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.

Donor Factors Including Donor Risk Index Predict Fibrosis Progression, Allograft Loss, and Patient Survival following Liver Transplantation for Hepatitis C Virus

BACKGROUND

The utilization of liver transplantation (LT) is limited by the availability of suitable organs. This study aimed to assess the impact of the donor risk index (DRI) and other donor characteristics on fibrosis progression, graft, and patient survival in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected LT recipients.

METHODS

HCV-infected LT recipients who had at least 2 post-LT protocol liver biopsy specimens available were included. Hazard ratio for bivariate analysis was computed using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 312 recipients, 26.6% died over a median follow-up of 58.5 months (95% CI: 46.5-67.3). Fourteen patients underwent re-transplantation. Mean time to graft failure was 84.3 months, median follow-up: 59 months, 95% CI (48.2, 68.3). DRI >1.5 was significantly associated with patient and graft survival (P = 0.04). Of the subset of 104 individuals who underwent histological analysis, 67.3% progressed to ≥F2. On multivariate analysis, significant donor-specific predictors of fibrosis progression were: donor age >50 years and DRI >1.7.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Fibrosis progression in HCV-infected LT recipients is strongly associated with donor characteristics, specifically donor age and DRI. (2) DRI, an objective measure of donor quality, appears to correlate both with rate of histological progression and overall patient/graft survival.

Liver Transplantation in India: At the Crossroads

As the liver transplant journey in India reaches substantial numbers and suggests quality technical expertise, it is time to dispassionately look at the big picture, identify problems, and consider corrective measures for the future. Several features characterize the current scenario. Although the proportion of deceased donor liver transplants is increasing, besides major regional imbalances, the activity is heavily loaded in favor of the private sector and live donor transplants. The high costs of the procedure, the poor participation of public hospitals, the lack of a national registry, and outcomes reporting are issues of concern. Organ sharing protocols currently based on chronology or institutional rotation need to move to a more justiciable severity-based system. Several measures can expand the deceased donor pool. The safety of the living donor continues to need close scrutiny and focus. Multiple medical challenges unique to the Indian situation are also being thrown up. Although many of the deficits demand state intervention and policy changes the transplant community needs to take notice and highlight them. The future of liver transplantation in India should move toward a more accountable, equitable, and accessible form. We owe this to our citizens who have shown tremendous faith in us by volunteering to be living donors as well as consenting for deceased donation.

Changing pattern of donor selection criteria in deceased donor liver transplant: a review of literature

During the last couple of decades, with standardization and progress in surgical techniques, immunosuppression and post liver transplantation patient care, the outcome of liver transplantation has been optimized. However, the principal limitation of transplantation remains access to an allograft. The number of patients who could derive benefit from liver transplantation markedly exceeds the number of available deceased donors. The large gap between the growing list of patients waiting for liver transplantation and the scarcity of donor organs has fueled efforts to maximize existing donor pool and identify new avenues. This article reviews the changing pattern of donor for liver transplantation using grafts from extended criteria donors (elderly donors, steatotic donors, donors with malignancies, donors with viral hepatitis), donation after cardiac death, use of partial grafts (split liver grafts) and other suboptimal donors (hypernatremia, infections, hypotension and inotropic support).

Liver Transplantation: East versus West

Liver transplantation (LT) has evolved rapidly since the first successful liver transplant performed in1967. Despite a humble beginning, this procedure gained widespread acceptance in the western world as a suitable option for patients with end stage liver disease (ESLD) by the beginning of the 1980s. At present, approximately 25,000 liver transplants are being performed worldwide every year with approximately 90% one year survival. The techniques of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) developed in East Asia in the 1990s to overcome the shortage of suitable grafts for children and scarcity of deceased donors. While deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) constitutes more than 90% of LT in the western world, in India and other Asian countries, most transplants are LDLT. Despite the initial disparity, outcomes following LDLT in eastern countries have been quite satisfactory when compared to the western programs. The etiologies of liver failure requiring LT vary in different parts of the world. The commonest etiology for acute liver failure (ALF) leading to LT is drugs in the west and acute viral hepatitis in Asia. The most common indication for LT due to ESLD in west is alcoholic cirrhosis and hepatitis C virus (HCV), while hepatitis B virus (HBV) predominates in the east. There is a variation in prognostic models for assessing candidature and prioritizing organ allocation across the world. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) is followed in United States and some European centers. Other European countries rely on the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score. Some parts of Asia still follow chronological order of listing. The debate regarding the best model for organ allocation is far from over.