Conditional probability of graft survival in liver transplantation using donation after circulatory death grafts - a retrospective study

Current Understanding of Marginal Grafts in Liver Transplantation

End-stage liver disease (ESLD), stemming from a spectrum of chronic liver pathologies including chronic liver failure, acute cirrhosis decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma, imposes a significant global healthcare burden. Liver transplantation (LT) remains the only treatment for ESLD. However, the escalating mortality on transplant waitlists has prompted the utilization of marginal liver grafts in LT procedures. These grafts primarily encompass elderly livers, steatotic livers, livers from donation after circulatory death, split livers and those infected with the hepatitis virus. While the expansion of the donor pool offers promise, it also introduces concomitant risks. These encompass graft failure, biliary and cardiovascular complications, the recurrence of liver disease and reduced patient and graft survival. Consequently, various established strategies, ranging from improved donor-recipient matching to surgical interventions, have emerged to mitigate these risks. This article undertakes a comprehensive assessment of the current landscape, evaluating the viability of diverse marginal liver grafts. Additionally, it synthesizes approaches aimed at enhancing the quality of such marginal liver grafts. The overarching objective is to augment the donor pool and ameliorate the risk factors associated with the shortage of liver grafts.

Evaluating the outcomes of donor-recipient age differences in young adults undergoing liver transplantation

The current liver allocation system may be disadvantaging younger adult recipients as it does not incorporate the donor-recipient age difference. Given the longer life expectancy of younger recipients, the influences of older donor grafts on their long-term prognosis should be elucidated. This study sought to reveal the long-term prognostic influence of the donor-recipient age difference in young adult recipients. Adult patients who received initial liver transplants from deceased donors between 2002 and 2021 were identified from the UNOS database. Young recipients (patients 45 years old or below) were categorized into 4 groups: donor age younger than the recipient, 0-9 years older, 10-19 years older, or 20 years older or above. Older recipients were defined as patients 65 years old or above. To examine the influence of the age difference in long-term survivors, conditional graft survival analysis was conducted on both younger and older recipients. Among 91,952 transplant recipients, 15,170 patients were 45 years old or below (16.5%); these were categorized into 6,114 (40.3%), 3,315 (21.9%), 2,970 (19.6%), and 2,771 (18.3%) for groups 1-4, respectively. Group 1 demonstrated the highest probability of survival, followed by groups 2, 3, and 4 for the actual graft survival and conditional graft survival analyses. In younger recipients who survived at least 5 years post-transplant, inferior long-term survival was observed when there was an age difference of 10 years or above (86.9% vs. 80.6%, log-rank p <0.01), whereas there was no difference in older recipients (72.6% vs. 74.2%, log-rank p =0.89). In younger patients who are not in emergent need of a transplant, preferential allocation of younger aged donor offers would optimize organ utility by increasing postoperative graft survival time.

Donation after circulatory death: Novel strategies to improve the liver transplant outcome

In many countries, donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver grafts are used to overcome organ shortages; however, DCD grafts have been associated with an increased risk of complications and even graft loss after liver transplantation. The increased risk of complications is thought to correlate with prolonged functional donor warm ischaemia time. Stringent donor selection criteria and utilisation of in situ and ex situ organ perfusion technologies have led to improved outcomes. Additionally, the increased use of novel organ perfusion strategies has led to the possibility of reconditioning marginal DCD liver grafts. Moreover, these technologies enable the assessment of liver function before implantation, thus providing valuable data that can guide more precise graft-recipient selection. In this review, we first describe the different definitions of functional warm donor ischaemia time and its role as a determinant of outcomes after DCD liver transplantation, with a focus on the thresholds proposed for graft acceptance. Next, organ perfusion strategies, namely normothermic regional perfusion, hypothermic oxygenated perfusion, and normothermic machine perfusion are discussed. For each technique, clinical studies reporting on the transplant outcome are described, together with a discussion on the possible protective mechanisms involved and the functional criteria adopted for graft selection. Finally, we review multimodal preservation protocols involving a combination of more than one perfusion technique and potential future directions in the field.

Impact of the donor hepatectomy time on short-term outcomes in liver transplantation using donation after circulatory death: A review of the US national registry

BACKGROUND

During the donor hepatectomy time (dHT), defined as the time from the start of cold perfusion to the end of the hepatectomy, liver grafts have a suboptimal temperature. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of prolonged dHT on outcomes in donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT).

METHODS

Using the US national registry data between 2012 and 2020, DCD LT patients were separated into 2 groups based on their dHT: standard dHT (<42 min) and prolonged dHT (≥42 min).

RESULTS

There were 3810 DCD LTs during the study period. Median dHT was 32 min (IQR 25-41 min). Kaplan- Meier graft survival curves demonstrated inferior outcomes in the prolonged dHT group at 1-year after DCD LT compared to those in the standard dHT group (85.3% vs 89.9%; p < 0.01). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models for 1-year graft survival identified that prolonged dHT [hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 - 1.79], recipient age ≥ 64 years (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14 - 1.72), and MELD score ≥ 24 (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.16 - 1.76) were significant predictors of 1-year graft loss. Spline analysis shows that the dHT effects on the risk for 1-year graft loss with an increase in the slope after median dHT of 32 min.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged dHTs significantly reduced graft and patient survival after DCD LT. Because dHT is a modifiable factor, donor surgeons should take on cases with caution by setting the dHT target of < 32 min. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.