Is it safe to expand the indications for split liver transplantation in adults? A single-centre analysis of 155 in-situ splits

INTRODUCTION

Split liver transplantation (SLT) enables two recipients to be transplanted using a single donor liver; typically, an adult and a child. Despite equivalent long-term outcomes to whole grafts in selected adults, the use of these grafts in high-risk adult recipients with high model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores (≥30), a poor pre-transplant clinical status (ICU or hospital-bound), acute liver failure or retransplantation remains controversial.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed all deceased donor adult liver transplants performed between July 2002 and November 2019 at a single high-volume centre and performed a propensity score-matched analysis. A subgroup analysis was performed to assess utility of these grafts for high-risk recipients.

RESULTS

A total of 1090 adult liver transplants were performed, including 155 SLT (14%). Graft survival at 1-, 3- and 5-years were comparable between recipients of split and whole liver grafts (82%, 79% and 74% vs 86%, 81% and 77% respectively, log rank p = 0.537), as was patient survival at 1-, 3- and 5-years. Recipients of split grafts were more likely to have biliary complications and hepatic artery thrombosis, but equivalent long-term survival. Recipients with high MELD scores or a poor pre-transplant clinical status had similar patient and graft survival and complication profiles irrespective of whether they received split or whole grafts.

CONCLUSIONS

SLT is an important method for addressing donor shortages and provides comparable long-term outcomes in adult recipients despite an increase in short-term complications. SLT use in high-risk recipients should be considered to allow for sickest-first allocation policies. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Review of interactions between high-risk pediatric heart transplant recipients and marginal donors including utilization of risk score models

BACKGROUND

Donor organ acceptance practices vary among pediatric heart transplant professionals. We sought to understand what is known about the interactions between the "high-risk" recipient and the "marginal donor," and how donor risk scores can impact this discussion.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature on pediatric HTx was undertaken with the assistance of a medical librarian. Two authors independently assessed search results, and papers were reviewed for inclusion.

RESULTS

We found that there are a large number of individual factors, and clusters of factors, that have been used to label individual recipients "high-risk" and individual donors "marginal." The terms "high-risk recipient" and "marginal donor" have been used broadly in the literature making it virtually impossible to make comparisons between publications. In general, the data support that patients who could be easily agreed to be "sicker recipients" are at more risk compared to those who are clearly "healthier," albeit still "sick enough" to need transplantation. Given this variability in the literature, we were unable to define how being a "high-risk" recipient interplays with accepting a "marginal donor." Existing risk scores are described, but none were felt to adequately predict outcomes from factors available at the time of offer acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

We could not determine what makes a donor "marginal," a recipient "high-risk," or how these factors interplay within the specific recipient-donor pair to determine outcomes. Until there are better risk scores predicting outcomes at the time of organ acceptance, programs should continue to evaluate each organ and recipient individually.