The successful use of older donors for liver transplantation

The impact of donor age on liver transplantation: influence of donor age on early liver function and on subsequent patient and graft survival

BACKGROUND

The urgent need to increase the organ donor pool has led to the expansion of criteria for donor selection. The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of donor age on early graft function, subsequent graft loss, and mortality after liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

Data on LT were evaluated retrospectively in a population-based cohort of 400 LTs in 348 patients. Of these, 21 (5%) were from donors >70 years old. Pretransplantation donor and recipient characteristics and the evolution of recipients were analyzed. The influence of donor age as a risk factor was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Actuarial graft survival was 89% at 1 month after LT, 81% after 6 months, and 59% after 60 months. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that only donor age (>70 years old) was associated with a higher risk of long-term graft loss (relative risk [RR]=1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1-1.9; P=0.03) and mortality (RR=1.7, 95% CI=1.2-2.3; P=0.01). Graft survival of septuagenarian livers was 80% at 1 month after LT, 56% after 6 months, and 25% after 54 months. Actuarial survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier curves) also demonstrated worse evolution in recipients of livers from old donors (log-rank test, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced donor age is associated with lower graft and recipient survival.

Inferior liver allograft survival from cadaveric donors >50 years of age?

The growing imbalance between the number of cadaveric organ donors and recipients has led to an increasing use of high-risk donors as an option to expand the donor pool. The aim of this study was to evaluate our experience with the use of older liver (donor>50 yr of age) allografts. The medical records, postreperfusion biopsies and laboratory results were reviewed of the 393 patients who underwent orthotopic liver transplantation between 1986 and 1997. The outcome of the 61 patients who received older livers (OL) was compared to that of the other 332 recipients. Increasing use of OL was evident from 1992 onwards. Recipients of OL were older than recipients of younger livers (YL, p<0.001) and more commonly had underlying chronic viral hepatitis (CVH) or fulminant hepatic failure (p<0.05). Patient and allograft survival were only slightly less in recipients of OL versus YL (p=NS). Although postperfusion biopsies showed more damage in OL than YL allografts (p<0.05), this was not associated with increased primary graft failure. OL allografts can be transplanted with acceptable results into recipients without the concern of early allograft loss. SUMMARY OF ARTICLE: This report of one centre's experience with 61 recipients of older donor liver allografts identifies recipient factors that may also have a negative impact on allograft outcome. These factors include a diagnosis of either CVH or fulminant hepatic failure at the time of transplantation. Postreperfusion biopsies of older donor allografts tend to show more damage, but this is not associated with primary non-function.

Assessing risk in liver transplantation. Special reference to the significance of a positive cytotoxic crossmatch

OBJECTIVE

The authors determined the impact of a positive cytotoxic crossmatch on the outcome of liver transplantation.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Liver allografts rarely undergo hyperacute rejection, but transplants performed across a positive cytotoxic crossmatch tend to follow a different clinical course, with higher intraoperative blood use, postoperative graft dysfunction, and, in some cases, graft loss. How this affects overall graft survival has not been determined.

METHODS

The authors provide a retrospective analysis of 1520 liver transplants performed between November 1989 and December 1993, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. All cases had a cytotoxic crossmatch using serum pretreated with dithiothreitol.

RESULTS

There were 1390 negative crossmatch and 130 positive crossmatch cases. There was no difference in overall graft survival, although early survival rates were lower in the positive crossmatch group, with the maximum difference at 6 months: 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.78) for a negative crossmatch versus 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.77) for a positive crossmatch. These differences become negligible by the 2-year mark. Using stepwise logistic regression, the authors identified seven variables independently associated with outcome: 1) donor age, 2) donor gender, 3) prior liver transplant, 4) medical urgency status, 5) ischemia time, 6) indication for transplantation, and 7) primary immunosuppressant.

CONCLUSIONS

The cytotoxic crossmatch is not statistically associated with overall graft survival after liver transplantation. However, early failure rates are higher in the positive crossmatch cases, a difference that disappears by the second year.

A prospective study on the reliability and cost effectiveness of preoperative ultrasound screening of the "marginal" liver donor

With the growing shortage of available liver donors, many donors with risk factors that would have traditionally precluded liver procurement are now being considered. In this prospective study, we evaluated 50 "marginal" liver donors with pre-procurement abdominal ultrasounds and correlated results with findings at procurement and with subsequent allograft function. The results show that the ultrasounds have a specificity of 96% and a sensitivity of 68% in predicting abnormalities in donor livers that precluded transplantation. In addition, using ultrasound to screen marginal donors would result in significant savings in manpower and hospital resource utilization without "missing" any normal liver organs. Our results also show that, when properly selected, livers from donors with one or more high-risk factors function well with acceptable primary nonfunction rates.

Marginal donors for patients on regular waiting lists for liver transplantation

The use of marginal donors is well accepted by most centers for emergency situations, but there is debate on their use for patients on regular waiting lists. We report our experience of the 1-year survival for patients on waiting lists (n = 147, 1-year survival = 32%), patients transplanted from good donors (n = 60, 1-year survival = 84%), and patients transplanted from marginal donors (n = 15, 1-year survival = 56%). We concluded that liver transplantation from marginal donors (a) is a safe procedure (b) has a 1-year survival that is significantly better than that on a waiting list (c) is ethically justified especially in countries with donor shortages, and (d) may allow transplantation of "special" high risk and poor long-term outcome patients.

Effect of donor age and sex on the outcome of liver transplantation

We correlated donor and recipient factors with graft outcome in 436 adult patients who underwent 462 liver transplants. Donor variables analyzed were age, gender, ABO blood group, cause of death, length of stay in the intensive care unit, use of pressors or pitressin, need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, terminal serum transaminases, and ischemia time. Recipient variables analyzed were age, gender, primary diagnosis, history of previous liver transplant, ABO blood group, cytotoxic antibody crossmatch, United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status, and waiting time (except for the cross-match results, they were all known at the time of the operation). The endpoint of the analysis was graft failure, defined as patient death or retransplantation. Using multivariate analysis, graft failure was significantly associated with donor age, donor gender, previous liver transplantation, and UNOS 4 status of the recipient. The effect of donor age became evident only when they were older than 45 years. Livers from female donors yielded significantly poorer results, with 2-year graft survival of female to male 55% (95% CI, 45% to 67%); female to female, 64% (95% CI, 54% to 77%); male to male, 72% (95% CI, 66% to 78%); and male to female, 78% (95% CI, 70% to 88%). The only donors identified as questionable for liver procurement were old (> or = 60 years) women in whom the adverse age and gender factors were at least additive. However, rather than discard even these livers, in the face of an organ shortage crisis, their individualized use is suggested with case reporting in a special category.

Liver transplantation in patients with fulminant hepatic failure

Fulminant hepatic failure without liver transplantation is associated with a high mortality rate (80-100 per cent). Some 254 liver transplantations were performed on 202 patients between April 1986 and February 1992. Of these, 26 patients had fulminant hepatic failure. The median age was 31.5 (range 3-60) years. Reduced-size grafts were used in seven patients. The preoperative mortality rate was six of 26 patients, and five patients died during follow-up. Ten patients underwent retransplantation and two a second retransplant. The overall mortality rate was 16 of 26 and actuarial survival rate was 62.7 per cent at 12 months and 48.7 per cent at 36 months. The preoperative mortality rate is relatively high but liver transplantation is currently recommended as a last-resort treatment for patients with fulminant hepatic failure in the absence of response to medical treatment.

Selection criteria for liver donation: a review

An overview of the criteria that are currently being used for the selection of liver donors is presented. The validity of the different criteria is discussed. The potential benefits of introducing other modalities is dealt with.

Pediatric liver transplantation from neonatal donors

Sixteen recipients of neonatal liver grafts were compared with 114 contemporaneous pediatric recipients of grafts from older donors. Graft and patient survival were worse in the neonatal group although the differences were not statistically significant. Patients with neonatal livers who had no technical complications required a longer time postoperatively to correct jaundice and a prolonged prothrombin time. These functional differences were limited to the 1st postoperative month and the end result was the same as with liver transplantation from older donors.