Improved retransplant outcomes: early evidence of the share35 impact

Has the risk of liver re-transplantation improved over the two decades?

BACKGROUND

Despite advancements in liver transplantation (LT) over the past two decades, liver re-transplantation (re-LT) presents challenges. This study aimed to assess improvements in re-LT outcomes and contributing factors.

METHODS

Data from the United Network for Organ Sharing database (2002-2021) were analyzed, with recipients categorized into four-year intervals. Trends in re-LT characteristics and postoperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 128,462 LT patients, 7254 received re-LT. Graft survival (GS) for re-LT improved (91.3%, 82.1%, and 70.8% at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years post-LT from 2018 to 2021). However, hazard ratios (HRs) for GS remained elevated compared to marginal donors including donors after circulatory death (DCD), although the difference in HRs decreased in long-term GS. Changes in re-LT causes included a reduction in hepatitis C recurrence and an increase in graft failure post-primary LT involving DCD. Trends identified included recent decreased cold ischemic time (CIT) and increased distance from donor hospital in re-LT group. Meanwhile, DCD cohort exhibited less significant increase in distance and more marked decrease in CIT. The shortest CIT was recorded in urgent re-LT group. The highest Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was observed in urgent re-LT group, while the lowest was recorded in DCD group. Analysis revealed shorter time interval between previous LT and re-listing, leading to worse outcomes, and varying primary graft failure causes influencing overall survival post-re-LT.

DISCUSSION

While short-term re-LT outcomes improved, challenges persist compared to DCD. Further enhancements are required, with ongoing research focusing on optimizing risk stratification models and allocation systems for better LT outcomes.

Perioperative mortality in liver transplantation before and after the implementation of the organ allocation policy Share 35

INTRODUCTION

In 2013, a new liver transplant allocation policy (Share 35) aimed to reduce waitlist-mortality was introduced in the United States. Regional organ sharing for recipients with a MELD score of ≥35 was prioritized over local allocation to those with lower MELD scores. Our aim was to assess the changes in perioperative mortality following the introduction of Share 35 as well as changes in patients' short-term 7-day survival, patients discharged alive and 1-year survival. Analyses were also carried out for the subgroups of patients with MELD scores ≥ and < 35.

METHODS

We used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and included liver transplants between March 2002 and December 2018 in this retrospective cohort study. Perioperative mortality was defined as death during and within two days of liver transplant. We used robust interrupted time series analyses to evaluate the impact of Share 35 on mortality.

RESULTS

We included 90 002 liver transplants in our analysis and observed a decreasing trend in perioperative mortality over time (-.061 deaths per 1000 cases per month, 95% CI -.084 to -.037, p < .001). Share 35 was not associated with a change in perioperative mortality (p = .33), short-term 7-day survival (p = .48), survival to discharge (p = .56), or 1-year survival (p = .27).

CONCLUSIONS

Prioritizing sicker recipients with a MELD score ≥35 for liver transplantation was not associated with a change in postoperative mortality.

Impact of the Share 35 Policy on Perioperative Management and Mortality in Liver Transplantation Recipients

Background

The Share 35 policy was introduced in 2013 by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) to increase opportunities of sicker patients to access liver transplantation. However, it has the disadvantage of higher MELD score associated with adverse postoperative transplant outcomes. Early data after implementation of the Share 35 policy showed significantly poorer post-transplantation survival in some UNOS regions. We aimed to analyze the impact of Share 35 on demographics of patients, perioperative management, and perioperative mortality.

Material/Methods

A retrospective analysis of data was performed from an institutional liver transplantation cohort from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017. Adult patients who underwent liver transplantation before 2013 were defined as the pre-Share 35 group and the other group was defined as the post-Share 35 group. The MELD score of each patient was calculated at the time of transplantation. Perioperative mortality was defined as death within 30 days after the operation.

Results

A total of 1596 patients underwent liver transplantation. Of those, 895 recipients underwent OLT in the pre-Share 35 era and 737 in the post-Share 35 era. The median MELD score was significantly higher in the post-Share 35 group (30 vs 26, P<0.001) and 45.7% of the post-Share 35 group had MELD scores ≥35. In intraoperative management, patients required significantly more blood component transfusion, intraoperative vasopressor, and fluid replacement. Veno-venous bypass (VVB) usage was significantly higher in the post-Share 35 era (47.2% vs 38.1%, P<0.001). In the subgroup of patients with MELD scores ≥35, the median waiting time was significantly shorter (18.5 vs 14.5 days, P=0.045). Overall perioperative mortality was not significantly difference between groups (P=0.435).

Conclusions

After implementation of the Share 35 policy, we performed liver transplantation in significantly higher medical acuity patients, which required more medical resources to obtain a result comparable to that of the pre-Share 35 era.

Prognostic role of the Donor Risk Index, the Eurotransplant Donor Risk Index, and the Balance of Risk score on graft loss after liver transplantation

This study aimed to identify cutoff values for donor risk index (DRI), Eurotransplant (ET)-DRI, and balance of risk (BAR) scores that predict the risk of liver graft loss. MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched systematically and unrestrictedly. Graft loss odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were assessed by meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel tests with a random-effects model. Cutoff values for predicting graft loss at 3 months, 1 year, and 3 years were analyzed for each of the scores. Measures of calibration and discrimination used in studies validating the DRI and the ET-DRI were summarized. DRI ≥ 1.4 (six studies, n = 35 580 patients) and ET-DRI ≥ 1.4 (four studies, n = 11 666 patients) were associated with the highest risk of graft loss at all time points. BAR > 18 was associated with the highest risk of 3-month and 1-year graft loss (n = 6499 patients). A DRI cutoff of 1.8 and an ET-DRI cutoff of 1.7 were estimated using a summary receiver operator characteristic curve, but the sensitivity and specificity of these cutoff values were low. A DRI and ET-DRI score ≥ 1.4 and a BAR score > 18 have a negative influence on graft survival, but these cutoff values are not well suited for predicting graft loss.

A Stepwise Evaluation of Hepatitis B Virus-Related Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure to Optimize the Indication for Urgent Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure (HBV-ACLF) is a dynamic but reversible disease.

AIM

We aimed to clarify whether the change in Chinese Group on the Study of Severe Hepatitis B-ACLF (COSSH-ACLF) grade in HBV-ACLF patients can be used to predict prognosis, and to explore the appropriate conditions for performing urgent liver transplantation.

METHODS

We assessed the COSSH-ACLF grades of HBV-ACLF patients at different time points from June 2013 to May 2019 at Huashan Hospital in Shanghai, China, and analyzed the relationship between the change in grade and patient prognosis.

RESULTS

A total of 207 HBV-ACLF patients were enrolled, of which 79 underwent urgent liver transplantation. Their COSSH-ACLF grades were calculated at diagnosis, 3-7 days after diagnosis, and on the final day. Most of the final ACLF grades were consistent with their corresponding grades at days 3-7 after diagnosis (62.5%), while only 44.5% were in accordance with the initial grades at diagnosis. In patients who had a poor prognosis (initial ACLF-3 and ACLF-2 or -3 at days 3-7), the 28-day survival rate was 93.3% in those who underwent transplantation and 6.8% in those who did not (P < 0.0001). However, in patients who had a good prognosis (ACLF-0 or ACLF-1 at days 3-7), the 28-day survival rate was 100% in transplanted patients and 91.5% in non-transplanted patients (P = 0.236).

CONCLUSIONS

Reevaluation of the COSSH-ACLF grade 3-7 days after diagnosis could potentially show an indication for urgent liver transplantation.