Donor preoperative oxygen delivery and post-extubation hypoxia impact donation after circulatory death hypoxic cholangiopathy

Better liver transplant outcomes by donor interventions?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Donor risk factors and events surrounding donation impact the quantity and quality of grafts generated to meet liver transplant waitlist demands. Donor interventions represent an opportunity to mitigate injury and risk factors within donors themselves. The purpose of this review is to describe issues to address among donation after brain death, donation after circulatory determination of death, and living donors directly, for the sake of optimizing relevant outcomes among donors and recipients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies on donor management practices and high-level evidence supporting specific interventions are scarce. Nonetheless, for donation after brain death (DBD), critical care principles are employed to correct cardiocirculatory compromise, impaired tissue oxygenation and perfusion, and neurohormonal deficits. As well, certain treatments as well as marginally prolonging duration of brain death among otherwise stable donors may help improve posttransplant outcomes. In donation after circulatory determination of death (DCD), interventions are performed to limit warm ischemia and reverse its adverse effects. Finally, dietary and exercise programs have improved donation outcomes for both standard as well as overweight living donor (LD) candidates, while minimally invasive surgical techniques may offer improved outcomes among LD themselves.

SUMMARY

Donor interventions represent means to improve liver transplant yield and outcomes of liver donors and grafts.

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.

Donor Warm Ischemia Time in DCD Liver Transplantation-Working Group Report From the ILTS DCD, Liver Preservation, and Machine Perfusion Consensus Conference

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) grafts are commonly used in liver transplantation. Attributable to the additional ischemic event during the donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), DCD grafts carry an increased risk for severe ischemia/reperfusion injury and postoperative complications, such as ischemic cholangiopathy. The actual ischemia during DWIT depends on the course of vital parameters after withdrawal of life support and varies widely between donors. The ischemic period (functional DWIT) starts when either Spo2 or blood pressure drop below a certain point and lasts until the start of cold perfusion during organ retrieval. Over the years, multiple definitions and thresholds of functional DWIT duration have been used. The International Liver Transplantation Society organized a Consensus Conference on DCD, Liver Preservation, and Machine Perfusion on January 31, 2020 in Venice, Italy. The aim of this conference was to reach consensus about various aspects of DCD liver transplantation in context of currently available evidence. Here we present the recommendations with regards to the definitions used for DWIT and functional DWIT, the importance of vital parameters after withdrawal of life support, and acceptable thresholds of duration of functional DWIT to proceed with liver transplantation.

The UK-DCD-Risk-Score - practical and new guidance for allocation of a specific organ to a recipient?

Introduction: Multiple factors contribute to the overall outcome in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. The majority is however inconsistently reported with various acceptance criteria and thresholds, when to decline a specific graft. Recent improvement in outcome was based on an increased awareness of the cumulative risk, combining donor and recipient parameters, which encouraged the community to accept livers with an overall higher risk. Areas covered: This review pictures the large number of risk factors in this field with a special focus on parameters, which contribute to available prediction models. Next, features of the recently developed UK-DCD-Risk-Score, which led to a significantly impaired graft survival, above a suggested threshold of >10 score points, are discussed. The clinical impact of this new model on the background of other prediction tools with their subsequent limitations is highlighted in a next chapter. Finally, we provide suggestions, how to further improve outcomes in this challenging field of transplantation. Expert opinion: Despite the recent development of new prediction models, including the UK-DCD-Risk-Score, which provides a sufficient prediction of graft loss after DCD liver transplantation, the consideration of other confounders is essential to better understand the overall risk and metabolic liver status to improve the comparability of clinical studies. More uniform definitions and thresholds of individual risk factors are required.