Matching Graft Quality to Recipient's Disease Severity Based on the Survival Benefit in Liver Transplantation

Trends in the survival benefit of repeat kidney transplantation over the past 3 decades

Repeat kidney transplantation (re-KT) is the preferred treatment for patients with graft failure. Changing allocation policies, widening the risk profile of recipients, and improving dialysis care may have altered the survival benefit of a re-KT. We characterized trends in re-KT survival benefit over 3 decades and tested whether it differed by age, race/ethnicity, sex, and panel reactive assay (PRA). By using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data, we identified 25 419 patients who underwent a re-KT from 1990 to 2019 and 25 419 waitlisted counterfactuals from the same year with the same waitlisted time following graft failure. In the adjusted analysis, a re-KT was associated with a lower risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.65). By using the 1990-1994 era as a reference (aHR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69-0.85), incremental improvements in the survival benefit were noted (1995-1999: aHR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78: 2000-2004: aHR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.55-0.63: 2005-2009: aHR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63: 2010-2014: aHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.62: 2015-2019: aHR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.73). The survival benefit of a re-KT was noted in both younger (age = 18-64 years: aHR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.65) and older patients (age ≥65 years: aHR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.74; Pinteraction = .45). Patients of all races/ethnicities demonstrated similar benefits with a re-KT. However, it varied by the sex of the recipient (female patients: aHR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63: male patients: aHR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.63-0.68; Pinteraction = .004) and PRA (0-20: aHR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.65-0.74: 21-80: aHR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.57-0.66; Pinteraction = .02; >80: aHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.61; Pinteraction< .001). Our findings support the continued practice of a re-KT and efforts to overcome the medical, immunologic, and surgical challenges of a re-KT.

Textbook Outcome Following Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Textbook outcome (TBO) is a patient-oriented composite criterion achieved when all desired main health outcomes are realized. The aim was to assess the incidence and the independent factors associated with TBO following LT.

METHODS

This bicentric study included all patients who underwent their first elective liver-only LT between 2011 and 2015. TBO occurred when all the following criteria were fulfilled: no mortality within 90 days, no major complications within 90 days, no reintervention within 90 days (liver graft biopsy, radiological, endoscopic or surgical interventions, or retransplantation), no prolonged intensive care unit stay, and no prolonged hospital stay. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with TBO and to assess whether TBO is an independent factor associated with patient and graft survival.

RESULTS

The study population included 530 patients. TBO occurred in 176/530 (33%) patients. Independent factors associated with TBO included the balance of risk score, the use of an intraoperative temporary portacaval shunt, and duration of the operation. TBO was identified as an independent factor associated with graft survival but not patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

TBO might be implemented in the patient-doctor decision-making regarding whether to proceed with LT and in the reporting of patient-level hospital performance related to LT.

The Utility of Extended Criteria Donor Livers in High Acuity Liver Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND

Although the use of extended criteria donor (ECD) liver allografts has gained momentum as a potential method by which to expand the donor pool, their use largely remains relegated to low acuity liver transplant (LT) recipients. Thus, we sought to examine whether such grafts also have utility in high acuity (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD] ≥ 35) recipients.

STUDY DESIGN

Extended criteria donors were defined as donor age > 60 years, hepatitis C virus positive donor, split livers, livers with cold ischemia time > 12 h, donor after cardiac death livers, or having macrosteatosis > 30%. Outcomes were compared between standard liver (SL) and ECD grafts in recipients with MELD ≥ 35.

RESULTS

Of 225 patients, 46 (20.4%) received an ECD liver and 179 (79.6%) received a SL. Extended criteria donor graft recipients had significantly higher levels of post-LT maximal transaminases and rate of early allograft dysfunction. Nonetheless, high acuity ECD graft recipients had similar short- and long-term patient survival compared to SL recipients, with 1-,3-, and 5-year survivals of 86.9%, 82.3%, 79.3% and 86.9%, 80.5%, and 75.4%, respectively (P = .674). There were also no significant differences in graft survival or rejection-free survival between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The lack of inferior patient/graft survival among high acuity ECD graft recipients suggests that ECD livers present a viable method by which to expand the donor pool for this group of patients.

Should we use liver grafts repeatedly refused by other transplant teams?

Background & Aims

In France, liver grafts that have been refused at least 5 times can be “rescued” and allocated to a centre which chooses a recipient from its own waiting list, outside the patient-based allocation framework. We explored whether these “rescued” grafts were associated with worse graft/patient survival, as well as assessing their effect on survival benefit.

Methods

Among 7,895 candidates, 5,218 were transplanted between 2009 and 2014 (336 centre-allocated). We compared recipient/graft survival between patient allocation and centre allocation, considering a selection bias and the distribution of centre-allocation recipients among the transplant teams. We used a propensity score approach and a weighted Cox model using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. We also explored the survival benefit associated with centre-allocation grafts.

Results

There was a significantly higher risk of graft loss/death in the centre allocation group compared to the patient allocation group (hazard ratio 1.13; 95% CI 1.05–1.22). However, this difference was no longer significant for teams that performed more than 7% of the centre-allocation transplantations. Moreover, receiving a centre-allocation graft, compared to remaining on the waiting list and possibly later receiving a patient-allocation graft, did not convey a poorer survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.60–1.08).

Conclusions

In centres which transplanted most of the centre-allocation grafts, using grafts repeatedly refused for top-listed candidates was not detrimental. Given the organ shortage, our findings should encourage policy makers to restrict centre-allocation grafts to targeted centres.

Lay summary

“Centre allocation” (CA) made it possible to save 6 out of 100 available liver grafts that had been refused at least 5 times for use in the top-listed candidates on the national waiting list. In this series, the largest on this topic, we showed that, in centres which transplanted most of the CA grafts, using grafts repeatedly refused for top-listed candidates did not appear to be detrimental. In the context of organ shortage, our results, which could be of interest for any country using this CA strategy, should encourage policy makers to reassess some aspects of graft allocation by restricting CA grafts to targeted centres, fostering the “best” matching between grafts and candidates on the waiting list.

•

Centre allocation (CA) made it possible to save 6 out of 100 liver grafts.

•

13% higher graft loss/death for CA patients.

•

In transplant centres performing most CA transplants, survival was not impacted.