendency to better patient survival than DCD donors.

The "Skinny" on Assessment and Utilization of Steatotic Liver Grafts: A Systematic Review

The frequency at which steatotic deceased donor liver grafts are encountered will likely continue to increase. Utilization of liver grafts with moderate-to-severe steatosis for liver transplantation (LT) has been previously shown to be associated with increased rates of primary nonfunction and decreased recipient survival. In order to better inform clinical decision making and guide future research, critical evaluation of the literature on donor liver steatosis and posttransplantation outcome is needed. This literature review aims to provide the "skinny" on using deceased donor steatotic livers for LT.

Outcomes of Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Grafts From Donors 50 Years or Older: A Multicenter Analysis

BACKGROUND

As the population in the United States continues to age, an increase in the number of potential donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors with advanced chronological age can be expected. The aim of this study was to analyze a multi-institutional experience in liver transplantation using DCD donors 50 years or older.

METHODS

All DCD liver transplant (LT) performed at Mayo Clinic Florida, Mayo Clinic Rochester, and Mayo Clinic Arizona from 2002 to 2016 were included. Recipients of DCD LT were divided into 2 groups: those with donors 50 years or older (N = 155) and those with donors younger than 50 years(N = 316).

RESULTS

Graft survival was similar between the DCD donors 50 years or older group and DCD donors younger than 50 group(P = 0.99). Graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 87.0%, 75.6%, and 71.8% in the DCD donors 50 years or older group and 85.8%, 76.0%, and 70.4% in the DCD donors younger than 50 group.The rate of total biliary complications (32.3% vs 23.7%; P = 0.049) and of anastomotic strictures (16.1% vs 8.2%; P = 0.01) were higher in the DCD donors 50 years or older compared with the DCD donors younger than 50 group. No statistical significant difference in the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy (11.6% vs 7.6%; P = 0.15) was seen between the 2 groups. Due to homogeneous practice patterns at the involved institutions, additional Cox regression analysis using national data obtained from Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was used to evaluate predictors of graft failure in DCD donors 50 years or older. Significant predictors of graft failure included: a calculated Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 30 or higher (P < 0.001), mechanical ventilation at the time of transplant (P < 0.001), medical condition (in intensive care unit) (P = 0.002), and cold ischemia time (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrates that acceptable graft and patient survival can be achieved with the usage of DCD LT with donors 50 years or older. Optimizing recipient selection criteria and minimizing cold ischemia time may further improve outcomes.

Liver Grafts From Donors After Circulatory Death on Regional Perfusion With Extended Warm Ischemia Compared With Donors After Brain Death

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) in Italy constitutes a relatively unique population because of the requirement of a no-touch period of 20 minutes. The first aim of this study was to compare liver transplantations from donors who were maintained on normothermic regional perfusion after circulatory death and suffered extended warm ischemia (DCD group, n = 20) with those from donors who were maintained on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and succumbed to brain death (ECMO group, n = 17) and those from standard donors after brain death (donation after brain death [DBD] group, n = 52). Second, we conducted an explorative analysis on the DCD group to identify relationships between the donor characteristics and the transplant outcomes. The 1-year patient survival for the DCD group (95%) was not significantly different from that of the ECMO group (87%; P = 0.47) or the DBD group (94%; P = 0.94). Graft survival was slightly inferior in the DCD group (85%) because of a high rate of primary nonfunction (10%) and retransplantation (15%) but was not significantly different from the ECMO group (87%; P = 0.76) or the DBD group (91%; P = 0.20). Although ischemic cholangiopathy was more frequent in the DCD group (10%), this issue did not adversely impact graft survival because none of the recipients underwent retransplantation due to biliary complications. Moreover, the DCD recipients were more likely to develop posttransplant renal dysfunction with the need for renal replacement therapy. Further analysis of the DCD group showed that warm ischemia >125 minutes and an Ishak fibrosis score of 1 at liver biopsy negatively impacted serum creatinine and alanine transaminase levels in the first posttransplant week, respectively. In conclusion, our findings encourage the use of liver grafts from DCD donors maintained by regional perfusion after proper selection.

Attitudes and barriers to the use of donation after cardiac death livers: Comparison of a United States transplant center survey to the united network for organ sharing data

Transplantation of liver grafts from donation after cardiac death (DCD) is limited. To identify barriers of DCD liver utilization, all active US liver transplant centers (n = 138) were surveyed, and the responses were compared with the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data. In total, 74 (54%) centers responded, and diversity in attitudes was observed, with many not using organ and/or recipient prognostic variables defined in prior studies and UNOS data analysis. Most centers (74%) believed lack of a system allowing a timely retransplant is a barrier to utilization. UNOS data demonstrated worse 1- and 5-year patient survival (PS) and graft survival (GS) in DCD (PS, 86% and 64%; GS, 82% and 59%, respectively) versus donation after brain death (DBD) recipients (PS, 90% and 71%; GS, 88% and 69%, respectively). Donor alanine aminotransferase (ALT), recipient Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), and cold ischemia time (CIT) significantly impacted DCD outcomes to a greater extent than DBD outcomes. At 3 years, relisting and retransplant rates were 7.9% and 4.6% higher in DCD recipients. To optimize outcome, our data support the use of DCD liver grafts with CIT <6-8 hours in patients with MELD ≤ 20. In conclusion, standardization of donor and recipient criteria, defining the impact of ischemic cholangiopathy, addressing donor hospital policies, and developing a strategy for timely retransplant may help to expand the use of these organs. Liver Transplantation 23 1372-1383 2017 AASLD.

Clinical outcomes of donation after circulatory death liver transplantation in primary sclerosing cholangitis

BACKGROUND & AIM

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a progressive fibro-inflammatory cholangiopathy for which liver transplantation is the only life-extending intervention. These patients may benefit from accepting liver donation after circulatory death (DCD), however their subsequent outcome is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical impact of using DCD liver grafts in patients specifically undergoing transplantation for PSC.

METHODS

Clinical outcomes were prospectively evaluated in PSC patients undergoing transplantation from 2006 to 2016 stratified by donor type (DCD, n=35 vs. donation after brainstem death [DBD], n=108).

RESULTS

In liver transplantation for PSC; operating time, days requiring critical care support, total ventilator days, incidence of acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) or total days requiring RRT were not significantly different between DCD vs. DBD recipients. Although the incidence of ischaemic-type biliary lesions was greater in the DCD group (incidence rate [IR]: 4.4 vs. 0 cases/100-patient-years; p<0.001) there was no increased risk of post-transplant biliary strictures overall (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.20, 0.58-2.46; p=0.624), or in sub-analysis specific to anastomotic strictures or recurrent PSC, between donor types. Graft loss and mortality rates were not significantly different following transplantation with DCD vs. DBD livers (IR: 3.6 vs. 3.1 cases/100-patient-years, p=0.34; and 3.9 vs. 4.7, p=0.6; respectively). DCD liver transplantation in PSC did not impart a heightened risk of graft loss (HR: 1.69, 0.58-4.95, p=0.341) or patient mortality (0.75, 0.25-2.21, p=0.598).

CONCLUSION

Transplantation with DCD (vs. DBD) livers in PSC patients does not impact graft loss or patient survival. In an era of organ shortage, DCD grafts represent a viable therapeutic option for liver transplantation in PSC patients. Lay summary: This study examines the impact of liver transplantation in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) with organs donated after circulatory death (DCD), compared to donation after brainstem death (DBD). We show that in appropriately selected patients, the outcomes for DCD transplantation mirror those using DBD livers, with no significant differences in complication rate, patient survival or transplanted liver survival. In an era of organ shortage and increasing wait-list times, DCD livers represent a potential treatment option for transplantation in PSC.

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.

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.

Comparison of longterm outcomes and quality of life in recipients of donation after cardiac death liver grafts with a propensity-matched cohort

The use of liver grafts from donation after cardiac death (DCD) has been limited due to the increased rate of graft failure, mostly related to ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). It is our hypothesis that longterm outcomes and quality of life (QOL) similar to patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) with donation after brain death (DBD) can be achieved. Clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing DCD LT (n = 300) between 1998 and 2015 were compared with a propensity score-matched cohort of patients undergoing DBD LT (n = 300). Patients were contacted for a follow-up questionnaire and short-form (SF)-12 QOL Survey administration. Median follow-up was >5 years. Graft survival at 1-, 3-, and 5-years was 83.8%, 75.5%, and 70.1% in the DCD LT group and 88.4%, 80.3%, and 73.9% in the DBD LT group (P = 0.27). Patient survival at 1-, 3-, and 5-years was 92.3%, 86.1%, and 80.3% in the DCD LT group and 92.3%, 85.1%, and 79.5% in the DBD LT group (P = 0.81). IC developed in 11.7% and 2% of patients in the DCD LT group and DBD LT group, respectively (P < 0.001). DCD LT recipients who developed IC had inferior graft survival compared with both the DCD non-IC group (P < 0.001) and the DBD LT group (P < 0.001); no difference in graft survival was observed between the DCD non-IC group and the DBD LT group (P = 0.50). Physical and Mental Composite Scores on the SF-12 QOL questionnaire were similar between the DCD LT and DBD LT groups (44.0 versus 45.4; P = 0.34 and 51.9 versus 52.2; P = 0.83), respectively. Similar longterm survival and QOL scores can be achieved between DCD LT and DBD LT. Prevention of IC in DCD LT yields excellent graft and patient survival with virtually no difference compared with DBD LT. Liver Transplantation 23 342-351 2017 AASLD.