Results in liver transplantation using grafts from donors after controlled circulatory death: A single‐center experience comparing donor grafts harvested after controlled circulatory death to those harvested after brain death

Liver machine perfusion technology: Expanding the donor pool to improve access to liver transplantation

The imbalance between organ supply and demand continues to limit the broader benefits of organ transplantation. Machine perfusion (MP) may increase the supply of donor livers by expanding the use of extended-criteria donors. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Standard Transplant Analysis and Research dataset, we reviewed the effect of MP implementation on the behavior of transplant centers. We identified 15 high-utilizing MP centers that were matched to suitable controls based on volume and geographical proximity. We conducted a differences-in-differences analysis using linear regression to estimate the impact of MP adoption on the transplant centers' donor utilization. We found a significant increase in cold ischemia time and organs with donor warm ischemia time over 30 minutes (P < .05). After removing one outlier center, the analysis showed that these centers through MP accepted overall more donation after circulatory death donors, donation after circulatory death donors over 50 years old, donors with macrovesicular steatosis greater than 30% on liver biopsy, and donor warm ischemia time over 30 minutes (P < .05). MP has allowed centers to expand their use of extended-criteria donors beyond traditional cutoffs and to increase patient access to liver transplantation.

The Current Role and Future Applications of Machine Perfusion in Liver Transplantation

The relative paucity of donor livers suitable for transplantation has sparked innovations to preserve and recondition organs to expand the pool of transplantable organs. Currently, machine perfusion techniques have led to the improvement of the quality of marginal livers and to prolonged cold ischemia time and have allowed for the prediction of graft function through the analysis of the organ during perfusion, improving the rate of organ use. In the future, the implementation of organ modulation might expand the scope of machine perfusion beyond its current usage. The aim of this review was to provide an overview of the current clinical use of machine perfusion devices in liver transplantation and to provide a perspective for future clinical use, including therapeutic interventions in perfused donor liver grafts.

How to improve results after DCD (donation after circulation death)

The shortage of organs for transplantation has led health professionals to look for alternative sources of donors. One of the avenues concerns donors who have died after circulatory arrest. This is a special situation because the organs from these donors are exposed to warm ischaemia-reperfusion lesions that are unavoidable during the journey of the organs from the donor to the moment of transplantation in the recipient. We will address and discuss the key issues from the perspective of team organization, legislation and its evolution, and the ethical framework. In a second part, the avenues to improve the quality of organs will be presented following the itinerary of the organs between the donor and the recipient. The important moments from the point of view of therapeutic strategy will be put into perspective. New connections between key players involved in pathophysiological mechanisms and implications for innate immunity and injury processes are among the avenues to explore. Technological developments to improve the quality of organs from these recipients will be analyzed, such as perfusion techniques with new modalities of temperatures and oxygenation. New molecules are being investigated for their potential role in protecting these organs and an analysis of potential prospects will be proposed. Finally, the important perspectives that seem to be favored will be discussed in order to reposition the use of deceased donors after circulatory arrest. The use of these organs has become a routine procedure and improving their quality and providing the means for their evaluation is absolutely inevitable.

Good post-transplant outcomes using liver donors after circulatory death when applying strict selection criteria: A propensity-score matched-cohort study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) with donors after circulatory death (DCD) have been considered suboptimal due to higher rates of ischemic cholangiopathy, especially when the super-rapid recovery (SRR) technique is used. This study aimed to compare the incidence of complications between recipients receiving DCD vs those receiving donors after brain death (DBD) in a large-volume liver transplant centre.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study (LT from January 2015 to December 2018) comparing recipients who underwent a LT with DCD vs. a control group of LT with DBD, matched 1:1 without replacement by propensity score matching that included the following variables: LT indication, recipient sex and age, donor age and MELD score.

RESULTS

51 recipients with DCD-LT (29 SRR, 22 normothermic regional perfusion [NRP]) were matched with 51 DBD-LT recipients. Biliary complications were more frequent in DCD, 10% (n=5), all with SRR technique, vs 2% (n=1) in the DBD group, p=0.2. Two patients (4%) suffered primary graft non-function in the DCD group (1 SRR and 1 NRP) versus zero in the DBD group (p=0.49). Postoperative bleeding and reinterventions were also higher in the DCD group: 7 (13.7%) vs 1 (1.95%) and 8 (15.7%) vs 2 (3.9%) respectively (p=0.06 and 0.09). On the 1^st postoperative day AST/ALT peak was higher in DCD (p≤0001). The incidence of rejection, vascular complications, renal injury, hospital stay, and readmissions were similar in both groups. Cumulative 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-year graft and patient survival were also similar.

CONCLUSIONS

DCD donors are an adequate option to increase the donor pool in LT, achieving similar graft and patient survival rates to those achieved with DBD donors, especially when the NRP technique is used.

Temporal Trends in Utilization and Outcomes of DCD Livers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Historically, donation after circulatory death (DCD) livers were frequently discarded because of higher mortality and graft loss after liver transplantation (LT). However, the demand for LT continues to outstrip the supply of "acceptable" organs. Additionally, changes in the donor pool, organ allocation, and clinical management of donors and recipients, and improved clinical protocols might have altered post-DCD-LT outcomes.

METHODS

We studied 5975 recovered DCD livers using US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017, with a comparison group of 78 235 adult donation after brain death (DBD) livers recovered during the same time period. We quantified temporal trends in discard using adjusted multilevel logistic regression and temporal trends in post-LT mortality and graft loss for DCD LT recipients using adjusted Cox regression.

RESULTS

DCD livers were more likely to be discarded than DBD livers across the entire study period, and the relative likelihood of discard increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of discard DCD versus DBD 3.854.455.14 2005-2007, 5.225.876.59 2015-2017) despite improving outcomes after DCD LT. Mortality risk for DCD LTs decreased in each time period (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.720.840.97, aHR 2012-2014 0.480.580.70, aHR 2015-2017 0.340.430.55), as did risk of graft loss (compared with 2005-2007, aHR 2008-2011 0.690.810.94, aHR 2012-2014 0.450.550.67, aHR 2015-2017 0.360.450.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite dramatic improvements in outcomes of DCD LT recipients, DCD livers remain substantially more likely to be discarded than DBD livers, and this discrepancy has actually increased over time. DCD livers are underutilized and have the potential to expand the donor pool.

Antemortem Heparin in Organ Donation After Circulatory Death Determination: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Donation after circulatory death determination frequently involves antemortem heparin administration to mitigate peri-arrest microvascular thrombosis. We systematically reviewed the literature to: (1) describe heparin administration practices and (2) explore the effects on transplant outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies reporting donation after circulatory death determination heparin practices including use, dosage, and timing (objective 1). To explore associations between antemortem heparin and transplant outcomes (objective 2), we (1) summarized within-study comparisons and (2) used meta-regression analyses to examine associations between proportions of donors that received heparin and transplant outcomes. We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and applied the GRADE methodology to determine certainty in the evidence. For objective 1, among 55 eligible studies, 48 reported heparin administration to at least some donors (range: 15.8%-100%) at variable doses (up to 1000 units/kg) and times relative to withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. For objective 2, 7 studies that directly compared liver transplants with and without antemortem heparin reported lower rates of primary nonfunction, hepatic artery thrombosis, graft failure at 5 y, or recipient mortality (low certainty of evidence). In contrast, meta-regression analysis of 32 liver transplant studies detected no associations between the proportion of donors that received heparin and rates of early allograft dysfunction, primary nonfunction, hepatic artery thrombosis, biliary ischemia, graft failure, retransplantation, or patient survival (very low certainty of evidence). In conclusion, antemortem heparin practices vary substantially with an uncertain effect on transplant outcomes. Given the controversies surrounding antemortem heparin, clinical trials may be warranted.

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.

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.

Regulations and Procurement Surgery in DCD Liver Transplantation: Expert Consensus Guidance From the International Liver Transplantation Society

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors are an increasingly more common source of livers for transplantation in many parts of the world. Events that occur during DCD liver recovery have a significant impact on the success of subsequent transplantation. This working group of the International Liver Transplantation Society evaluated current evidence as well as combined experience and created this guidance on DCD liver procurement. Best practices for the recovery and transplantation of livers arising through DCD after euthanasia and organ procurement with super-rapid cold preservation and recovery as well as postmortem normothermic regional perfusion are described, as are the use of adjuncts during DCD liver procurement.

Donation after circulatory death and liver transplantation: a cohort study

Donations after circulatory death (DCD) are still challenging in Italy because of prolonged ischemia time (tWIT) due to the law and logistical issues. This cohort study was primarily aimed at assessing the association between successful transplantation and DCD types in the North Italy Transplant program. Adjusted risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for type III versus type II DCD were estimated using a Poisson regression model with a robust error variance. All consecutive DCD between 2008 and 2020 were included. Among 142 DCD, 102 were eligible for liver donation, and 96 were proposed: 68/69 (99%) and 28/33 (85%) type III and II DCD, respectively. Sixty-nine livers were recovered, 51/68 (75%) from type III and 18/28 (64%) from type II DCD, respectively (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.87-1.60). After ex-vivo perfusion, 50/68 (74%) and 14/28 (50%) livers from type III and type II DCD were transplanted (RR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.01-2.19). The estimate decreased after further controlling for tWIT (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.55-2.24). Five patients (7.8%) experienced a PNF, 3/50 and 2/14 from type III and type II DCD, respectively. Type III DCD livers were more likely to be transplanted than type II. Warm ischemia time might explain this difference.

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.

Donation after circulatory death liver transplantation: consensus statements from the Spanish Liver Transplantation Society

Livers from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors are an increasingly more common source of organs for transplantation. While there are few high-level studies in the field of DCD liver transplantation, clinical practice has undergone progressive changes during the past decade, in particular due to mounting use of postmortem normothermic regional perfusion (NRP). In Spain, uncontrolled DCD has been performed since the late 1980s/early 1990s, while controlled DCD was implemented nationally in 2012. Since 2012, the rise in DCD liver transplant activity in Spain has been considerable, and the great majority of DCD livers transplanted in Spain today are recovered with NRP. A panel of the Spanish Liver Transplantation Society was convened in 2018 to evaluate current evidence and accumulated experience in DCD liver transplantation, in particular addressing issues related to DCD liver evaluation, acceptance criteria, and recovery as well as recipient selection and postoperative management. This panel has created a series of consensus statements for the standard of practice in Spain and has published these statements with the hope they might help guide other groups interested in implementing new forms of DCD liver transplantation and/or introducing NRP into their clinical practices.