Basic principles of liver allocation and development over the years

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Logistical burden of offers and allocation inefficiency in circle-based liver allocation

Recent changes to liver allocation replaced donor service areas with circles as the geographic unit of allocation. Circle-based allocation might increase the number of transplantation centers and candidates required to place a liver, thereby increasing the logistical burden of making and responding to offers on organ procurement organizations and transplantation centers. Circle-based allocation might also increase distribution time and cold ischemia time (CIT), particularly in densely populated areas of the country, thereby decreasing allocation efficiency. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data from 2019 to 2021, we evaluated the number of transplantation centers and candidates required to place livers in the precircles and postcircles eras, nationally and by donor region. Compared with the precircles era, livers were offered to more candidates (5 vs. 9; p  < 0.001) and centers (3 vs. 5; p  < 0.001) before being accepted; more centers were involved in the match run by offer number 50 (9 vs. 14; p  < 0.001); CIT increased by 0.2 h (5.9 h vs. 6.1 h; p  < 0.001); and distribution time increased by 2.0 h (30.6 h vs. 32.6 h; p  < 0.001). Increased burden varied geographically by donor region; livers recovered in Region 9 were offered to many more candidates (4 vs. 12; p  < 0.001) and centers (3 vs. 8; p  < 0.001) before being accepted, resulting in the largest increase in CIT (5.4 h vs. 6.0 h; p  < 0.001). Circle-based allocation is associated with increased logistical burdens that are geographically heterogeneous. Continuous distribution systems will have to be carefully designed to avoid exacerbating this problem.

Balancing Outcome vs. Urgency in Modern Liver Transplantation

Background

Current allocation mechanisms for liver transplantation (LT) overemphasize emergency, leading to poorer longtime outcomes. The utility was introduced to recognized outcomes in allocation. Recently, Molinari proposed a predictive outcome model based on recipient data.

Aims

The aims of this study were to validate this model and to combine it with the utility to emphasize outcome in allocation.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 734 patients who were transplanted between January 2010 and December 2019. Points were assigned as in Molinari's model and the score sum was correlated with observed 90-day mortality. The utility was calculated as the product of 1-year survival times 3-month mortality on the waiting list. The weighting of different compounds was introduced, and utility curves were calculated. Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores according to maximal utility were determined.

Results

In total, 120 patients (16.3%) had died within 90 days after LT. Higher MELD score, obesity, and hemodialysis prior to LT were confirmed risk factors. Overall survival was 83.8 and 77.4% after 90 days and 12 months, respectively. General utility culminated at MELD scores >35 in the overall population. Emphasizing the outcome shifted the maximal utility to lower MELD scores depending on Molinari scores.

Conclusions

Emphasizing outcome, at least in certain recipient risk categories, might improve the longtime outcomes and might be integrated into allocation models.